Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/07 01:15:38


Post by: BaconCatBug


The more I read about Apocalypse the more I realise that there are maybe one or two people left at GW who care about making a good game. It's obviously not perfect but the move to D12, Alternating Actions etc makes me wonder if it would be viable to use it for 2k points level games?


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/07 01:21:49


Post by: Sir Heckington


I intend to try it at 2k and 1k point levels. IIRC GW said that they tested it at 1k and it took about half an hour. If 2k can take an hour then that'd be amazing. I'm very excited to test this game out at lower point levels, since I can't afford apoc size (300 PR+) but I don't want to use 40k as a rules system anymore.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/07 02:24:44


Post by: Lance845


I intend to. I picked it up today. Built command asset decks for my nids and tau. I gotta put together some army lists tomorrow and then il give it a go.

Didnt get any movement trays yet. It depends.on how good it plays for if i invest.

One things for sure. The terrain rules are better.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/07 02:38:24


Post by: Peregrine


IMO there are two problems with "small Apocalypse" instead of normal 40k:

1) Apocalypse has serious RNG issues. Some of the stratagems are obscenely powerful but balanced by the fact that buffing a single detachment might only be 10% of your army. In a normal 40k game, where a detachment is your whole army, if you RNG that card you can likely win the game in one turn. Effects like "shoot twice with this entire detachment" can't exist in normal 40k.

2) Apocalypse is prone to slap fights where nobody can hurt each other. Having units that only wound 10% of the time is ok when you have thousands of points worth of stuff focusing fire, in a normal game you're going to have a lot of failure to accomplish anything. Put two tactical squads in combat with each other and there likely won't be a winner before the game ends. And because unit damage is all or nothing you can't even have the satisfaction of wearing down the enemy by removing a model or two each turn, you either kill the whole unit by rolling that 10+ or you waste your entire turn doing nothing.

And obviously there are some absolutely ing inexcusable balance issues with the unit datasheets, to the point that you have to think that GW wrote the whole thing in a day or two and never playtested anything, but those may end up being fixed and are a lot easier to house rule than issues with the core mechanics.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/07 04:02:45


Post by: Lance845


What are we thinking would make good 1500-2k equivalent rules?

200 PL?

No more than 4 detachments?

Just curious what peoples opinions are.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/07 04:23:10


Post by: Peregrine


 Lance845 wrote:
No more than 4 detachments?


I'd think the opposite, a minimum detachment count and no upper limit. You want lots of detachments to make the alternating activations matter more and to mitigate the effectiveness of the "your whole detachment is broken" buff cards.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/07 04:29:16


Post by: Sir Heckington


 Lance845 wrote:
What are we thinking would make good 1500-2k equivalent rules?

200 PL?

No more than 4 detachments?

Just curious what peoples opinions are.


Isn't 100 PL = 2k? Or am I wrong in the translation to Apoc?


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/07 04:32:42


Post by: Lance845


I can't honestly say. I am pretty unsure on the translation atm. Semi waiting for the battle scribe files to release so I don't have to redo this too much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay so I just took ROUGHLY my 2k nid list and made it into apoc. it came out to about 126 PL.

So 100-150ish for a 1500-2k game?


As far as number of detachments and power of cards there are a few things at play.

More detachments gets you more cards so you can do and reliably find more cards. But less impact each card has. Larger units have drastically more survivability and impact especially because they don't bleed models. But larger units also means less detachments. I am interested to see how it all plays out but it's good that there is some reason to go in either direction unlike regular 40k where CP farming is the name of the game.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/07 06:21:24


Post by: locarno24


 Peregrine wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
No more than 4 detachments?


I'd think the opposite, a minimum detachment count and no upper limit. You want lots of detachments to make the alternating activations matter more and to mitigate the effectiveness of the "your whole detachment is broken" buff cards.


I'd agree. You'd want at least 2, maybe at least 3, but beyond that it should become a strategic choice:


Smaller detachment count means more use out of the devastating command cards but less ability to search your deck to find them.
Bigger detachments let you activate more stuff in your first go (to charge opponents or occupy points on the board) but much less flexibility in orders and more stuff pinned to fewer 12" command bubbles.



Power levels on most units look not dramatically different to 40k power levels, so...yeah. Call 50 power very roughly 1,000 points.

I agree that fewer attacks with lower odds to wound does make the game more randomly swingy. That said, it's perhaps not that different - two tactical squads blazing away at one another with bolters for six turns - even with most of that spent in rapid fire range - will cause a lot of casualties but probably won't kill off either squad (as their offensive potential drops during the firefight).

I think a tactical squad firing at another tactical squad from outside rapid fire range means you've got somewhere between 1/3 and 1/4 chance of sticking a damage marker.

But yes, the way blast markers work means that the game feels like it's predicated on concentrated fire to destroy stuff reliably, and your ability to do that goes away in smaller games.




Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/07 06:49:28


Post by: wuestenfux


 Peregrine wrote:
IMO there are two problems with "small Apocalypse" instead of normal 40k:

1) Apocalypse has serious RNG issues. Some of the stratagems are obscenely powerful but balanced by the fact that buffing a single detachment might only be 10% of your army. In a normal 40k game, where a detachment is your whole army, if you RNG that card you can likely win the game in one turn. Effects like "shoot twice with this entire detachment" can't exist in normal 40k.

2) Apocalypse is prone to slap fights where nobody can hurt each other. Having units that only wound 10% of the time is ok when you have thousands of points worth of stuff focusing fire, in a normal game you're going to have a lot of failure to accomplish anything. Put two tactical squads in combat with each other and there likely won't be a winner before the game ends. And because unit damage is all or nothing you can't even have the satisfaction of wearing down the enemy by removing a model or two each turn, you either kill the whole unit by rolling that 10+ or you waste your entire turn doing nothing.

And obviously there are some absolutely ing inexcusable balance issues with the unit datasheets, to the point that you have to think that GW wrote the whole thing in a day or two and never playtested anything, but those may end up being fixed and are a lot easier to house rule than issues with the core mechanics.

Peregrine already brings it to the point.
Apo rules for normal 2000 pt games is not working well.
I'd stay away from it.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/07 07:14:45


Post by: Sherrypie


I'm curious to try as well as willing to modify the system further if need be, like just straight up ripping the order system for 40k use.

To Peregrine's point about slap fights, I don't necessarily see that as problematic. If anything, it's a relief to see that things aren't inevitably ramping up in deadliness all the time (even if in practise the 3-4 battle reports I've seen thus far have not had this problem at all and things have died at a steady pace). Many good games, like BFG and AT, usually come to slap fights as well if you only look at 1 vs. 1 situations between cruisers / similar sized titans / whatnots, and the actual key to victory is in coordinating your forces to work together. Of course it's possible to kill the opposition alone (ramming in BFG, running under shields in AT, rolling well in Apoc), but that's much harder than the intended multi-unit maneuvering which should be the main way of applying pressure to crush the enemy lines.

As a curious sidenote, I noticed a funny boon in the rules text for using mechanized forces: if a unit embarks in a transport while having blasts on them, they immediately make the saves and remove the markers. This means they aren't forced to test in the Morale phase, escaping that extra wound. Guess it's easier to take a breather and lower your squad's stress in a metal box that has a medikit for wound treatment than it is put there in the steel rain


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/07 07:22:21


Post by: Not Online!!!


Isn't the general meatginder tempo of 40k one of the issues often brought up? To the point where everyone and their mother tries to get in a Firststrike by reserve, DS, -1 to hits etc?

Imo a slapfight would then be an improvement.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/07 07:32:33


Post by: Spoletta


locarno24 wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
No more than 4 detachments?


I'd think the opposite, a minimum detachment count and no upper limit. You want lots of detachments to make the alternating activations matter more and to mitigate the effectiveness of the "your whole detachment is broken" buff cards.


I'd agree. You'd want at least 2, maybe at least 3, but beyond that it should become a strategic choice:


Smaller detachment count means more use out of the devastating command cards but less ability to search your deck to find them.
Bigger detachments let you activate more stuff in your first go (to charge opponents or occupy points on the board) but much less flexibility in orders and more stuff pinned to fewer 12" command bubbles.



Power levels on most units look not dramatically different to 40k power levels, so...yeah. Call 50 power very roughly 1,000 points.

I agree that fewer attacks with lower odds to wound does make the game more randomly swingy. That said, it's perhaps not that different - two tactical squads blazing away at one another with bolters for six turns - even with most of that spent in rapid fire range - will cause a lot of casualties but probably won't kill off either squad (as their offensive potential drops during the firefight).

I think a tactical squad firing at another tactical squad from outside rapid fire range means you've got somewhere between 1/3 and 1/4 chance of sticking a damage marker.

But yes, the way blast markers work means that the game feels like it's predicated on concentrated fire to destroy stuff reliably, and your ability to do that goes away in smaller games.




I see it completely differently. Apoc is a game where they do everything possible to discourage concentrated fire. (Which makes rules like regeneration and living metal much more powerful).


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/07 08:50:49


Post by: SeanDrake


Apoc while not perfect is actually better than 8th even at 2k going to try lower as well.
There’s no more issues than when just playing 8th and I figure we can knock the rough edges off over time.
Game was just over an hour but was the first time using the rules so will get quicker.

So the main advantage was speed there’s no 4th round hump where you don’t care if you win or lose anymore as long as the games over. The next big advantage was it was fun which is an underrated thing since 8th dropped. It also felt like playing a war game again rather than a dice rolling simulator.

All in all my group think that once Kill Team adds light vehicles then 8th is toast as it serves no purpose, you want a smaller game use kill team but if you want a mid to large game use Apoc. 8th will literally serve no purpose other than a monument to poor games design.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/07 08:52:20


Post by: Sir Heckington


SeanDrake wrote:
Apoc while not perfect is actually better than 8th even at 2k going to try lower as well.
There’s no more issues than when just playing 8th and I figure we can knock the rough edges off over time.
Game was just over an hour but was the first time using the rules so will get quicker.

So the main advantage was speed there’s no 4th round hump where you don’t care if you win or lose anymore as long as the games over. The next big advantage was it was fun which is an underrated thing since 8th dropped. It also felt like playing a war game again rather than a dice rolling simulator.

All in all my group think that once Kill Team adds light vehicles then 8th is toast as it serves no purpose, you want a smaller game use kill team but if you want a mid to large game use Apoc. 8th will literally serve no purpose other than a monument to poor games design.


If Kill Team adds light vehicles I couldn't be happier. The quicker 8th dies, the better.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/07 08:59:46


Post by: p5freak


I hope some of the rules of apoc carry over to 9th. I really like the alternating activations, the D12, damaged units are removed at the end of the round, and the greatly reduced dice rolls.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/07 09:14:35


Post by: SeanDrake


 p5freak wrote:
I hope some of the rules of apoc carry over to 9th. I really like the alternating activations, the D12, damaged units are removed at the end of the round, and the greatly reduced dice rolls.


I would be happy for Apoc to actually be 9th and for it to get the level of support that would entail, I don’t think it would take to much effort to adapt it to work from the equivalent of 1.5k pts upwards. I however I expect it to get about the same level of support as all those other box sets/expansions that nobody now remembers.

Honestly Apoc style lends itself greatly to the way GW wants the game to be played with huge combined arms forces clashing, also the way most of the fiction describes battles. At the other end of the scale you have Kill Team which provides low point level battles between small units and with the potential for light vehicles to be added to Kill Team that just reinforces it’s credentials

8th could be quietly forgotten about like 6th.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 06:29:25


Post by: Spoletta


I don't see apoc working well at 2k, it really is too swingy with dice rolls, and some factions cannot put together enough detachments to play it as intended.

150 PL per player is the minimum.
The problem is that for that you already need a 180x180, which in many stores is a problem.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 06:35:18


Post by: Lance845


My 2k nid list translates roughly to 125 PL in apoc. I played today at 100PL and it worked fine. You can easily just play on a 4x6 table and just use regular 40k missions if you wanted.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 06:36:26


Post by: wuestenfux


Spoletta wrote:
I don't see apoc working well at 2k, it really is too swingy with dice rolls, and some factions cannot put together enough detachments to play it as intended.

150 PL per player is the minimum.
The problem is that for that you already need a 180x180, which in many stores is a problem.

Seconded.
It seems more like a wish to replace the normal rules by Apo rules these days.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 06:39:31


Post by: Sir Heckington


 wuestenfux wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
I don't see apoc working well at 2k, it really is too swingy with dice rolls, and some factions cannot put together enough detachments to play it as intended.

150 PL per player is the minimum.
The problem is that for that you already need a 180x180, which in many stores is a problem.

Seconded.
It seems more like a wish to replace the normal rules by Apo rules these days.


Might be for a reason.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 07:55:31


Post by: Spoletta


We had 8th for about 2 years now, so it is obvious that people want a "change" and will look at anything new as something that is by definition better. That is mostly in the glasses though.
Apoc ruleset is not necessarily better than 8th, it has a lot of problems, but since it is different we are more lenient with it. It would prove to be a terrible 9th edition in less than 3 months, but it has some good mechanics that can be tested in apoc and then maybe be imported in the main game in the future, like Kill Team.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 08:09:16


Post by: BrianDavion


the problem with alternating activation is you're always going to have the hoard armies like guard moving heaps of stuff before or after. Not saying thats anb insurmountable issue, but to get AA to work right in 40k, you need to bare in mind that, as a matter of course, some armies simply have more units then others


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 11:43:25


Post by: the_scotsman


 Peregrine wrote:
IMO there are two problems with "small Apocalypse" instead of normal 40k:

1) Apocalypse has serious RNG issues. Some of the stratagems are obscenely powerful but balanced by the fact that buffing a single detachment might only be 10% of your army. In a normal 40k game, where a detachment is your whole army, if you RNG that card you can likely win the game in one turn. Effects like "shoot twice with this entire detachment" can't exist in normal 40k.

2) Apocalypse is prone to slap fights where nobody can hurt each other. Having units that only wound 10% of the time is ok when you have thousands of points worth of stuff focusing fire, in a normal game you're going to have a lot of failure to accomplish anything. Put two tactical squads in combat with each other and there likely won't be a winner before the game ends. And because unit damage is all or nothing you can't even have the satisfaction of wearing down the enemy by removing a model or two each turn, you either kill the whole unit by rolling that 10+ or you waste your entire turn doing nothing.

And obviously there are some absolutely ing inexcusable balance issues with the unit datasheets, to the point that you have to think that GW wrote the whole thing in a day or two and never playtested anything, but those may end up being fixed and are a lot easier to house rule than issues with the core mechanics.


I suppose not in close combat, but a tactical squad has about a 30% chance to kill another tactical squad with shooting if it's in rapid fire, and it seems like in general Marine units in apoc are a great deal more defensive than they are in 40k. Which is not, IMO, a bad thing. I do definitely agree with you that the card mechanic is the thing that scales the worst down to the 2k level and there may be cards that just have to not be included. When you have only 2 detachments and you're drawing like 3 cards, depending on what that card is you could heavily swing the game one way or another.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 11:46:15


Post by: TheFleshIsWeak


I'll raise a different problem, namely that Apocalypse looks kinda... boring.

I'll grant I don't have access to the cards but the datasheets themselves look incredibly bland and lacking in both rules and options.

Speaking as someone who likes to customise characters and such, it seems I've got absolutely nothing to work with.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 12:37:32


Post by: Spoletta


 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
I'll raise a different problem, namely that Apocalypse looks kinda... boring.

I'll grant I don't have access to the cards but the datasheets themselves look incredibly bland and lacking in both rules and options.

Speaking as someone who likes to customise characters and such, it seems I've got absolutely nothing to work with.


In Apoc you don't customise characters and units, but detachments. It's a different scale.

Sure, at 100 PL you are working with 3-7 detachments, so you could be a bit lacking there. I repeat that 150 PL is the minimum level necessary IMHO.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 12:39:25


Post by: stonehorse


I for one am very interested in playing Apocalypse at a smaller scale. The rules seem like they are what I have wanted 40K to be for quite some time. I have stopped playing 8th edition, it doesn't do anything for me, Apocalypse has me excited for 40k again.

At a smaller size I think a few changes should be made, table size 6'x4', 6" deployment zones, and reduce card decks to 20 cards.

The rules seem solid and with the right tweaks they should scale down well enough.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 13:31:07


Post by: Sherrypie


BrianDavion wrote:
the problem with alternating activation is you're always going to have the hoard armies like guard moving heaps of stuff before or after. Not saying thats anb insurmountable issue, but to get AA to work right in 40k, you need to bare in mind that, as a matter of course, some armies simply have more units then others


That's not true though, as AA can be done in many ways. Straight one after another, sequenced into as many parts, randomised sequencing like Bolt Action, groups of 1-3 in a preplanned order like Confrontation had, split into alike groups of points, split into detachments like Apoc has...

Personally I've been using a modified Bolt Action system for 40k and BFG, both have worked absolutely fine. And I mostly play against Guard.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 13:33:47


Post by: Lance845


 Sherrypie wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
the problem with alternating activation is you're always going to have the hoard armies like guard moving heaps of stuff before or after. Not saying thats anb insurmountable issue, but to get AA to work right in 40k, you need to bare in mind that, as a matter of course, some armies simply have more units then others


That's not true though, as AA can be done in many ways. Straight one after another, sequenced into as many parts, randomised sequencing like Bolt Action, groups of 1-3 in a preplanned order like Confrontation had, split into alike groups of points, split into detachments like Apoc has...

Personally I've been using a modified Bolt Action system for 40k and BFG, both have worked absolutely fine. And I mostly play against Guard.


It's also just a nonsense argument complaining about a feature and calling it a problem.

It doesn't matter if one army has more activations than another. RIGHT NOW the game has uneven amounts of units in opposing armies. There are advantages and disadvantages to having more smaller troops or less larger. weigh those factors and build a list.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 14:32:22


Post by: the_scotsman


 Sherrypie wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
the problem with alternating activation is you're always going to have the hoard armies like guard moving heaps of stuff before or after. Not saying thats anb insurmountable issue, but to get AA to work right in 40k, you need to bare in mind that, as a matter of course, some armies simply have more units then others


That's not true though, as AA can be done in many ways. Straight one after another, sequenced into as many parts, randomised sequencing like Bolt Action, groups of 1-3 in a preplanned order like Confrontation had, split into alike groups of points, split into detachments like Apoc has...

Personally I've been using a modified Bolt Action system for 40k and BFG, both have worked absolutely fine. And I mostly play against Guard.


You would definitely need to have a gentleman's agreement with an opponent about which cards are reasonable to include in a deck if you were to play a 100PL game. You'll have like 2 cards per turn, and there are certain cards you could draw that would just shatter the balance of a 100PL game. not a ton, and most of them are definitely scalable and work up and down, but some are most certainly written with the idea that you'll have a solid 250-400PL and 5 or 6 detachments to work with rather than 1 or 2.

The one peregrine mentioned is a good example. a whole guard detachment shooting twice would be pretty gamebreaking at 100PL.

I don't think the "stuff everything into one detachment and activate it all at once" strategy is as gamebreaking as you might think though. having only a single card vs an opponent's 3-4 per turn and having to have you WHOLE ARMY within 12" of a single commander AND all taking the same action is a pretty major drawback.

Like "Hmm, do I want MY ARMY to get to move this turn? Gosh it'd be useful for this one unit to double move to claim an objective, am I cool with MY ARMY not shooting?"


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 15:11:02


Post by: TheFleshIsWeak


Spoletta wrote:
 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
I'll raise a different problem, namely that Apocalypse looks kinda... boring.

I'll grant I don't have access to the cards but the datasheets themselves look incredibly bland and lacking in both rules and options.

Speaking as someone who likes to customise characters and such, it seems I've got absolutely nothing to work with.


In Apoc you don't customise characters and units, but detachments. It's a different scale.


I get that, but that's entirely my point.

I don't think scaling everything up makes the game more fun or interesting. Not for me at any rate.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 15:19:06


Post by: Xenomancers


I would get away from the command assets and detachments. Just build your army like you would in normal 40k and treat every unit like it is a detachment on it's own for apoc. Just use the data sheets and PL from apoc and the game system. From 40k - keep stratagems instead of command assets.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 15:22:30


Post by: Peregrine


Why do "custom" characters even matter? It's not like there's any interesting customization, you're just fine tuning a bit of dice math. In Apocalypse you can still make a cool model or write fluff, you just don't get bogged down in worrying about which power weapon is 2% more effective against the current meta.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 15:42:07


Post by: Eyjio


 Peregrine wrote:
Why do "custom" characters even matter? It's not like there's any interesting customization, you're just fine tuning a bit of dice math. In Apocalypse you can still make a cool model or write fluff, you just don't get bogged down in worrying about which power weapon is 2% more effective against the current meta.


A succinct way to phrase my own complaints with relics, etc in 8th. Hmm, should I take this plasma gun, or this strictly better plasma gun? Does it really make any narrative sense for billy bob the no-one marine to carry a unique, 10 millennia old sword into some minor excursion with the Tau? I know people will complain if they get taken out but all they do is bog down the game and break the rules in a variety of frustrating ways. If you want your bolter to have a silly name, give it a silly name yourself.

The three best things about Apoc so far for me have been alternating activations, no random shots/damage and always getting a save. I could leave the rest and, honestly, I'm not a huge fan of the "all my units shots are on big shot" thing - it makes it feel weirdly like kill team with too many models.

Activations makes the game feel more like a game, rather than a slog of waiting for your stuff to die so you can play for a bit; having really gotten into board games since stepping back from 40k a bit, the design decision of sticking with IGOUGO is utter rubbish. There just shouldn't be 5+ minutes (often more like 10+) between when you can actually play - it's ludicrous, terrible legacy design hamstringing the system.

Random shots are just awful; I don't think that needs a huge amount of justification - they're unfun for everyone involved, they slow things down and they make no thematic sense. If you removed it, it would make literally every type of player happier, but we're stuck with it because...?

As for saves, it's somewhat less of an issue than the others, but it feels great as a player to not have to worry about my elite armour not actually being elite - it's just always there. Being wounded easier by high strength weapons and then losing your save always felt like a bit of a double whammy and it's barely bandaged by half the world and its mother getting invulnerable saves so they can ignore those rules almost entirely. Just simplify the system, get rid of AP, especially if it's sticking with D6 and let people roll the saves on their sheets. Controversial, maybe, but also likely the only way to balance the system in a meaningful way without massive tables.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 16:10:22


Post by: Drager


I've had a couple of games at 100PL now. It seems to be working nicely so far. I'm playing with 4 detachments so I'm drawing 5 cards a turn. With each effect, I care about appearing ~3 times in my deck and the one-offs being fairly rare I've got a good chance of drawing what I need. I also have a Farseer so I have 1 free tutor (to use MtG parlance) and then I have 2 or 3 more tutors in the deck, so if I need a crucial piece of a 2 card combo I can just get it.

My opponent has played a couple of different builds. Everything in 1 detachment didn't really work even though it was Knights. Too restrictive on movement and orders. The Guard army with (I think) 3 detachemnts worked well and the game was much closer.

The only house rule we're playing with is using a 6' x 4' table and playing with the short edges as our home edges. Maintains Apoc deployment depths, just with 2' less width, which is what the table would suggest anyway if you scale it down to 100PL, so barely a house rule even.

With regards to the Shoot Twice card, there are ways to play around it, which came up in our game. I had the Eldar card that lets you look at your opponent's hand so I knew he had it. He put his big detachment on Aimed Fire, whilst I had initiative. I had the ability to double the move of my DE detachment and used that combined with an Assault order to slam into his back lines using jetbikes, this tied up a good portion of his big guns. The double fire from the infantry squads still hurt, but not as much as it would have. I'm sure there is other counterplay to that.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 16:48:45


Post by: the_scotsman


Drager wrote:
I've had a couple of games at 100PL now. It seems to be working nicely so far. I'm playing with 4 detachments so I'm drawing 5 cards a turn. With each effect, I care about appearing ~3 times in my deck and the one-offs being fairly rare I've got a good chance of drawing what I need. I also have a Farseer so I have 1 free tutor (to use MtG parlance) and then I have 2 or 3 more tutors in the deck, so if I need a crucial piece of a 2 card combo I can just get it.

My opponent has played a couple of different builds. Everything in 1 detachment didn't really work even though it was Knights. Too restrictive on movement and orders. The Guard army with (I think) 3 detachemnts worked well and the game was much closer.

The only house rule we're playing with is using a 6' x 4' table and playing with the short edges as our home edges. Maintains Apoc deployment depths, just with 2' less width, which is what the table would suggest anyway if you scale it down to 100PL, so barely a house rule even.

With regards to the Shoot Twice card, there are ways to play around it, which came up in our game. I had the Eldar card that lets you look at your opponent's hand so I knew he had it. He put his big detachment on Aimed Fire, whilst I had initiative. I had the ability to double the move of my DE detachment and used that combined with an Assault order to slam into his back lines using jetbikes, this tied up a good portion of his big guns. The double fire from the infantry squads still hurt, but not as much as it would have. I'm sure there is other counterplay to that.


"I'll just stick everything in one detachment lolol so broken" is definitely the "i have never played this game but think I am very smart" take of new-apoc. Even if your army is like, pure stationary totally castled up gunline, or all knights, it is super restrictive to be drawing 2 cards per turn and having to have everything within 12" of your warlord.

And let's say you get to go with your whole army before your opponent gets to act. Congratulations? You...got your blast markers down before he did? Have fun waiting until the end of the turn for anything to die anyway.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 17:06:12


Post by: TheFleshIsWeak


 Peregrine wrote:
Why do "custom" characters even matter? It's not like there's any interesting customization, you're just fine tuning a bit of dice math.


I disagree. Interesting customisation is certainly limited, but it does exist.

Further, I fail to see how removing customisation entirely could possibly be an improvement in this regard. You don't put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.


 Peregrine wrote:
In Apocalypse you can still make a cool model or write fluff


And have it be utterly irrelevant because it's impossible to represent in any way, shape or form. What fun.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 17:16:11


Post by: happy_inquisitor


the_scotsman wrote:


You would definitely need to have a gentleman's agreement with an opponent about which cards are reasonable to include in a deck if you were to play a 100PL game. You'll have like 2 cards per turn, and there are certain cards you could draw that would just shatter the balance of a 100PL game. not a ton, and most of them are definitely scalable and work up and down, but some are most certainly written with the idea that you'll have a solid 250-400PL and 5 or 6 detachments to work with rather than 1 or 2.

The one peregrine mentioned is a good example. a whole guard detachment shooting twice would be pretty gamebreaking at 100PL.

I don't think the "stuff everything into one detachment and activate it all at once" strategy is as gamebreaking as you might think though. having only a single card vs an opponent's 3-4 per turn and having to have you WHOLE ARMY within 12" of a single commander AND all taking the same action is a pretty major drawback.

Like "Hmm, do I want MY ARMY to get to move this turn? Gosh it'd be useful for this one unit to double move to claim an objective, am I cool with MY ARMY not shooting?"


Deckbuilding games usually have a ban list for competitive play. This one would be no different if you were to use it for competitive matched play.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 17:18:31


Post by: SickSix


I think the one rule that at minimum needs adoption to 40k is no models are removed until the end of turn. 40k has always had a serious issue with Player one having a massive advantage and Player 2 taking models off of the table before they even move.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 17:37:32


Post by: Talizvar


Apoc is just a larger scale of play.
Skirmish games (Necromunda / Kill Team) each miniature is a "model".
In 40k your squads are your "model".
In Apoc, a detachment is your "model". Reminds me of a 40k version of "Fantasy Battle" where moving units around on stands as one thing.

All flavor and customization is is at each level of scale.

This reminds me a lot of normal Battletech vs AlphaStrike, a slight simplification of stats to have larger battles with faster play.

I think boring will only happen if Apoc is run at less than it's "optimal" detachment quantity.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 17:56:00


Post by: Da-Rock


Currently for our group 40k has become so plain and boring that we only play once or twice every two months.

The main complaints are how long and drawn out everything is. Turns, special abilities, dice rolling.

40k is so bad right now that we play anything and everything besides it. Apoc will most likely be a testing ground for "Some" of the rules to be ported over to 40k 9th edition.

For us, 40k is dead while Apoc allows us to have some fun while the Tourny players fall all over themselves about Mathhammer.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 20:22:29


Post by: Sherrypie


happy_inquisitor wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:


You would definitely need to have a gentleman's agreement with an opponent about which cards are reasonable to include in a deck if you were to play a 100PL game. You'll have like 2 cards per turn, and there are certain cards you could draw that would just shatter the balance of a 100PL game. not a ton, and most of them are definitely scalable and work up and down, but some are most certainly written with the idea that you'll have a solid 250-400PL and 5 or 6 detachments to work with rather than 1 or 2.

The one peregrine mentioned is a good example. a whole guard detachment shooting twice would be pretty gamebreaking at 100PL.

I don't think the "stuff everything into one detachment and activate it all at once" strategy is as gamebreaking as you might think though. having only a single card vs an opponent's 3-4 per turn and having to have you WHOLE ARMY within 12" of a single commander AND all taking the same action is a pretty major drawback.

Like "Hmm, do I want MY ARMY to get to move this turn? Gosh it'd be useful for this one unit to double move to claim an objective, am I cool with MY ARMY not shooting?"


Deckbuilding games usually have a ban list for competitive play. This one would be no different if you were to use it for competitive matched play.


Yeah, a gentlemens' agreement is the first thing I'd expect with any game to begin with anyway, as no play is always better than gakky play. Banlists, either soft or hard, are a useful thing as are other house rules depending on the players' wishes. To use more MtG analogies, I'm going to ask my EDH opponent about the preferred power level before selecting the deck from a bunch that varies between sillier creature synergies and turn three "I win" combos.

I haven't yet read through the box, but what's been discussed so far hasn't appeared to be too unbalancing or something that couldn't indeed be fixed by either removing a card or two or softly nerfing their use with a common agreement on not using them on a detachment that contains almost all the guns in the army.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 21:31:48


Post by: Lance845


The thing is there are cards that impact whole detachments negatively too. Its fine.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 21:57:27


Post by: Stormonu


 SickSix wrote:
I think the one rule that at minimum needs adoption to 40k is no models are removed until the end of turn. 40k has always had a serious issue with Player one having a massive advantage and Player 2 taking models off of the table before they even move.


Funny thing is I’d suggested this sort of thing a few months back in proposed rules, but had dismissed it as “too gamey”. It’s somewhat unsettling to see it be the core way to play Apocalypse.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/08 22:32:41


Post by: Lance845


 Stormonu wrote:
 SickSix wrote:
I think the one rule that at minimum needs adoption to 40k is no models are removed until the end of turn. 40k has always had a serious issue with Player one having a massive advantage and Player 2 taking models off of the table before they even move.


Funny thing is I’d suggested this sort of thing a few months back in proposed rules, but had dismissed it as “too gamey”. It’s somewhat unsettling to see it be the core way to play Apocalypse.


I never thought it was too gamey. I thought the book keeping would be a nightmare. Apoc both provides you with the chits you need and you never actually remove models. Just units. So the book keeping is way down. 40k runs on a model to unit interaction. Apoc is pure unit to unit. It makes this possible.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 02:04:26


Post by: the_scotsman


 Smirrors wrote:
Lolz at the sad cases wishing for 8th to die out. Why dont you just make new rules with your friends and be happy with your own personal games. There is absolutely no reason for 8th to change drastically to the levels of apoc, they are just different games that can co-exist.


On one hand, sure. There are some aspects of Apoc like the streamlining of unit action I'd never want to see in 40k - I like the depth of rules and customization in 40k.

But some of these mechanics I just massively prefer. Like, that terrain system man....I love that. Cover being easy and non-subjective to claim, and declarative (embarking and disembarking from terrain like a transport making it super clear who's where) and also with clear advantages and drawbacks. Awesome. I also like that it serves to break up the binary nature of close combat from always either locked in and untargetable or totally flapping in the breeze, that's also great.


Turn structure that reduces downtime is awesome. Damage that discourages alpha strike is great. Close combat just being a thing you can reliably do without your opponent getting loads of free gak and second chances and turns of mandatory free punches is something I've wanted for editions. Morale being an unavoidable fact of the game that very few units and factions have a way to flat out ignore and screw the people who'll whine on about how their Marty stus should NEVER run because they're so brave you guys....love that. character status not being better protection than a literal armored tank transport or being a giant demon.

That's core mechanics though. I would never want mandatory block movement, all or nothing unit death and super simplified unit profiles.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 02:35:17


Post by: Peregrine


the_scotsman wrote:
I like the depth of rules and customization in 40k.


40k doesn't have depth, it has word count and a bloated mess of options that don't matter. Apocalypse has 95% of the strategic depth with much less rules bloat.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 03:08:01


Post by: flandarz


In my experience, you have two main types who frequent this board. The larger is the "everything is awful" crowd. The next largest is the "everything is perfect" crowd. Then you have the minority who tend fall somewhere in the middle, and I feel like this is probably closer to the truth than either of the extremes.

Disclaimer: this is based on what I've read on here, and the most likely "reality" is that almost everyone has things they like and dislike about the systems GW puts out. But when you see the same users flocking to one side or another every time something is discussed... well, you start to assign "roles".


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 04:21:07


Post by: jamshaman


Reading through this thread, I'm surprised I haven't seen any references to Epic or Warmaster. Warmaster because the units are relatively homogeneous and yet each faction plays with a unique play style and flavor. Epic because of the alt. activation, blast markers, and large scale. Having played both, I always feel like the games really do come down to strategy and tactics rather than min/maxing or power gaming. Apoc looks like it might be in that category. I'm excited about it.

If you'll forgive me for talking out of my ass, being that I have yet to play a game of Apoc, I'd like to add my 2c to some of the issues raised:

- "Slap Fest" - as I see it now, if slap fests occur, then it's probably a symptom of bad tactics, namely target selection. It looks like the trick will be how to maneuver your units in to positions where they can take out high priority targets while staying in command radius. Characters only have a -1 to hit now if they're not closest?? Looks like "sniping officers" is going to be a thing... But it looks like bad matchups will still be a thing unless they put a cap on the availability of certain units.

- Alternating activation. Welcome to contemporary wargaming... I go you go can be pulled off successfully, Advanced Squad Leader and Infinity pull it off in spades, mainly because the enemy is on constant "overwatch" during your movement phase, but I don't think 40k could pull that off without a major overhaul and/or making the game much more complex. So the next best thing is AA I guess. AT-43 did this beautifully by using the data-cards as the activation sequence, where you'd put the cards in the order you wanted them to activate them in, while alternating with your opponent, so not only do you have the unit's stats handy at all times, they also serve a purpose in the game - it was super fun. I wish they'd just copy the AT-43 rules for 40k... haha

That being said, I think the order tokens and deferred damage resolution of Apoc has MASSIVE potential. As others have said, I think using the Apoc turn order in regular 40k is very viable with some tweaks..

- Yes I'd like to see something like this for normal 40k in terms of simplification of stat sheets/options, turn order and damage resolution. Which brings me to my next point...

- Small scale Apoc? Personally I can do without all the uber-customization of 40k. Some of the characters in Apoc do look incredibly bland, but other than that I don't mind the units being less distinguished - it places the focus of the game on strategy/tactics, where it should be. I haven't looked at the data sheets for every army, but I'm guessing there's at least enough variety between units to give each army a different feel. I'm also giving a lot of leeway because this is version 1.0, and because data sheets are digital, easily updated, and free. (good job GW..) My point is that I don't mind just replacing 40k with scaled down Apoc, as others have said. R.I.P. 40k...

So with all that, I'm wondering how many people are trying Apoc at around the 100PL range, using UNIT LEVEL orders rather than Detachment level orders - so basically each unit gets an order instead of a whole detachment getting an order. Yes deck size need to be cut down also, maybe a deck of 15 rather than 30?
We'd also need some proper scenarios.
Min/max number of units at different PLs would be great. So you could take x number of units of a given type per 100PL - this works extremely well in Warmaster, so for example I could take 2 units of Dark Reapers at 100PL, 4 at 200PL, 6 at 300PL, etc., and would also be REQUIRED to take 2 units of Guardians per 100PL, or something like that.

Anyways, I don't regret buying the Apoc box, although I do think it was overpriced. They should have just sold the rules, counters and generic Apoc cards. Looking forward to trying it out at 1500-2k pts equivalent...


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 04:31:40


Post by: Lance845


@Jamshaman No need to reduce the deck. At 150ish PL (actually 148 vs 149 and roughly equivalent to 2500 points) we had 4-5 detachments in each army. 30 cards was fine. A reduced deck would mean you would draw through all the cards faster and start using them a second time when they get reshuffled. Better to have the bigger deck and maybe not get through all the cards.

I have not done unit level orders instead of detachment. The cards would conflict with that. But also there just might not be enough order markers in the box to do it. Also keeping things like auras (there are not many of them but some do exist like Venomthropes spore cloud) going would become near impossible on a unit by unit activation.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 05:00:37


Post by: jamshaman


Thank you Lance, good point about the cards.

I counted 20 of each order token, which is cutting it close for 100PL I guess.

Yeah I didn't think about the auras, unless maybe the auras themselves allowed for multiple units to get one order, which might make auras OP... Hmmmm


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 05:13:36


Post by: Peregrine


 Lance845 wrote:
@Jamshaman No need to reduce the deck. At 150ish PL (actually 148 vs 149 and roughly equivalent to 2500 points) we had 4-5 detachments in each army. 30 cards was fine. A reduced deck would mean you would draw through all the cards faster and start using them a second time when they get reshuffled. Better to have the bigger deck and maybe not get through all the cards.


IMO there are two problems with the full deck:

1) Building a meaningful 30 card deck with a single army gets challenging. The 30 card deck for a whole team works out well if you have some generic assets and then a few faction-specific ones for each player, but with a 30 card deck for a single faction you're probably resorting to stuff like putting in Cadian cards in your Catachan army and only being able to use the alternate re-roll a single die effect.

2) RNG gets more significant. Your most important cards are drawn less frequently, and having a bunch of weak filler cards only makes it worse. Some games you'll get great draws, some games you'll get nothing. And the game should involve tactics between armies, not who gets better RNG with the CCG mechanic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
jamshaman wrote:
- "Slap Fest" - as I see it now, if slap fests occur, then it's probably a symptom of bad tactics, namely target selection.


Have you looked at the unit stats? Basic troops have few attacks and poor odds of success with each attack, and then the enemy unit gets a save to negate it. This is not the worst thing in a normal Apocalypse game where you can concentrate fire from many units and reliably get some wounds, but in a 2000 point 40k substitute it's going to be easy to have situations where there are too few units to reliably do any damage. Tactical squad vs. tactical squad is going to have a lot of turns where both players roll some dice and nothing happens. At least in normal 40k they're going to be taking some losses and the game is going to feel a lot more like things are progressing.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 05:26:04


Post by: Smirrors


 Peregrine wrote:
 Smirrors wrote:
Lolz at the sad cases wishing for 8th to die out. Why dont you just make new rules with your friends and be happy with your own personal games. There is absolutely no reason for 8th to change drastically to the levels of apoc, they are just different games that can co-exist.


Lolz at the GW apologists insisting that everything about the game is perfect. Why don't you just play 8th with your friends and be happy with your own personal games? There is absolutely no reason to post on the forums about how much you love 8th.


I dont see any GW apologists in this thread, care to point them out?

What about my post hurts your feelings?

EDIT: Apoc wasn't made to be competitive, its made to sell more models. It fits a casual play model well enough from initial observations. Sure some rules can flow through to 8th edition. Why can't both systems co-exist as they are now. My initial comment was aimed at 8th edition haters.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 05:44:14


Post by: Stormonu


What about ditching the cards? Has anyone attempted playing that way? Seems like that would make unit-by-unit activation more viable for smaller games.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 05:47:34


Post by: Peregrine


 Smirrors wrote:
EDIT: Apoc wasn't made to be competitive, its made to sell more models.


Well yes, just like all of GW's rules. But Apocalypse is a better foundation for a competitive game than 8th.

Why can't both systems co-exist as they are now.


Because 8th edition is a raging dumpster fire of bad game design and it looks like a modified "small Apocalyplse" game can replace it. The real question is why anyone would want to play 8th edition anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Stormonu wrote:
What about ditching the cards? Has anyone attempted playing that way? Seems like that would make unit-by-unit activation more viable for smaller games.


I think it's the obvious thing to do. IMO the cards are a bad mechanic in general and should be removed, so if removing them gives better flexibility with the activation system then that's just a nice bonus.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 05:54:55


Post by: Lance845


 Stormonu wrote:
What about ditching the cards? Has anyone attempted playing that way? Seems like that would make unit-by-unit activation more viable for smaller games.


You could, but honestly I wouldn't. The detachments can be very small as their requirements are not large. You would still run into issues with keeping units in aura ranges. You would still probably need 2 boxes of apoc to have enough tokens (plan for the worst case scenario. The game comes with 20 of each order token (10 per player) if you have more than 10 units per side it's potentially not possible to issue all the orders you want (assuming the worst case where every unit on both sides wants to do all the same order). Unlikely, but possible.). You loose a tactical element in needing to keep units around their detachments warlord/commander. And the card element is just fun for me and my opponents thus far.

You would need to mash up more rules from 40k and apoc to make individual unit activation's work. I often suggested expanding heroic intervention to allow characters/protector units to activate with a unit. That would need to be the case. The order markers would need to be produced in larger quantities. The cards would either need to be ditched (which would be unfortunate because they are fun and also where a lot of elements of the core game come from. All psychic powers, a lot of wargear or army rules are now cards, and all subfaction flavors come from cards). So all new cards would need to be devised or you would need to adapt the rules from standard 40k to fit the new turn structure/weapon and unit profiles.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 06:02:50


Post by: Peregrine


 Lance845 wrote:
You would still probably need 2 boxes of apoc to have enough tokens


Or just make some paper tokens. No reason to buy an entire box for that. And if you want fancy ones I'm sure the various laser-cut acrylic companies will have them soon.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 06:06:03


Post by: Lance845


 Peregrine wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
You would still probably need 2 boxes of apoc to have enough tokens


Or just make some paper tokens. No reason to buy an entire box for that. And if you want fancy ones I'm sure the various laser-cut acrylic companies will have them soon.


Which is fair and something to watch for. But it's not the only issue.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 06:06:23


Post by: Ice_can


 Peregrine wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
@Jamshaman No need to reduce the deck. At 150ish PL (actually 148 vs 149 and roughly equivalent to 2500 points) we had 4-5 detachments in each army. 30 cards was fine. A reduced deck would mean you would draw through all the cards faster and start using them a second time when they get reshuffled. Better to have the bigger deck and maybe not get through all the cards.


IMO there are two problems with the full deck:

1) Building a meaningful 30 card deck with a single army gets challenging. The 30 card deck for a whole team works out well if you have some generic assets and then a few faction-specific ones for each player, but with a 30 card deck for a single faction you're probably resorting to stuff like putting in Cadian cards in your Catachan army and only being able to use the alternate re-roll a single die effect.

2) RNG gets more significant. Your most important cards are drawn less frequently, and having a bunch of weak filler cards only makes it worse. Some games you'll get great draws, some games you'll get nothing. And the game should involve tactics between armies, not who gets better RNG with the CCG mechanic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
jamshaman wrote:
- "Slap Fest" - as I see it now, if slap fests occur, then it's probably a symptom of bad tactics, namely target selection.


Have you looked at the unit stats? Basic troops have few attacks and poor odds of success with each attack, and then the enemy unit gets a save to negate it. This is not the worst thing in a normal Apocalypse game where you can concentrate fire from many units and reliably get some wounds, but in a 2000 point 40k substitute it's going to be easy to have situations where there are too few units to reliably do any damage. Tactical squad vs. tactical squad is going to have a lot of turns where both players roll some dice and nothing happens. At least in normal 40k they're going to be taking some losses and the game is going to feel a lot more like things are progressing.

But the thing your complaining about squads not insta dieing turn 1 has been a massive point of complaints about 8th edition since day 1 it's lethality got dialled upto 11 to make the game faster.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 06:07:17


Post by: Peregrine


Ice_can wrote:
But the thing your complaining about squads not insta dieing turn 1 has been a massive point of complaints about 8th edition since day 1 it's lethality got dialled upto 11 to make the game faster.


There's a middle ground between "everything instantly dies on turn 1" and "multi-turn slap fight where nothing happens".


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 06:08:40


Post by: Lance845


Someone asked earlier and I don't remember an answer. Have you actually played apoc yet Peregrine?


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 06:10:56


Post by: Peregrine


 Lance845 wrote:
Someone asked earlier and I don't remember an answer. Have you actually played apoc yet Peregrine?


Only the old version of Apocalypse (and lots of that). But it's not like these are subtle or hard to understand design issues that have never appeared in other games. You don't have to play the game to look at the dice math, compare it to similar situations in other games, and have pretty strong confidence that the same issue will happen in this one.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 06:28:42


Post by: Lance845


 Peregrine wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Someone asked earlier and I don't remember an answer. Have you actually played apoc yet Peregrine?


Only the old version of Apocalypse (and lots of that). But it's not like these are subtle or hard to understand design issues that have never appeared in other games. You don't have to play the game to look at the dice math, compare it to similar situations in other games, and have pretty strong confidence that the same issue will happen in this one.


There is the things you know you know, the things you know you don't know and the things you don't know you don't know.

No matter how much math you do and how much calculations you make things change once you actually put it in motion and see the elements in action.

My recommendation is you stop theory-hammering and you start playing. Yes. Experience and logic can get you pretty far. But that doesn't mean known unknowns and unknown unknowns won't factor in and change how these elements interact in practice.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 07:22:54


Post by: Drager


With regards to the cards, I've not found it as highly random as people are suggesting. With only a 30 card deck and a good number of mechanical duplicates/highly similar cards, you have good odds of getting what you need/want early on. It's not guaranteed, but neither are psychic powers in 40k and they are still the crux of many strategies.

An example:

I want a 2 card combo of Doom and something that boosts my To Hit for a powerful unit. I've put Seek and Destroy and Guide in my deck, I also have Strategic Brilliance and Runes of Witnessing.

I'm drawing 5 cards so my probability of drawing any one specific card is 5/30 = 1/6. I have 1 free tutor with my Farseer so that means I have a 100% chance of finding either Doom or Guide if I draw the other one and, therefore, I can draw any of five cards to complete the combo (Strategic Brilliance or Runes of Witnessing can be traded for the missing piece). The probability of drawing 1 of any 5 cards on the first turn is 1 - (5/6)^5 = 60%.

That's solid odds of that combo going off, especially as I also have multiple ways of boosting my damage rolls in the deck, so the odds of getting what I need are even higher. On top of that, by turn 2 I am nearly guaranteed to draw that combo of cards. The example is for Eldar, but it should work similarly for other factions (e.g. IG use more drawing power rather than tutors).


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 14:48:43


Post by: zedsdead


these guys do a 100 pl Apoc game. Interesting

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/777430.page


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/09 19:25:30


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


 Lance845 wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Someone asked earlier and I don't remember an answer. Have you actually played apoc yet Peregrine?


Only the old version of Apocalypse (and lots of that). But it's not like these are subtle or hard to understand design issues that have never appeared in other games. You don't have to play the game to look at the dice math, compare it to similar situations in other games, and have pretty strong confidence that the same issue will happen in this one.


There is the things you know you know, the things you know you don't know and the things you don't know you don't know.

No matter how much math you do and how much calculations you make things change once you actually put it in motion and see the elements in action.

My recommendation is you stop theory-hammering and you start playing. Yes. Experience and logic can get you pretty far. But that doesn't mean known unknowns and unknown unknowns won't factor in and change how these elements interact in practice.


Again, only if you are one those people that believe scientists need to actually conduct experiments (and even have other scientist replicate your results) rather than completely rely on the theory. I mean it gets pretty annoying when an experiment doesn't follow your hypothesis which had all this elegant math. It is both cheaper and easier just to take the theoretical results as reality because most of the time they are right. Who cares about that small time when they aren't.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 02:32:31


Post by: Peregrine


 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Again, only if you are one those people that believe scientists need to actually conduct experiments (and even have other scientist replicate your results) rather than completely rely on the theory. I mean it gets pretty annoying when an experiment doesn't follow your hypothesis which had all this elegant math. It is both cheaper and easier just to take the theoretical results as reality because most of the time they are right. Who cares about that small time when they aren't.


Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Of course we're discussing theory, the game has been out for four days. The only people who have played it enough to offer opinions based on experience instead of theory are GW employees and they aren't participating in the discussion. But I suspect the reason for your disagreement here is not genuine feelings about the merits of theory vs. experience, it's that you don't like my conclusions and are reaching for any possible argument to discredit them.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 03:01:35


Post by: Lance845


 Peregrine wrote:
 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Again, only if you are one those people that believe scientists need to actually conduct experiments (and even have other scientist replicate your results) rather than completely rely on the theory. I mean it gets pretty annoying when an experiment doesn't follow your hypothesis which had all this elegant math. It is both cheaper and easier just to take the theoretical results as reality because most of the time they are right. Who cares about that small time when they aren't.


Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Of course we're discussing theory, the game has been out for four days. The only people who have played it enough to offer opinions based on experience instead of theory are GW employees and they aren't participating in the discussion. But I suspect the reason for your disagreement here is not genuine feelings about the merits of theory vs. experience, it's that you don't like my conclusions and are reaching for any possible argument to discredit them.


I imagine it has more to do with you stating your theories as obvious fact when in fact the game has been out for 4 days and you have played zero times last you chimed in about it.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 05:27:47


Post by: Racerguy180


 Lance845 wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Again, only if you are one those people that believe scientists need to actually conduct experiments (and even have other scientist replicate your results) rather than completely rely on the theory. I mean it gets pretty annoying when an experiment doesn't follow your hypothesis which had all this elegant math. It is both cheaper and easier just to take the theoretical results as reality because most of the time they are right. Who cares about that small time when they aren't.


Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Of course we're discussing theory, the game has been out for four days. The only people who have played it enough to offer opinions based on experience instead of theory are GW employees and they aren't participating in the discussion. But I suspect the reason for your disagreement here is not genuine feelings about the merits of theory vs. experience, it's that you don't like my conclusions and are reaching for any possible argument to discredit them.


I imagine it has more to do with you stating your theories as obvious fact when in fact the game has been out for 4 days and you have played zero times last you chimed in about it.


This is just true to form Pere, only look at the math, make subjective observations objective, lather, rinse, repeat. They just sit back, input data & make assumptions based on what the spreadsheet solution says.

And who says there are not any GW employees taking part, for all you know there could be one, none or whatever.

GW is positioning Apoc to be the main narrative mode of play(opinion). It allows for(a faster way to play) all the grandiose apocalyptic(get it) battles that are most often represented in the lore. How broken or abusable it is depends more on your opponent than anything else.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 10:59:30


Post by: JohnnyHell


Power-gaming/WAACing Apocalypse seems contrary to the entire spirit of the format anyway. That’s just an “I hate having friends” approach.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 11:10:08


Post by: Wayniac


 JohnnyHell wrote:
Power-gaming/WAACing Apocalypse seems contrary to the entire spirit of the format anyway. That’s just an “I hate having friends” approach.
The same could be said about 40k though and look how well that turned out...


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 11:28:45


Post by: auticus


Like most games not played heavily in tournaments, or formats not followed in tournaments, Apoc will likely never really be the realm of the powergamer until Adepticon has an Apoc world championship for it where people can win internet fame and fabulous prizes.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 12:02:29


Post by: Drager


Wayniac wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Power-gaming/WAACing Apocalypse seems contrary to the entire spirit of the format anyway. That’s just an “I hate having friends” approach.
The same could be said about 40k though and look how well that turned out...


auticus wrote:Like most games not played heavily in tournaments, or formats not followed in tournaments, Apoc will likely never really be the realm of the powergamer until Adepticon has an Apoc world championship for it where people can win internet fame and fabulous prizes.


Can we... not? I get super sick of coming to Dakka and having people crap all over competitive players. If you don't like a particular playstyle, that's fine, but acting like there's something wrong with other people enjoying something you don't is just unreasonable. I bet if I played any of you we'd both have fun because I would take something weaker than a hardcore competitive list as I know you don't like that sort of play. I'd also have fun playing gloves off top tier lists against another competitive player. Building hard lists and learning to play well isn't against the spirit of the game at all, attempting to purity police other people out of a hobby is against the spirit of games and gaming in general though. I think there is room for everyone in this hobby, it's a big tent. Sure there are people and playstyles I'd rather not engage with, but I don't think they should be shamed for, for example, insisting on only playing open and/or narrative play with only imperium vs chaos, that's cool, it's just not really my cup of tea. There are also jerks, who suck to play against, but they can't be identified by playstyle as they fall across the entire spectrum.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 12:42:40


Post by: Spoletta


 auticus wrote:
Like most games not played heavily in tournaments, or formats not followed in tournaments, Apoc will likely never really be the realm of the powergamer until Adepticon has an Apoc world championship for it where people can win internet fame and fabulous prizes.


We have plenty of powergamers in europe, and yet we lack big competitve events like that. We have the official GW events, but only a small minority of players go there (UK is damn expensive).
The big events are just an excuse, some players just like to turn everything in a competition, and there is nothing wrong with that.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 12:58:53


Post by: Kirasu


Ice_can wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
@Jamshaman No need to reduce the deck. At 150ish PL (actually 148 vs 149 and roughly equivalent to 2500 points) we had 4-5 detachments in each army. 30 cards was fine. A reduced deck would mean you would draw through all the cards faster and start using them a second time when they get reshuffled. Better to have the bigger deck and maybe not get through all the cards.


IMO there are two problems with the full deck:

1) Building a meaningful 30 card deck with a single army gets challenging. The 30 card deck for a whole team works out well if you have some generic assets and then a few faction-specific ones for each player, but with a 30 card deck for a single faction you're probably resorting to stuff like putting in Cadian cards in your Catachan army and only being able to use the alternate re-roll a single die effect.

2) RNG gets more significant. Your most important cards are drawn less frequently, and having a bunch of weak filler cards only makes it worse. Some games you'll get great draws, some games you'll get nothing. And the game should involve tactics between armies, not who gets better RNG with the CCG mechanic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
jamshaman wrote:
- "Slap Fest" - as I see it now, if slap fests occur, then it's probably a symptom of bad tactics, namely target selection.


Have you looked at the unit stats? Basic troops have few attacks and poor odds of success with each attack, and then the enemy unit gets a save to negate it. This is not the worst thing in a normal Apocalypse game where you can concentrate fire from many units and reliably get some wounds, but in a 2000 point 40k substitute it's going to be easy to have situations where there are too few units to reliably do any damage. Tactical squad vs. tactical squad is going to have a lot of turns where both players roll some dice and nothing happens. At least in normal 40k they're going to be taking some losses and the game is going to feel a lot more like things are progressing.

But the thing your complaining about squads not insta dieing turn 1 has been a massive point of complaints about 8th edition since day 1 it's lethality got dialled upto 11 to make the game faster.


and yet the game takes longer than ever to play for some reason.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 13:08:38


Post by: Eyjio


Drager wrote:
Can we... not? I get super sick of coming to Dakka and having people crap all over competitive players. If you don't like a particular playstyle, that's fine, but acting like there's something wrong with other people enjoying something you don't is just unreasonable. I bet if I played any of you we'd both have fun because I would take something weaker than a hardcore competitive list as I know you don't like that sort of play. I'd also have fun playing gloves off top tier lists against another competitive player. Building hard lists and learning to play well isn't against the spirit of the game at all, attempting to purity police other people out of a hobby is against the spirit of games and gaming in general though. I think there is room for everyone in this hobby, it's a big tent. Sure there are people and playstyles I'd rather not engage with, but I don't think they should be shamed for, for example, insisting on only playing open and/or narrative play with only imperium vs chaos, that's cool, it's just not really my cup of tea. There are also jerks, who suck to play against, but they can't be identified by playstyle as they fall across the entire spectrum.


Yeah, and to further this, I really don't think it's unreasonable that people try to get value for money either. If you have the choice to buy something which will win and make you feel happy, over something which looks cool but will be nearly worthless, it's pretty logical to choose the former over the latter - ESPECIALLY given how much this hobby costs to being with. It's even more unreasonable to expect them to see a model they wish they could use and not complain about how rubbish it is. People in this community really get hung up on other players having fun "wrong" sometimes.

In other, more on-topic news, I saw the maths behind Harlequins and holy christ on a bike are they too good for their points. They outdamage almost everything, are surprisingly cheap and their rules give them a deceptive amount of resilience - those 6+ saves are de facto 4+'s accounting for the D12 thing. 4+ saves on all units, attacks x8 in melee wounding on stupidly low numbers, super high agility? They're bonkers good before their stratagems. I hesitate to call them broken - there are some things which might be a counter, but they are incredibly durable for their price to the point of being a big red warning light. I a 2k pure harlequin army might actually make the system break down at low power levels.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 13:47:43


Post by: Drager


Eyjio wrote:
Drager wrote:
Can we... not? I get super sick of coming to Dakka and having people crap all over competitive players. If you don't like a particular playstyle, that's fine, but acting like there's something wrong with other people enjoying something you don't is just unreasonable. I bet if I played any of you we'd both have fun because I would take something weaker than a hardcore competitive list as I know you don't like that sort of play. I'd also have fun playing gloves off top tier lists against another competitive player. Building hard lists and learning to play well isn't against the spirit of the game at all, attempting to purity police other people out of a hobby is against the spirit of games and gaming in general though. I think there is room for everyone in this hobby, it's a big tent. Sure there are people and playstyles I'd rather not engage with, but I don't think they should be shamed for, for example, insisting on only playing open and/or narrative play with only imperium vs chaos, that's cool, it's just not really my cup of tea. There are also jerks, who suck to play against, but they can't be identified by playstyle as they fall across the entire spectrum.


Yeah, and to further this, I really don't think it's unreasonable that people try to get value for money either. If you have the choice to buy something which will win and make you feel happy, over something which looks cool but will be nearly worthless, it's pretty logical to choose the former over the latter - ESPECIALLY given how much this hobby costs to being with. It's even more unreasonable to expect them to see a model they wish they could use and not complain about how rubbish it is. People in this community really get hung up on other players having fun "wrong" sometimes.

In other, more on-topic news, I saw the maths behind Harlequins and holy christ on a bike are they too good for their points. They outdamage almost everything, are surprisingly cheap and their rules give them a deceptive amount of resilience - those 6+ saves are de facto 4+'s accounting for the D12 thing. 4+ saves on all units, attacks x8 in melee wounding on stupidly low numbers, super high agility? They're bonkers good before their stratagems. I hesitate to call them broken - there are some things which might be a counter, but they are incredibly durable for their price to the point of being a big red warning light. I a 2k pure harlequin army might actually make the system break down at low power levels.
I'll have to test that out and see. 'Quins are one of my less used armies.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 13:54:17


Post by: nomadimp




Yeah watching that video actually sealed the deal for me on buying Apocalypse specifically to play at 100-150 PL.

I've got a game coming up this weekend to try it out, so hoping for the best but it looks promising.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 14:10:26


Post by: Spoletta


Eyjio wrote:
Drager wrote:
Can we... not? I get super sick of coming to Dakka and having people crap all over competitive players. If you don't like a particular playstyle, that's fine, but acting like there's something wrong with other people enjoying something you don't is just unreasonable. I bet if I played any of you we'd both have fun because I would take something weaker than a hardcore competitive list as I know you don't like that sort of play. I'd also have fun playing gloves off top tier lists against another competitive player. Building hard lists and learning to play well isn't against the spirit of the game at all, attempting to purity police other people out of a hobby is against the spirit of games and gaming in general though. I think there is room for everyone in this hobby, it's a big tent. Sure there are people and playstyles I'd rather not engage with, but I don't think they should be shamed for, for example, insisting on only playing open and/or narrative play with only imperium vs chaos, that's cool, it's just not really my cup of tea. There are also jerks, who suck to play against, but they can't be identified by playstyle as they fall across the entire spectrum.


Yeah, and to further this, I really don't think it's unreasonable that people try to get value for money either. If you have the choice to buy something which will win and make you feel happy, over something which looks cool but will be nearly worthless, it's pretty logical to choose the former over the latter - ESPECIALLY given how much this hobby costs to being with. It's even more unreasonable to expect them to see a model they wish they could use and not complain about how rubbish it is. People in this community really get hung up on other players having fun "wrong" sometimes.

In other, more on-topic news, I saw the maths behind Harlequins and holy christ on a bike are they too good for their points. They outdamage almost everything, are surprisingly cheap and their rules give them a deceptive amount of resilience - those 6+ saves are de facto 4+'s accounting for the D12 thing. 4+ saves on all units, attacks x8 in melee wounding on stupidly low numbers, super high agility? They're bonkers good before their stratagems. I hesitate to call them broken - there are some things which might be a counter, but they are incredibly durable for their price to the point of being a big red warning light. I a 2k pure harlequin army might actually make the system break down at low power levels.


They hit really really really hard, but i don't know what math you have been using, because they are stupidly squishy by all possible metrics. Sure, you should never focus fire a single unit, but who cares about that when a single small blast has about 50% chances (between save and morale) to wipe out 8 PL of units!


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 15:02:42


Post by: Drager


Spoletta wrote:
Eyjio wrote:
Drager wrote:
Can we... not? I get super sick of coming to Dakka and having people crap all over competitive players. If you don't like a particular playstyle, that's fine, but acting like there's something wrong with other people enjoying something you don't is just unreasonable. I bet if I played any of you we'd both have fun because I would take something weaker than a hardcore competitive list as I know you don't like that sort of play. I'd also have fun playing gloves off top tier lists against another competitive player. Building hard lists and learning to play well isn't against the spirit of the game at all, attempting to purity police other people out of a hobby is against the spirit of games and gaming in general though. I think there is room for everyone in this hobby, it's a big tent. Sure there are people and playstyles I'd rather not engage with, but I don't think they should be shamed for, for example, insisting on only playing open and/or narrative play with only imperium vs chaos, that's cool, it's just not really my cup of tea. There are also jerks, who suck to play against, but they can't be identified by playstyle as they fall across the entire spectrum.


Yeah, and to further this, I really don't think it's unreasonable that people try to get value for money either. If you have the choice to buy something which will win and make you feel happy, over something which looks cool but will be nearly worthless, it's pretty logical to choose the former over the latter - ESPECIALLY given how much this hobby costs to being with. It's even more unreasonable to expect them to see a model they wish they could use and not complain about how rubbish it is. People in this community really get hung up on other players having fun "wrong" sometimes.

In other, more on-topic news, I saw the maths behind Harlequins and holy christ on a bike are they too good for their points. They outdamage almost everything, are surprisingly cheap and their rules give them a deceptive amount of resilience - those 6+ saves are de facto 4+'s accounting for the D12 thing. 4+ saves on all units, attacks x8 in melee wounding on stupidly low numbers, super high agility? They're bonkers good before their stratagems. I hesitate to call them broken - there are some things which might be a counter, but they are incredibly durable for their price to the point of being a big red warning light. I a 2k pure harlequin army might actually make the system break down at low power levels.


They hit really really really hard, but i don't know what math you have been using, because they are stupidly squishy by all possible metrics. Sure, you should never focus fire a single unit, but who cares about that when a single small blast has about 50% chances (between save and morale) to wipe out 8 PL of units!


If we assume a unit of 10 (15 power) within range of Shadowseer (4 PL) and we shoot at them with Splinter Cannon armed Venoms (which are very good Anti Personnel) you need 16 shots spread over 2 turns to kill the unit or 32 shots in one turn. That's 4 venoms shooting twice (24 PL) or a whopping 16 venoms (96 PL) to kill them in one turn. If we compare that to, say Terminators, for 11 power they have 2 wounds and a 4+ save. To kill them in a turn takes 9 venoms (54 PL) and spreading it across 2 turns you only need 5 venoms (30 PL). So against focussed fire in a 2 wound unit they are tougher than terminators (though also more expensive). Against spread fire on multiple turns they are weaker.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 15:28:30


Post by: Eyjio


Spoletta wrote:
They hit really really really hard, but i don't know what math you have been using, because they are stupidly squishy by all possible metrics. Sure, you should never focus fire a single unit, but who cares about that when a single small blast has about 50% chances (between save and morale) to wipe out 8 PL of units!

Normal, basic maths, just without morale (because that affects most armies). As follows:

Every 2 blasts is 1 large blast; for a unit with a 4+ save, they have a 50% chance to save each large blast and a 75% chance to save small blasts. This means that their distribution looks as follows, using a ratio of small blasts : effective wounds

1 : 0.25
2 : 0.5
3 : 0.75
4 : 1
5 : 1.25
6 : 1.5
7 : 1.75
8 : 2
9 : 2.25
10 : 2.5
etc.

Effectively, every 2 large blasts becomes 1 expected wound, and you go up in 0.25 intervals - very neat. As quarters:
1 : 1/4
2 : 2/4
3 : 3/4
4 : 4/4
5 : 5/4
6 : 6/4
etc.


Now, here's the same chart for harlequins with a 6+, who always roll a D12:

1 : 5/12 (~0.4167)
2 : 5/12 (~0.4167)
3 : 10/12 (~0.8333)
4 : 10/12 (~0.8333)
5 : 15/12 (1.25)
6 : 15/12 (1.25)
7 : 20/12 (~1.667)
8 : 20/12 (~1.667)
9 : 25/12 (~2.083)
10 : 25/12 (~2.083)

So, every small blast is +5/12, and every large blast is effectively wasted. This makes them incredibly durable against shooting generally and in no way "stupidly squishy". If you're taking at least 10 models in a troupe - and you should always be taking at lease 10 models in a troupe to get the 2 wounds - you are more durable against shooting than literal terminators, with substantially more deadly assault and good, if short ranged, shooting also. They also ignore terrain and have a stratagem that might as well say "you are invincible this turn". It's actually crazy - at least on paper. And it's all very well to say "oh, spread out your shooting, don't focus fire" but they have 2 wounds; if you aren't focus firing, they likely won't die, they're moving towards you very quickly, can hide behind terrain without it affecting them at all and if they get into melee they're the most cost effective unit in the game. You have to kill them, and that's very hard to do.

So, as I say, dunno about practice, but on paper they're silly.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 15:28:50


Post by: Spoletta


You are not considering that terminators Know no fear, which is a huge defensive boost in Apoc.

My math is much simpler here:

1 blast on said harley squad inflicts 0,5 wounds from the damage and 0,16 wounds from morale, for a total of 0,66 wounds. 1 wounds is worth 7,5 PL, so 0,66 wounds are worth 5 PL. A small blast inflicts 5 PL of damage.
The same blast on terminators inflicts 0,25 wounds from the damage, and no wounds from morale. Each wound costs 5,5 PL. A small blast inflicts 1,375 PL. Terminators are 3 times more resilient in this scenario.

Let's repeat for a large blast.

Harley again take 5 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,5 wounds, so suffer 2,75 PL of damage.

Large blast and small blast:

Harley take exactly double from damage and double from morale, so they take 10 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,75 wounds from damage and 0,027 from morale. 4,28 PL of damage.

Double large blast?

Harley take 10 PL
Termie take 5,5 PL.

You can see that in no scenario harley have even something resembling the durability of termies.

This is Apoc, not 40K. Units have no defensive stats with interaction (like S vs T or Sv vs AP). Don't try to look at possible attackers versus possible defenders, a blast is a blast.
Use that as a basis, the math is much easier.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 17:34:55


Post by: Eyjio


I have no idea why you're saying one wound is 7.5PL, which is clearly untrue, let alone why you're being condescending about using blast markers instead when that's literally what I did (and it's not 0.5 to save, its 5/12 as I said - they have a 6+), but you're right - morale has a big impact. So, while we're here, let's consider domino fields too, as that's only fair. Let's revise my harlequin chart to reflect morale; so, as numerator over 12, it's 7/7/14/14/21/21/28/28 for 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8 blasts. Given blasts are discrete, that means 7 blasts kill 2 wounds of harlequins. For terminators, it also takes 7 templates to kill 2 wounds - 1.75 from failed saves, 0.25 from morale. However, then harlequins are -1 to hit, so are MORE durable on a discrete basis.

Let's work fractionally instead to see if that 1/3rd of a blast marker is compensated for by domino fields. Wound rolls are identical so we only need bother with to hit rolls:
2+ to hit means terminators needs 8.4 shots; for harlequins that's a 3+, but you only need 6 and 3/7th blasts, so about 9.64 shots.
3+ is 10.5 shots for terminators, but for harlequins its 12.86.
4+ is 14 for terminators, 19.29 for harlequins.
Etc.

So, not only are harlequins more durable, they are significantly moreso. I stand by my prior statements.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 18:53:49


Post by: the_scotsman


I think the big distinction people might be failing to take into account with the "Terminators/Other Stuff vs Harlequins" comparison is the fact that Harlequins in most circumstances will be presenting you three targets at once, as they'll be deployed in Battalions. When people say "Spread out your fire" they mean to the other two units of harlequins that are going to be within 12" of the first unit of harlequins.

Focus firing down a unit of harlequins like you would deal with a unit of terminators is a bad idea, putting a single blast on each harlequin unit is a much better idea, because a small blast is a large blast for all intents and purposes.

The other thing people are ignoring in this is that unlike Terminators, or Striking Scorpions, Harlequins are not going to be in combat turn 1 or even doing any damage at all unless they use particular stratagem cards. Terminators, jump death company, striking scorpions and others will be able to get into combat turn 1 and deal guaranteed damage the turn they arrive - you physically can not kill them before they can act, and you have a decent chance of critically damaging or even destroying a harlequin squad on that first turn if you shoot it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will say though, Harlequins are #1 on my list when thinking about things that might prove to be a balance problem in apoc. They do A LOT of damage and they have A LOT of defensive buff abilities. I do think there's a reason why the damage done by Skyweaver Jetbikes is less than 1/4 that of the regular clowns though.

Some other units that have that "I definitely do not do damage until turn 2" property (I'm looking at Murderfang and Thunderwolves as I had the space wolf page open) seem to do relatively similar damage in melee. murderboi does a little bit more (and quite a bit more if the enemy is wounded), Thunderwolves do slightly less but do have a guaranteed Consolation Shot with their bolt pistols turn 1.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 19:17:08


Post by: Drager


Spoletta wrote:
You are not considering that terminators Know no fear, which is a huge defensive boost in Apoc.

My math is much simpler here:

1 blast on said harley squad inflicts 0,5 wounds from the damage and 0,16 wounds from morale, for a total of 0,66 wounds. 1 wounds is worth 7,5 PL, so 0,66 wounds are worth 5 PL. A small blast inflicts 5 PL of damage.
The same blast on terminators inflicts 0,25 wounds from the damage, and no wounds from morale. Each wound costs 5,5 PL. A small blast inflicts 1,375 PL. Terminators are 3 times more resilient in this scenario.

Let's repeat for a large blast.

Harley again take 5 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,5 wounds, so suffer 2,75 PL of damage.

Large blast and small blast:

Harley take exactly double from damage and double from morale, so they take 10 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,75 wounds from damage and 0,027 from morale. 4,28 PL of damage.

Double large blast?

Harley take 10 PL
Termie take 5,5 PL.

You can see that in no scenario harley have even something resembling the durability of termies.

This is Apoc, not 40K. Units have no defensive stats with interaction (like S vs T or Sv vs AP). Don't try to look at possible attackers versus possible defenders, a blast is a blast.
Use that as a basis, the math is much easier.
You are missing the -1 to hit and to wound, which make a big difference. Therefore, in this case, a blast is not a blast as there are defensive differences. Further Harlies have a 6+ save, not a 7+ so it's not a 50 % save, it's 58%. If you redo the maths and include these modifications you'll find I'm correct. Your calculations are simpler, true, but also incorrect.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 19:38:25


Post by: jamshaman


I should have said this sooner, but it appears that the easiest way that I see right now to scale down Apoc would be to lessen the Detachment requirements.

So maybe at 100-300PL a Battalion Detachment would only require 2 units of troops instead of 3, for example. So basically -1 required unit per Detachment type.

This would allow most of the game mechanics to stay in tact I think...


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 19:40:54


Post by: Lance845


jamshaman wrote:
I should have said this sooner, but it appears that the easiest way that I see right now to scale down Apoc would be to lessen the Detachment requirements.

So maybe at 100-300PL a Battalion Detachment would only require 2 units of troops instead of 3, for example. So basically -1 required unit per Detachment type.

This would allow most of the game mechanics to stay in tact I think...


Unneeded. Ive already played it. The detachment requirments are fine.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 19:42:21


Post by: the_scotsman


Drager wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
You are not considering that terminators Know no fear, which is a huge defensive boost in Apoc.

My math is much simpler here:

1 blast on said harley squad inflicts 0,5 wounds from the damage and 0,16 wounds from morale, for a total of 0,66 wounds. 1 wounds is worth 7,5 PL, so 0,66 wounds are worth 5 PL. A small blast inflicts 5 PL of damage.
The same blast on terminators inflicts 0,25 wounds from the damage, and no wounds from morale. Each wound costs 5,5 PL. A small blast inflicts 1,375 PL. Terminators are 3 times more resilient in this scenario.

Let's repeat for a large blast.

Harley again take 5 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,5 wounds, so suffer 2,75 PL of damage.

Large blast and small blast:

Harley take exactly double from damage and double from morale, so they take 10 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,75 wounds from damage and 0,027 from morale. 4,28 PL of damage.

Double large blast?

Harley take 10 PL
Termie take 5,5 PL.

You can see that in no scenario harley have even something resembling the durability of termies.

This is Apoc, not 40K. Units have no defensive stats with interaction (like S vs T or Sv vs AP). Don't try to look at possible attackers versus possible defenders, a blast is a blast.
Use that as a basis, the math is much easier.
You are missing the -1 to hit and to wound, which make a big difference. Therefore, in this case, a blast is not a blast as there are defensive differences. Further Harlies have a 6+ save, not a 7+ so it's not a 50 % save, it's 58%. If you redo the maths and include these modifications you'll find I'm correct. Your calculations are simpler, true, but also incorrect.


I hate to ask this...but if we are including the -1 to wound, surely we are including the cost of the Shadowseer granting the buff with the cost of the Harlequins (possibly only 2.33PL if we're talking about 3 squads of harlequins benefitting), right?

It would be silly to give a 15PL unit a 7PL buff and compare them, right?


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 22:12:59


Post by: Drager


the_scotsman wrote:
Drager wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
You are not considering that terminators Know no fear, which is a huge defensive boost in Apoc.

My math is much simpler here:

1 blast on said harley squad inflicts 0,5 wounds from the damage and 0,16 wounds from morale, for a total of 0,66 wounds. 1 wounds is worth 7,5 PL, so 0,66 wounds are worth 5 PL. A small blast inflicts 5 PL of damage.
The same blast on terminators inflicts 0,25 wounds from the damage, and no wounds from morale. Each wound costs 5,5 PL. A small blast inflicts 1,375 PL. Terminators are 3 times more resilient in this scenario.

Let's repeat for a large blast.

Harley again take 5 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,5 wounds, so suffer 2,75 PL of damage.

Large blast and small blast:

Harley take exactly double from damage and double from morale, so they take 10 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,75 wounds from damage and 0,027 from morale. 4,28 PL of damage.

Double large blast?

Harley take 10 PL
Termie take 5,5 PL.

You can see that in no scenario harley have even something resembling the durability of termies.

This is Apoc, not 40K. Units have no defensive stats with interaction (like S vs T or Sv vs AP). Don't try to look at possible attackers versus possible defenders, a blast is a blast.
Use that as a basis, the math is much easier.
You are missing the -1 to hit and to wound, which make a big difference. Therefore, in this case, a blast is not a blast as there are defensive differences. Further Harlies have a 6+ save, not a 7+ so it's not a 50 % save, it's 58%. If you redo the maths and include these modifications you'll find I'm correct. Your calculations are simpler, true, but also incorrect.


I hate to ask this...but if we are including the -1 to wound, surely we are including the cost of the Shadowseer granting the buff with the cost of the Harlequins (possibly only 2.33PL if we're talking about 3 squads of harlequins benefitting), right?

It would be silly to give a 15PL unit a 7PL buff and compare them, right?
The terminators will have a commander too. It just applied no defensive buff. I'm mostly thinking on the scale of a battalion so the cost of the commander is moot. It's more like a 50 pl group of models (3 troops and a shadowseer). I'm just zooming in to make the demonstration easier to follow.

In the case of the terminators it's probably 4 units plus a commander so they are roughly equally durable, hence mentioning the Harlequins are more durable but cost more.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 23:15:48


Post by: jamshaman


 Lance845 wrote:
jamshaman wrote:
I should have said this sooner, but it appears that the easiest way that I see right now to scale down Apoc would be to lessen the Detachment requirements.

So maybe at 100-300PL a Battalion Detachment would only require 2 units of troops instead of 3, for example. So basically -1 required unit per Detachment type.

This would allow most of the game mechanics to stay in tact I think...


Unneeded. Ive already played it. The detachment requirments are fine.


How many games have you got in? At which PLs? With how many different factions?

You know, there's a way to say things without sounding like a douche... just sayin...


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/10 23:25:31


Post by: Lance845


2 nids tau and orks. 150 pl. 125ish is roughly equivalent to 2k points. 4-5 non specialist detachments in each army.

There is also a way to read things with out making others sound like a douche. Start by assuming nobody is posting with ill will. Then a statement is just a statement, free of snark.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 00:08:48


Post by: the_scotsman


Drager wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Drager wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
You are not considering that terminators Know no fear, which is a huge defensive boost in Apoc.

My math is much simpler here:

1 blast on said harley squad inflicts 0,5 wounds from the damage and 0,16 wounds from morale, for a total of 0,66 wounds. 1 wounds is worth 7,5 PL, so 0,66 wounds are worth 5 PL. A small blast inflicts 5 PL of damage.
The same blast on terminators inflicts 0,25 wounds from the damage, and no wounds from morale. Each wound costs 5,5 PL. A small blast inflicts 1,375 PL. Terminators are 3 times more resilient in this scenario.

Let's repeat for a large blast.

Harley again take 5 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,5 wounds, so suffer 2,75 PL of damage.

Large blast and small blast:

Harley take exactly double from damage and double from morale, so they take 10 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,75 wounds from damage and 0,027 from morale. 4,28 PL of damage.

Double large blast?

Harley take 10 PL
Termie take 5,5 PL.

You can see that in no scenario harley have even something resembling the durability of termies.

This is Apoc, not 40K. Units have no defensive stats with interaction (like S vs T or Sv vs AP). Don't try to look at possible attackers versus possible defenders, a blast is a blast.
Use that as a basis, the math is much easier.
You are missing the -1 to hit and to wound, which make a big difference. Therefore, in this case, a blast is not a blast as there are defensive differences. Further Harlies have a 6+ save, not a 7+ so it's not a 50 % save, it's 58%. If you redo the maths and include these modifications you'll find I'm correct. Your calculations are simpler, true, but also incorrect.


I hate to ask this...but if we are including the -1 to wound, surely we are including the cost of the Shadowseer granting the buff with the cost of the Harlequins (possibly only 2.33PL if we're talking about 3 squads of harlequins benefitting), right?

It would be silly to give a 15PL unit a 7PL buff and compare them, right?
The terminators will have a commander too. It just applied no defensive buff. I'm mostly thinking on the scale of a battalion so the cost of the commander is moot. It's more like a 50 pl group of models (3 troops and a shadowseer). I'm just zooming in to make the demonstration easier to follow.

In the case of the terminators it's probably 4 units plus a commander so they are roughly equally durable, hence mentioning the Harlequins are more durable but cost more.


Sure. I still think the primary thing you're ignoring in your analysis is that units with access to deep strike and units without (meaning they cannot arrive and immediately be in melee) seem to have very different budgets they're working with.

Compare a Deff Dread, Murderfang, Khorne Bezerkers, full melee helbrutes, etc to any melee unit with deep strike. They seem to deal roughly 2x-3x the damage. I can't imagine that's an accident - anything without deep strike your opponent either gets a chance to kill or you have to pay for a transport to guarantee it getting to fight (costing extra PL and making it turn 2+ only). So you get some reward out of not getting to attack with them up front.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 04:37:25


Post by: Spoletta


Drager wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
You are not considering that terminators Know no fear, which is a huge defensive boost in Apoc.

My math is much simpler here:

1 blast on said harley squad inflicts 0,5 wounds from the damage and 0,16 wounds from morale, for a total of 0,66 wounds. 1 wounds is worth 7,5 PL, so 0,66 wounds are worth 5 PL. A small blast inflicts 5 PL of damage.
The same blast on terminators inflicts 0,25 wounds from the damage, and no wounds from morale. Each wound costs 5,5 PL. A small blast inflicts 1,375 PL. Terminators are 3 times more resilient in this scenario.

Let's repeat for a large blast.

Harley again take 5 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,5 wounds, so suffer 2,75 PL of damage.

Large blast and small blast:

Harley take exactly double from damage and double from morale, so they take 10 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,75 wounds from damage and 0,027 from morale. 4,28 PL of damage.

Double large blast?

Harley take 10 PL
Termie take 5,5 PL.

You can see that in no scenario harley have even something resembling the durability of termies.

This is Apoc, not 40K. Units have no defensive stats with interaction (like S vs T or Sv vs AP). Don't try to look at possible attackers versus possible defenders, a blast is a blast.
Use that as a basis, the math is much easier.
You are missing the -1 to hit and to wound, which make a big difference. Therefore, in this case, a blast is not a blast as there are defensive differences. Further Harlies have a 6+ save, not a 7+ so it's not a 50 % save, it's 58%. If you redo the maths and include these modifications you'll find I'm correct. Your calculations are simpler, true, but also incorrect.


True, there are modifiers to apply, especially the -1 to hit.
The -1 to wound i'm not sure, because as has been said, it comes from another model.
Problem for the hit modifier is that in Apoc there are a lot of ways to put blasts around without hitting, especially if you want them spreaded on multiple models. How do you consider those?
Also, even if you apply a factor of 0,57 to the PL suffered by harley, which is the correction factor for the correct save and the -1 to hit (considering the worse case of a BS4+ attacker), harleys are still sligthly worse than termies, even in the best scenario with 2 large blasts dropped on top of each.

By the way, i'm using 4+ termies here, but the melee ones are actually 3+.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 07:33:25


Post by: jamshaman


 Lance845 wrote:
2 nids tau and orks. 150 pl. 125ish is roughly equivalent to 2k points. 4-5 non specialist detachments in each army.

There is also a way to read things with out making others sound like a douche. Start by assuming nobody is posting with ill will. Then a statement is just a statement, free of snark.


That's not a big enough sample size to make such a definitive statement as you did, not to mention the fact that even had you played 100 games, you have no credentials that we know of that make you the end all be all of game testers. To bring this back on topic, I think this is WAY too early to tell if the "Detachments are fine" as is at lower points levels. As it says in the rules Apoc was designed to be played at over 300PL, so it stands to reason that they made the detachment requirements reflect that. This whole thread is about how to scale the game down.

At a lower points level, making large detachments is still viable, but the opposite is not true. Reducing the requirements by one, for example, would only allow for more tactical flexibility, theoretically.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 07:46:39


Post by: Spoletta


jamshaman wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
2 nids tau and orks. 150 pl. 125ish is roughly equivalent to 2k points. 4-5 non specialist detachments in each army.

There is also a way to read things with out making others sound like a douche. Start by assuming nobody is posting with ill will. Then a statement is just a statement, free of snark.


That's not a big enough sample size to make such a definitive statement as you did, not to mention the fact that even had you played 100 games, you have no credentials that we know of that make you the end all be all of game testers. To bring this back on topic, I think this is WAY too early to tell if the "Detachments are fine" as is at lower points levels. As it says in the rules Apoc was designed to be played at over 300PL, so it stands to reason that they made the detachment requirements reflect that. This whole thread is about how to scale the game down.

At a lower points level, making large detachments is still viable, but the opposite is not true. Reducing the requirements by one, for example, would only allow for more tactical flexibility, theoretically.


Apoc is designed for minimum 300 PL overall between the players, so 2 players at 150 PL are already a standard apoc game.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 08:22:35


Post by: Ice_can


jamshaman wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
2 nids tau and orks. 150 pl. 125ish is roughly equivalent to 2k points. 4-5 non specialist detachments in each army.

There is also a way to read things with out making others sound like a douche. Start by assuming nobody is posting with ill will. Then a statement is just a statement, free of snark.


That's not a big enough sample size to make such a definitive statement as you did, not to mention the fact that even had you played 100 games, you have no credentials that we know of that make you the end all be all of game testers. To bring this back on topic, I think this is WAY too early to tell if the "Detachments are fine" as is at lower points levels. As it says in the rules Apoc was designed to be played at over 300PL, so it stands to reason that they made the detachment requirements reflect that. This whole thread is about how to scale the game down.

At a lower points level, making large detachments is still viable, but the opposite is not true. Reducing the requirements by one, for example, would only allow for more tactical flexibility, theoretically.

Once again someone has bought into the GW marketing buzz of unlimited access to everything is best.

If anything at Lower Power levels a reduction on max cards dawn would be a far better balancing mechanic that allowing factions with cheap detachments to have even more cheap detachments for maximum impact of the cards.

Limiting player to 6,7 or even 8 cards per turn would limit the amount of them you can cram into a single turn and the speed at which wombo combos can be gamed. At 5 cards it's once per 6 turn game at 7 it's twice but turn 5 is the earliest for the repeated combo.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 08:34:34


Post by: Drager


Spoletta wrote:
Drager wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
You are not considering that terminators Know no fear, which is a huge defensive boost in Apoc.

My math is much simpler here:

1 blast on said harley squad inflicts 0,5 wounds from the damage and 0,16 wounds from morale, for a total of 0,66 wounds. 1 wounds is worth 7,5 PL, so 0,66 wounds are worth 5 PL. A small blast inflicts 5 PL of damage.
The same blast on terminators inflicts 0,25 wounds from the damage, and no wounds from morale. Each wound costs 5,5 PL. A small blast inflicts 1,375 PL. Terminators are 3 times more resilient in this scenario.

Let's repeat for a large blast.

Harley again take 5 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,5 wounds, so suffer 2,75 PL of damage.

Large blast and small blast:

Harley take exactly double from damage and double from morale, so they take 10 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,75 wounds from damage and 0,027 from morale. 4,28 PL of damage.

Double large blast?

Harley take 10 PL
Termie take 5,5 PL.

You can see that in no scenario harley have even something resembling the durability of termies.

This is Apoc, not 40K. Units have no defensive stats with interaction (like S vs T or Sv vs AP). Don't try to look at possible attackers versus possible defenders, a blast is a blast.
Use that as a basis, the math is much easier.
You are missing the -1 to hit and to wound, which make a big difference. Therefore, in this case, a blast is not a blast as there are defensive differences. Further Harlies have a 6+ save, not a 7+ so it's not a 50 % save, it's 58%. If you redo the maths and include these modifications you'll find I'm correct. Your calculations are simpler, true, but also incorrect.


True, there are modifiers to apply, especially the -1 to hit.
The -1 to wound i'm not sure, because as has been said, it comes from another model.
Problem for the hit modifier is that in Apoc there are a lot of ways to put blasts around without hitting, especially if you want them spreaded on multiple models. How do you consider those?
Also, even if you apply a factor of 0,57 to the PL suffered by harley, which is the correction factor for the correct save and the -1 to hit (considering the worse case of a BS4+ attacker), harleys are still sligthly worse than termies, even in the best scenario with 2 large blasts dropped on top of each.

By the way, i'm using 4+ termies here, but the melee ones are actually 3+.
I don't think a comparison of PL per blast really makes sense due to how the units work, you don't see so much loss of efficacy as in 40k, that's why I was looking at the effort to remove/probability of them dying. Let's use your methodology and look at it that way.

My stance, by the way, is not that Harlies are 100% perfectly as tough as terminators on a PL for PL comparison, it's that on a unit by unit or, more importantly, detachment by detachment comparison it's very close, which shows that Harlies are not squishy at all (although they are a little more expensive. I'm going to assume something BS3+ is applying the blast marker and that we are trying to remove both units completely. For this reason the Harlequins will have a dmage reduction of 3/4 applied (derived from 0.5/(2/3)).

If only 3 blast markers are placed (the minimum to remove either unit):

The probability of the Harlequin unit dying is (5/12 * 5/12 + 2*(5/12 * 7/12 * 2/6)) * 3/4 = 25.1%

The probability of the Terminator unit dying is 3/6 * 3/12 + 3/6 * 9/12 * 1/36 + 3/6 * 3/12 * 1/36 = 13.8%

If 4 blast markers are placed (quins lose the 3/4 reduction because 3 or 4 blasts is the same to them):

The probability of the Harlequin unit dying is 5/12 * 5/12 + 2*(5/12 * 7/12 * 2/6) = 33.5%

The probability of the Terminator unit dying is 3/6 * 3/6 + 2*(3/6 * 3/6 * 1/36) = 26.38%

So against focus fire, that is, actually trying to kill the unit they are a little softer than Terminators, but still very durable, even without the -1 to wound, ignoring that seems odd though as in real game situations it will usually be in place. This means that Harlequins are nearly as tough as terminators against focus fire, but more expensive, and not as tough against spread fire, which was my original conclusion.

Working with the same maths and adding the -1 to wound against, say a 6+ SAP weapon there is a further 0.86 modifier that needs to be applied in both scenarios, giving:

If only 3 blast markers are placed (the minimum to remove either unit):

The probability of the Harlequin unit dying is 0.251 * 0.86 = 21.6%

The probability of the Terminator unit dying is 13.8%

If 4 blast markers are placed (quins lose the 3/4 reduction because 3 or 4 blasts is the same to them):

The probability of the Harlequin unit dying is 0.335 * 0.86 = 28.8%

The probability of the Terminator unit dying is 26.4%

This further underscores my point that harlequins are tough units. I think they are fine and not at all broken, but they are not squishy by any stretch, which is the point I have been making. They are comparable to Terminators in toughness against focus fire, whilst being ~ 60% as tough against spread fire.

Spoletta wrote:

They hit really really really hard, but i don't know what math you have been using, because they are stupidly squishy by all possible metrics. Sure, you should never focus fire a single unit, but who cares about that when a single small blast has about 50% chances (between save and morale) to wipe out 8 PL of units!


This is the comment I was disagreeing with in my initial analysis. 1 wound units of them are far less tough as they don't need to be focussed, but between saves and morale (and a 3/4 reductionf or -1 to hit) they have a (5/12 + 1/6)*3/4 = 43% chance to die to one blast. They are far squishier when taken this way, but it's also a bad way to take them.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 09:28:58


Post by: Spoletta


Let me point out that i'm trying to be constructive here, we don't have a mathematical model to settle this, so discussing the method itself has a merit.

Remember that the -1 to wound does not apply to the whole detachment but only in a 6" bubble, and keeping the whole detachment under it with 0,5" coherency is not a given. It would be a big limitation on movement (and makes them a really juicy target for those effects that strike 6" from a point).


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 11:57:20


Post by: the_scotsman


Spoletta wrote:
Let me point out that i'm trying to be constructive here, we don't have a mathematical model to settle this, so discussing the method itself has a merit.

Remember that the -1 to wound does not apply to the whole detachment but only in a 6" bubble, and keeping the whole detachment under it with 0,5" coherency is not a given. It would be a big limitation on movement (and makes them a really juicy target for those effects that strike 6" from a point).


Which holy freakin moly are you going to want to throw at any battalions of Harlequins on the board. I didn't even think about those lol.

The more I look at harlequins the more I think maybe 5s in Skyweavers and skip the Shadowseer is a better bet than 10s with a shadowseer. They cost basically the same, put out 3 shots that wound infantry on 6s turn 1, which is fairly respectable, and then pretty much no matter what your opponent does to them turn 1, you get 5x8 attacks into their lines turn 2.

Is there REALLY that much running around that's going to be your opponent's frontline and is going to require 8 blasts instead of 4 blasts to take out? Because there's a very strong possibility unless you spend a turn shooting it up (say, with a trio of starweavers and the harlequins' pistols) your clowns will be punching cheap chaff turn 1. They move through models, but remember in apocalypse unless you can end your move in proper 1/2" coherency with two other models in the unit you're not allowed to make the move at all. It's going to be way easier to get to combat, but it's also going to be way easier to block combat with your own bodies.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 12:56:57


Post by: Drager


The coherency thing is weird as you are just going to end up with models like this, surely:

M*M*M*M*M*M*M*M
*M*************M*

Where Ms are models and *s are just empty space. Doesn't really stop daisy-chaining much.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 13:22:00


Post by: Lance845


jamshaman wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
2 nids tau and orks. 150 pl. 125ish is roughly equivalent to 2k points. 4-5 non specialist detachments in each army.

There is also a way to read things with out making others sound like a douche. Start by assuming nobody is posting with ill will. Then a statement is just a statement, free of snark.


That's not a big enough sample size to make such a definitive statement as you did, not to mention the fact that even had you played 100 games, you have no credentials that we know of that make you the end all be all of game testers. To bring this back on topic, I think this is WAY too early to tell if the "Detachments are fine" as is at lower points levels. As it says in the rules Apoc was designed to be played at over 300PL, so it stands to reason that they made the detachment requirements reflect that. This whole thread is about how to scale the game down.

At a lower points level, making large detachments is still viable, but the opposite is not true. Reducing the requirements by one, for example, would only allow for more tactical flexibility, theoretically.


You are welcome to whatever opinion you want to have. However, my 2 games with 3 armies is more experience then your none. So how about you try playing before you start coming up with ideas for how you think it might need to change? I am not even saying there wont be problems that crop up. Just that what you are saying right now is based on nothing with experience doing nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Drager wrote:
The coherency thing is weird as you are just going to end up with models like this, surely:

M*M*M*M*M*M*M*M
*M*************M*

Where Ms are models and *s are just empty space. Doesn't really stop daisy-chaining much.


If the unit has more than 5 models every model has to be within 1/2" of at least 2 other models.

You basically have to make them like the movement trays. Daisy chaining works in double rows now.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 13:43:46


Post by: the_scotsman


Drager wrote:
The coherency thing is weird as you are just going to end up with models like this, surely:

M*M*M*M*M*M*M*M
*M*************M*

Where Ms are models and *s are just empty space. Doesn't really stop daisy-chaining much.


In my experience it really does. Remember that not only are you making the ends of squads blob up, you're cutting the total space between each model by 3/4. "proper formation" in apoc seems to be a zigzag column for melee units with the narrow end pointing toward the enemy, and a line as you've shown for screens. But a lot of your time you'll be working wiht min units for your chaff because that's how you get card draw, so having 2/10 of your cultists or whatever having to stand behind the line does actually reduce your screen capabilities a lot.

A single layer of guardsmen goes from covering approximately 28" of linear area in 40k to 11.5" in apocalypse.

Also, you create a tricky situation for your opponent when they're trying to screen against units with Fly. Lets say you have a theoretical unit of artillery you want to screen from some melee deep strikers/infiltrators.

You need to place your screen in such a location where they can't pass over/through them and touch your tanks. but you also want them in a different detachment so they can fall back while your tanks still aim fire. so they have to be B2B with the tanks forming their screen.

If your opponent drops down and gets B2B with them, then when its your activation you can't fall back with your screen (The tanks are in the way) and you can't move the tanks because they're aim firing. So the melee unit is guaranteed to be able to bop your tanks on its next turn.

You also have to be extremely complete in your screening which means blobbing up in "please artillery barrage card me" formation, because most flying deep strikers will be dropping 9" away and moving at least 24" with their assault move.

5 man jump pack assault marine squads are going to be serious PITAs for gunline armies in apoc. Give 'em a jump chaplain to help them reliably carve up chaff units, they're only 5PL apiece but they're just durable enough that you want to get two blasts on them to have any real assurance they'll stop being alive. You could even bring a jump librarian in there as a wildcard unit that could have some really powerful close range psychic powers. Your opponent does not want you to be holding Null Zone on the turn that guy jumps in and yeets himself right into the middle of your backline artillery.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 14:17:53


Post by: Drager


Lance845 wrote:
jamshaman wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
2 nids tau and orks. 150 pl. 125ish is roughly equivalent to 2k points. 4-5 non specialist detachments in each army.

There is also a way to read things with out making others sound like a douche. Start by assuming nobody is posting with ill will. Then a statement is just a statement, free of snark.


That's not a big enough sample size to make such a definitive statement as you did, not to mention the fact that even had you played 100 games, you have no credentials that we know of that make you the end all be all of game testers. To bring this back on topic, I think this is WAY too early to tell if the "Detachments are fine" as is at lower points levels. As it says in the rules Apoc was designed to be played at over 300PL, so it stands to reason that they made the detachment requirements reflect that. This whole thread is about how to scale the game down.

At a lower points level, making large detachments is still viable, but the opposite is not true. Reducing the requirements by one, for example, would only allow for more tactical flexibility, theoretically.


You are welcome to whatever opinion you want to have. However, my 2 games with 3 armies is more experience then your none. So how about you try playing before you start coming up with ideas for how you think it might need to change? I am not even saying there wont be problems that crop up. Just that what you are saying right now is based on nothing with experience doing nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Drager wrote:
The coherency thing is weird as you are just going to end up with models like this, surely:

M*M*M*M*M*M*M*M
*M*************M*

Where Ms are models and *s are just empty space. Doesn't really stop daisy-chaining much.


If the unit has more than 5 models every model has to be within 1/2" of at least 2 other models.

You basically have to make them like the movement trays. Daisy-chaining works in double rows now.
It doesn't need to be double rows. In the example I posted, all models are within 1/2" of at least 2 other models with only 2 being behind the lines.

the_scotsman wrote:
Drager wrote:
The coherency thing is weird as you are just going to end up with models like this, surely:

M*M*M*M*M*M*M*M
*M*************M*

Where Ms are models and *s are just empty space. Doesn't really stop daisy-chaining much.


In my experience it really does. Remember that not only are you making the ends of squads blob up, you're cutting the total space between each model by 3/4. "proper formation" in apoc seems to be a zigzag column for melee units with the narrow end pointing toward the enemy, and a line as you've shown for screens. But a lot of your time you'll be working wiht min units for your chaff because that's how you get card draw, so having 2/10 of your cultists or whatever having to stand behind the line does actually reduce your screen capabilities a lot.

A single layer of guardsmen goes from covering approximately 28" of linear area in 40k to 11.5" in apocalypse.

Also, you create a tricky situation for your opponent when they're trying to screen against units with Fly. Lets say you have a theoretical unit of artillery you want to screen from some melee deep strikers/infiltrators.

You need to place your screen in such a location where they can't pass over/through them and touch your tanks. but you also want them in a different detachment so they can fall back while your tanks still aim fire. so they have to be B2B with the tanks forming their screen.

If your opponent drops down and gets B2B with them, then when its your activation you can't fall back with your screen (The tanks are in the way) and you can't move the tanks because they're aim firing. So the melee unit is guaranteed to be able to bop your tanks on its next turn.

You also have to be extremely complete in your screening which means blobbing up in "please artillery barrage card me" formation, because most flying deep strikers will be dropping 9" away and moving at least 24" with their assault move.

5 man jump pack assault marine squads are going to be serious PITAs for gunline armies in apoc. Give 'em a jump chaplain to help them reliably carve up chaff units, they're only 5PL apiece but they're just durable enough that you want to get two blasts on them to have any real assurance they'll stop being alive. You could even bring a jump librarian in there as a wildcard unit that could have some really powerful close range psychic powers. Your opponent does not want you to be holding Null Zone on the turn that guy jumps in and yeets himself right into the middle of your backline artillery.
Very good points. I think that makes 30 man conscript blobs a lot better as they have ~40" horizontal coverage, compared to the ~35" of 3 IS squads.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 14:21:29


Post by: Lance845


Youre right. My bad.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 14:49:04


Post by: dominuschao


OP- no interest in apoc will never try it. I wish they'd spend the effort elsewhere personally.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 15:18:08


Post by: the_scotsman


Spoiler:
Drager wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
jamshaman wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
2 nids tau and orks. 150 pl. 125ish is roughly equivalent to 2k points. 4-5 non specialist detachments in each army.

There is also a way to read things with out making others sound like a douche. Start by assuming nobody is posting with ill will. Then a statement is just a statement, free of snark.


That's not a big enough sample size to make such a definitive statement as you did, not to mention the fact that even had you played 100 games, you have no credentials that we know of that make you the end all be all of game testers. To bring this back on topic, I think this is WAY too early to tell if the "Detachments are fine" as is at lower points levels. As it says in the rules Apoc was designed to be played at over 300PL, so it stands to reason that they made the detachment requirements reflect that. This whole thread is about how to scale the game down.

At a lower points level, making large detachments is still viable, but the opposite is not true. Reducing the requirements by one, for example, would only allow for more tactical flexibility, theoretically.


You are welcome to whatever opinion you want to have. However, my 2 games with 3 armies is more experience then your none. So how about you try playing before you start coming up with ideas for how you think it might need to change? I am not even saying there wont be problems that crop up. Just that what you are saying right now is based on nothing with experience doing nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Drager wrote:
The coherency thing is weird as you are just going to end up with models like this, surely:

M*M*M*M*M*M*M*M
*M*************M*

Where Ms are models and *s are just empty space. Doesn't really stop daisy-chaining much.


If the unit has more than 5 models every model has to be within 1/2" of at least 2 other models.

You basically have to make them like the movement trays. Daisy-chaining works in double rows now.
It doesn't need to be double rows. In the example I posted, all models are within 1/2" of at least 2 other models with only 2 being behind the lines.

the_scotsman wrote:
Drager wrote:
The coherency thing is weird as you are just going to end up with models like this, surely:

M*M*M*M*M*M*M*M
*M*************M*

Where Ms are models and *s are just empty space. Doesn't really stop daisy-chaining much.


In my experience it really does. Remember that not only are you making the ends of squads blob up, you're cutting the total space between each model by 3/4. "proper formation" in apoc seems to be a zigzag column for melee units with the narrow end pointing toward the enemy, and a line as you've shown for screens. But a lot of your time you'll be working wiht min units for your chaff because that's how you get card draw, so having 2/10 of your cultists or whatever having to stand behind the line does actually reduce your screen capabilities a lot.

A single layer of guardsmen goes from covering approximately 28" of linear area in 40k to 11.5" in apocalypse.

Also, you create a tricky situation for your opponent when they're trying to screen against units with Fly. Lets say you have a theoretical unit of artillery you want to screen from some melee deep strikers/infiltrators.

You need to place your screen in such a location where they can't pass over/through them and touch your tanks. but you also want them in a different detachment so they can fall back while your tanks still aim fire. so they have to be B2B with the tanks forming their screen.

If your opponent drops down and gets B2B with them, then when its your activation you can't fall back with your screen (The tanks are in the way) and you can't move the tanks because they're aim firing. So the melee unit is guaranteed to be able to bop your tanks on its next turn.

You also have to be extremely complete in your screening which means blobbing up in "please artillery barrage card me" formation, because most flying deep strikers will be dropping 9" away and moving at least 24" with their assault move.

5 man jump pack assault marine squads are going to be serious PITAs for gunline armies in apoc. Give 'em a jump chaplain to help them reliably carve up chaff units, they're only 5PL apiece but they're just durable enough that you want to get two blasts on them to have any real assurance they'll stop being alive. You could even bring a jump librarian in there as a wildcard unit that could have some really powerful close range psychic powers. Your opponent does not want you to be holding Null Zone on the turn that guy jumps in and yeets himself right into the middle of your backline artillery.
Very good points. I think that makes 30 man conscript blobs a lot better as they have ~40" horizontal coverage, compared to the ~35" of 3 IS squads.


30 man blob with officer in a patrol is definitely the superior stand around and screen detachment IMO.

If you're taking infantry squads I think you want them with a heavy weapon in an Aimed Fire detachment. Though I think Heavy Weapons squads are strictly better for that purpose and, honestly, I do not know why you'd consider a Basilisk at all compared to a 3PL 3-mortar HWS. THAT'S a high quality warlord-bopper detachment. I do think there's a place for Wyverns led by a Master of Ordnance, but I'm super unimpressed by Basilisks (and the master of ordnance himself TBH, other than as a buffer who can also be warlord, he's glass cannony and he gets totally outperformed by a mortar HWS.)

Here's a Detachment O Doom i just came up with though. Set your army up to have the mega card draw engine and the double firing baneblades, and make sure you've got the Vortex Missile, "pick the number on any one dice" and "Rearm one-use weapons" card, and take a Master of Ordnance, a single Deathstrike, and the rest Manticores.

Every turn:

-Pick the number card for The Hour is Now on your deathstrike
-Vortex Missile
-Manticores fire all their rockets at once
-Use the rearm one-use weapons card.



Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 16:14:38


Post by: Drager


We realised earlier that the card draw engine caps at 10, so it's once every 3 turns you get the cards. The rearm one use means you get to fire 3/5 turns though (draw it or a tutor in your first 20 for T1 and T2 firing, skip T3, draw it or a tutor in T4 or worst case T5.) Still very interesting though. EDIT: I missed the followup. Engine does work.

I'm liking the look of a simple Drukharii setup for 64 PL, giving +3 card draw on top of whatever else is in your army and all the anti-infantry you can shake a stick at.

Battalion 48 PL
Archon
4x 5 Kabalites
5x Venom
Raider

Patrol 8PL
Archon
5 Kabalites
Sslyth

Patrol 8PL
Archon
5 Kabalites
Sslyth

That gives you 5 venoms with Kabalites in and all the Venoms are ObSec (although some of the Kabs inside aren't, plus a raider with all 3 Warlords in, 5 Kabalites and both Sslyth to protect the Warlords from exploding transport damage.

The Venoms are very fast (and the raider can just about keep up), particularly if they are Flayed Skull and can use the Double Your Move and Advance asset. On a turn with that asset, you can move 32", which has a good chance of getting you into the 12-18" sweet spot, even on Apocalypse scaled boards. If these 6 vehicles are all within 12" of infantry you average 9 blasts in one shooting phase without using any cards. At 18" you average 7.5 blasts. Even at 24" it's 4.7. On top of that, you can confidently split fire against light infantry as each of the 16 rapid firing splinter shots has a 48% chance to deliver a Blast, so splitting across 8 targets gives each target a 73% chance of taking a save and ~ 50% of having a large blast and no save. Against IS squads, and similar that's dynamite shooting.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 16:28:39


Post by: Peregrine


Drager wrote:
We realised earlier that the card draw engine caps at 10, so it's once every 3 turns you get the cards.


You realized incorrectly. You can draw an unlimited number of cards, you just have to discard down to 10 cards at the end of every phase. So if you have 30 draws per turn you would draw the entire deck, play any assets that can be used in the orders phase, and then discard down to your 10 best cards. Next turn you try to draw from an empty deck, shuffle everything back into a fresh deck, and draw all 30 cards again. As long as you don't lose too many draw sources and fail to draw the entire deck you're guaranteed to have 10 assets of your choice every turn (and even below 30 draws the chances of getting your key asset are extremely high).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote:
I do not know why you'd consider a Basilisk at all compared to a 3PL 3-mortar HWS.


Because range matters. The mortar squad is limited to 48", which can cover a surprisingly small amount of the table when you're trying to deploy as far back as possible for defensive reasons. The Basilisk can hit any unit in the entire room, and (potentially) gets the Armageddon double tap anywhere on the table and probably on some of the adjacent tables.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 17:02:40


Post by: the_scotsman


 Peregrine wrote:
Drager wrote:
We realised earlier that the card draw engine caps at 10, so it's once every 3 turns you get the cards.


You realized incorrectly. You can draw an unlimited number of cards, you just have to discard down to 10 cards at the end of every phase. So if you have 30 draws per turn you would draw the entire deck, play any assets that can be used in the orders phase, and then discard down to your 10 best cards. Next turn you try to draw from an empty deck, shuffle everything back into a fresh deck, and draw all 30 cards again. As long as you don't lose too many draw sources and fail to draw the entire deck you're guaranteed to have 10 assets of your choice every turn (and even below 30 draws the chances of getting your key asset are extremely high).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote:
I do not know why you'd consider a Basilisk at all compared to a 3PL 3-mortar HWS.


Because range matters. The mortar squad is limited to 48", which can cover a surprisingly small amount of the table when you're trying to deploy as far back as possible for defensive reasons. The Basilisk can hit any unit in the entire room, and (potentially) gets the Armageddon double tap anywhere on the table and probably on some of the adjacent tables.


48" is a small amount of the table is a fairly hot take when tables are 6' wide. I think I could probably manage to find targets within 48".

Also, the doubletap card only affects one detachment, and baneblade equivalents are just way, way more effective for their points with it than basilisks. 4 basilisks with the double tap and aimed fire hit 3.55 small blasts on a tank. 1 Banesword with 2 lascannons gets 9.88.

Plus, manticores are also a thing. Basilisks sound great, but I think I'd rather have 8x the shots and just reload the one-use weapons with the card that lets me do that.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 17:40:19


Post by: Ice_can


Still sounds like the best balance patch is to just limit maximum card draws to say 12 absolutely no more than 15 cards per turn to combat this shenanigans.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 17:41:46


Post by: Racerguy180


 Peregrine wrote:
Drager wrote:
We realised earlier that the card draw engine caps at 10, so it's once every 3 turns you get the cards.


You realized incorrectly. You can draw an unlimited number of cards, you just have to discard down to 10 cards at the end of every phase. So if you have 30 draws per turn you would draw the entire deck, play any assets that can be used in the orders phase, and then discard down to your 10 best cards. Next turn you try to draw from an empty deck, shuffle everything back into a fresh deck, and draw all 30 cards again. As long as you don't lose too many draw sources and fail to draw the entire deck you're guaranteed to have 10 assets of your choice every turn (and even below 30 draws the chances of getting your key asset are extremely high).


Oooo that sounds like a fun way to play... wait you play?

Why would anyone want to play against that type of army? if my opponent is going to run thru the entire deck/turn WTF is the point in playing unless you're equally douche`? It just devolves into whose the bigger bag.

I understand that for some the game is a math equation/beat stick, but how can ultimate list efficiency be achieved with an obviously terrible & inferior point system("that should be taken out back & shot")? I mean, there are hundreds of pages of certain people going on and on that PL isnt woth the paper it's printed on, etc...


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 17:48:00


Post by: Ice_can


Racerguy180 wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Drager wrote:
We realised earlier that the card draw engine caps at 10, so it's once every 3 turns you get the cards.


You realized incorrectly. You can draw an unlimited number of cards, you just have to discard down to 10 cards at the end of every phase. So if you have 30 draws per turn you would draw the entire deck, play any assets that can be used in the orders phase, and then discard down to your 10 best cards. Next turn you try to draw from an empty deck, shuffle everything back into a fresh deck, and draw all 30 cards again. As long as you don't lose too many draw sources and fail to draw the entire deck you're guaranteed to have 10 assets of your choice every turn (and even below 30 draws the chances of getting your key asset are extremely high).


Oooo that sounds like a fun way to play... wait you play?

Why would anyone want to play against that type of army? if my opponent is going to run thru the entire deck/turn WTF is the point in playing unless you're equally douche`? It just devolves into whose the bigger bag.

I understand that for some the game is a math equation/beat stick, but how can ultimate list efficiency be achieved with an obviously terrible & inferior point system("that should be taken out back & shot")? I mean, there are hundreds of pages of certain people going on and on that PL isnt woth the paper it's printed on, etc...

Power does make sence when your trying to play games at the equivalent of 2000 to 5000 or more points list building in points would be rather tedious, especially when your building an army out of blocks of 5 or 10 dude who get 1 statline for all of them.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 17:59:48


Post by: Peregrine


Oh look, right on schedule it's the same old whining and rule #1 violations about how people are "TFG" because they might make good strategic decisions in list construction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, PL is stupid in 40k where many units have options of significantly different strength. It's much less bad in a game where units have fewer options, most options are roughly equal in strength, and most of the obvious strongest options cost more points.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 18:21:14


Post by: Racerguy180


 Peregrine wrote:
Oh look, right on schedule it's the same old whining and rule #1 violations about how people are "TFG" because they might make good strategic decisions in list construction.

You only equate good with mathematically superior and if someone picks the "suboptimal" choice, they are obviously inferior.
I have never said the way you play is wrong for you, yet it's kinda obvious that anyone who is not "playing"(cuz you dont) your way is an imbicile.


Big question for you tho, Are you going to play a single game of it? If so, why dont you regale us with how the game goes.

and no rule #1 issues.




Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 18:33:02


Post by: the_scotsman


Racerguy180 wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Oh look, right on schedule it's the same old whining and rule #1 violations about how people are "TFG" because they might make good strategic decisions in list construction.

You only equate good with mathematically superior and if someone picks the "suboptimal" choice, they are obviously inferior.
I have never said the way you play is wrong for you, yet it's kinda obvious that anyone who is not "playing"(cuz you dont) your way is an imbicile.


Big question for you tho, Are you going to play a single game of it? If so, why dont you regale us with how the game goes.

and no rule #1 issues.




I mean, I know Perri is one of the biggest "Love to hate" people on the forums, but I gotta point out you jumped in right as we were discussing how he'd still take a mathematically inferior option (A basilisk) because of the higher range on its gun.

And I gotta say, stuff like the infinitely reloading manticore battery does seem a little tough to deal with, but having not played Apoc I don't know, for example, how much of an impact it would have on the overall performance of my list to spend 10% of my points on models whose ONLY function is making sure I get the cards I need every turn, versus just having about 10 cards per turn with a fairly standard list. Does that matter? I don't know.

Earlier in the thread, I noted how the only point of comparison I've so far pulled up against the Baneblades we've been chatting about, the Castellan knight, deals roughly 30% less damage than the baneblade does...when the baneblade is shooting twice, and the Knight is roughly 30% more durable.

The first apoc game I'll be playing is at 150pl per side. We're discussing roughly 300PL per side if you want to bring the crazy baneblade trick plus the full card draw.

I don't really know how much of an advantage it is because I don't know what another army would likely have at that points value.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/11 19:12:28


Post by: Peregrine


Racerguy180 wrote:
if my opponent is going to run thru the entire deck/turn WTF is the point in playing unless you're equally douche`? It just devolves into whose the bigger bag.


Yeah, definitely not a rule #1 violation there...


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/12 06:39:22


Post by: kadeton


Sounds to me like the easiest house-rule fix to the card draw engine is to just not re-shuffle the command decks when they run out.

If you design an army to blow through the whole deck on the first turn or two, too bad, no more cards for the rest of the game.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/12 08:15:19


Post by: Drager


 Peregrine wrote:
Drager wrote:
We realised earlier that the card draw engine caps at 10, so it's once every 3 turns you get the cards.


You realized incorrectly. You can draw an unlimited number of cards, you just have to discard down to 10 cards at the end of every phase. So if you have 30 draws per turn you would draw the entire deck, play any assets that can be used in the orders phase, and then discard down to your 10 best cards. Next turn you try to draw from an empty deck, shuffle everything back into a fresh deck, and draw all 30 cards again. As long as you don't lose too many draw sources and fail to draw the entire deck you're guaranteed to have 10 assets of your choice every turn (and even below 30 draws the chances of getting your key asset are extremely high)..
Yep, I even said as much at the end of the sentence you quoted. I edited it after I realised I was wrong. Maybe read the whole post next time? The edit was 10 minutes before your reply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:
Let me point out that i'm trying to be constructive here, we don't have a mathematical model to settle this, so discussing the method itself has a merit.

Remember that the -1 to wound does not apply to the whole detachment but only in a 6" bubble, and keeping the whole detachment under it with 0,5" coherency is not a given. It would be a big limitation on movement (and makes them a really juicy target for those effects that strike 6" from a point).
Sorry missed this, wasn't ignoring you! I am also trying to be constructive. I don't think characterising the Harlequins as squishy makes sense. I also don't think they are broken or unkillable. My point is that they are probably fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More on topic, played another game last night, Aeldari vs Dark Angels. This was 100 power a side.

Aeldari List:
Spoiler:

Battalion
Archon
3x 5 Kabalites
3x Venoms
Raider

Spearhead
Urien
3x Talos

Patrol
Autarch
10 Warlock Conclave on Bikes
5 Rangers

Patrol
Farseer
10 Guardians


Dark Angel Army
Spoiler:

Spearhead
Azrael
2 5 Man Devastator Squads with Missile Launchers
Land Raider

Vanguard
Belial
2x 5 Deathwing Knights
Company Ancient

Vanguard
Librarian
2x Terminators
(1 other character)


We played the basic Apocalyptic Assault mission on a 6x4 board deploying along the 4' edges. I'll describe the first turn.

Dark Angels (the attacker) won initiative and deep struck Belial's detachment in front of the Aeldari lines, aiming for a Raider containing the warmaster and a second warlord with one squad of terminators and the Conclave with the other.

Orders were issued and immediately at the start of the action phase the Conclave cast Guide to moving 16" and leave one unit of Deathwing knights with nothing in charge range.

The Dark Angels activated Belial's detachment and charged, putting 1 large blast and one small on the Raider. The other unit of Knights garrisoned a nearby building to hold an objective.

The Aeldari activated the big battalion, moving the vehicles out of combat and shooting at the Knights, putting 4 large blasts on them.

The Dark Angels then activated their Spearhead and put a large blast on a Talos and another on a Venom and a second Large Blast on the Raider. The Landraider also put a large Blast on Urien.

The Aeldari activated the Drukharii patrol, shooting from inside the raider and did nothing.

The Dark Angels activated their remaining Vanguard and made sure to be holding 2 objectives with the terminators as well as moving them into a good position for the following turn.

The Aeldari then activated the Asuryani patrols, shooting form the council and the Guardians putting 2 large blasts on Belial and one on the company ancient as well.

Lastly the Aeldari Spearhead activated and Assaulted the Deathwing Knights garrisoning the building, putting 5 Large blasts on them!

In the damage phase, the Deathwing Knight garrisoning the building died, but the ones in the open managed to live on one wound (Which would later be removed with medical Supplies). The raider had Telekine Dome cast on it and managed to stay alive on one wound. Both Belial and the Company ancient were killed and Urine failed his save, but passed Ignore Damage! Something he would do 3 times in the battle.

The whole game was very dynamic and fun, ending in an Aeldar victorry, but with so much interaction that play never stopped or even really paused.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/12 11:05:43


Post by: dms


Interesting reading people's opinions.

Personally I haven't even got the rules yet despite preordering (grrr) but my friends and I are really excited about trying Apoc at around 2k points initially.

We're all old men (40+) who don't play often, most of us don't even go to clubs anymore, and we're sick of the rules of 8th but we still love the 40k models/lore and so we've looked at other rule sets but we've not jumped ship.

We're hoping streamlined rules, less "clutter" and fiddly rules to worry about the whole time, alternating activation, every unit always getting "a go", and less dice rolling is just going to make the game more fun to play... and easier for old gits who have a lot of models and love the painting but get worked up by 8th rules.

The 8th Ed Alpha strike has just decided too many games for us for it to be any fun. RIP that element of the game in Apoc.

Sounds like it's working for some of you, hope that's what happens for us!


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/13 22:39:53


Post by: nomadimp


Just finished my first game of apocalypse at 100 PL per side. We played 2v1 marines/scions/inquisition vs death guard. The format actually accommodated this quite nicely as it was 2 50pl detachments vs 2 ~50pl detachments. Fittingly enough given the inquisition presence we rolled the exterminatus mission.

It was a bit of a mixed bag but overall quite enjoyable and I definitely prefer it over standard 40k just because it has better pacing. The mission we played in particular added extra cards per turn so cards definitely ended up playing a big role in both sides, but this didn’t really bother me at all. If anything the heavier influence of the cards made list building less consequential which I personally like.

Oddly enough units in general seem more resilient than in 40k. A tough unit is actually hard to kill no matter what you throw at it. I actually really liked the simplicity and abstraction of the terrain rules. I found the terrain to be much more impactful than in normal 40k.

This is definitely my go-to ‘grab some models and rolls some dice’ game right now. It totally works at 100pl if you’re looking to just have some fun.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/13 23:12:44


Post by: Lance845


One of the things i have come to realize is the changes you need to make for how you think about list building. You sort of need to think about detachments in the way you used to think about units.

The whole detachment is issued an order and acts together. So you want to make sure if anything deepstrikes that everything deepstrikes. If they want to be in melee then everything needs to be in melee.

Instead of filling out a detachment adding in a couple outlier units cause you have the slots, you want to build that detachment to be a cohesive strike force based around a particular job.

There is a little bit of wiggle room there but a lot of effective list building is going to be synergizing units to act together.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/14 08:09:34


Post by: Da-Rock


We played a 200 per side after originally planning on 100 per side.

Made all 5 rounds (we normally finish 2 in regular 40k).

Unless you're an @sshat, you will draw a normal level of cards per turn and enjoy it tremendously. In the 5 rounds I did get through all 30 cards and reshuffled them in, (but it was turn 4 when I did).

A total of 4 Superheavies were involved and the win came down to the objectives.

Absolute blast and literally the first time I finished a GW game since 2006.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/14 10:33:43


Post by: jamshaman


 Lance845 wrote:
jamshaman wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
2 nids tau and orks. 150 pl. 125ish is roughly equivalent to 2k points. 4-5 non specialist detachments in each army.

There is also a way to read things with out making others sound like a douche. Start by assuming nobody is posting with ill will. Then a statement is just a statement, free of snark.


That's not a big enough sample size to make such a definitive statement as you did, not to mention the fact that even had you played 100 games, you have no credentials that we know of that make you the end all be all of game testers. To bring this back on topic, I think this is WAY too early to tell if the "Detachments are fine" as is at lower points levels. As it says in the rules Apoc was designed to be played at over 300PL, so it stands to reason that they made the detachment requirements reflect that. This whole thread is about how to scale the game down.

At a lower points level, making large detachments is still viable, but the opposite is not true. Reducing the requirements by one, for example, would only allow for more tactical flexibility, theoretically.


You are welcome to whatever opinion you want to have. However, my 2 games with 3 armies is more experience then your none. So how about you try playing before you start coming up with ideas for how you think it might need to change? I am not even saying there wont be problems that crop up. Just that what you are saying right now is based on nothing with experience doing nothing.


The difference is that I'm just asking questions instead of making absolute statements based on 2 games. TWO GAMES! lol - Admit you were being arrogant, apologize, and move on sir, you'll be ok, I promise...

Having said that, we're actually kind of agreeing with each other, yes problems will crop up. Right now, having played 2 games myself, the biggest priority would be to errata the Data Sheets, there are some glaring mistakes.





Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/14 12:31:50


Post by: bonds0097


 Da-Rock wrote:
We played a 200 per side after originally planning on 100 per side.

Made all 5 rounds (we normally finish 2 in regular 40k).

Unless you're an @sshat, you will draw a normal level of cards per turn and enjoy it tremendously. In the 5 rounds I did get through all 30 cards and reshuffled them in, (but it was turn 4 when I did).

A total of 4 Superheavies were involved and the win came down to the objectives.

Absolute blast and literally the first time I finished a GW game since 2006.


Just did my first game as well, 200 per side (will do 100 per side next time just to take things a bit slower and dig into some of the mechanics better). It was a real blast, enjoyed it way more than 40K!


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/14 14:57:30


Post by: Blood Hawk


I don't think people trying to draw 30+ cards a turn will be a big issue to be honest. The cheapest way you could pull this off is with AM with 15 vanguard detachments with 3 astropaths and a commander. That is only 5pp per detachment, for a total of 75 pp.

However a few things:

A) The vast majority of the cards are either played in response to your opponent doing something, only played during the action phase, or only played during the damage phase. Yes some of the cards can be played during the order phase but they are rare. Vast majority of those cards you draw will be discarded before you can use them anyway.


B) Astropaths or any cheap units/characters people can use to spamn out detachments to get more cards are awful at doing any damage at all. Astropaths have WS5+ and Damage 11+. Having a single pistol doesn't seem to reach the minimum threshold for a unit to have a range profile. Astropaths have a 5.6 percent change of doing a blast marker in melee, and the commanders you are spamming out to get all those cards aren't much better at around 17 percent (I rounded up).


You can spam cheap units to get a lot of cards but that may end up being more of a handicap than a boon.

Edit: I just remembered that you don't have to take HQs with apoc so instead of you could field 15 detachments of 2 astropaths and one platoon commander for a total of 60pp. Though to be honest I think 60pp of baneblades would be better. You can get 3 forgeworld stormblades for that cost.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/14 16:28:08


Post by: Dysartes


jamshaman wrote:
Having said that, we're actually kind of agreeing with each other, yes problems will crop up. Right now, having played 2 games myself, the biggest priority would be to errata the Data Sheets, there are some glaring mistakes.

What do you think are the glaring mistakes on the datasheets?


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/14 16:37:03


Post by: Blndmage


Have anyone tried sub 100PL games? Like 75 or 50PL per side?


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/14 17:10:05


Post by: Da-Rock


 Blndmage wrote:
Have anyone tried sub 100PL games? Like 75 or 50PL per side?


I can say one thing about the lower points games......

Things die a lot faster the smaller points you play. I had things live longer than I expected, but it really came down to the fact that my opponent had so many other things to take care of that it lived that long. In a small game, anything powerful will get the opponents full attention right away.

If I had a 100 Power Level game with a Baneblade, I can almost guarantee it would get its first round attacks and be dead at the end of round one, (although I can almost guarantee that the Baneblade will take whatever killed it to the grave at the same time!)

Shooting is at a higher premium in Apoc, but I can't tell you how nice it was to have a detachment of Lucius Pattern Drop Pods with Dreads hold a Knight detachment within a 12" area for most of the game.

The slowest part to our game was the fact we didn't have the datasheets memorized like we do for 40k......so lots of stopping to look up stuff, (this will go away quickly).


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/14 19:03:51


Post by: Lance845


Dysartes wrote:
jamshaman wrote:
Having said that, we're actually kind of agreeing with each other, yes problems will crop up. Right now, having played 2 games myself, the biggest priority would be to errata the Data Sheets, there are some glaring mistakes.

What do you think are the glaring mistakes on the datasheets?


There are rules oddities that have been noted by some.

Orks gain leadership the bigger the unit (like Boyz) which can have the Boyz have a higher Ld then their characters making it technically impossible to make a character the detachments warlord and thus impossible to draw cards.

Questor Traitoris units have trouble with their keywords.

None of it is major issues that can't be solved with the general house ruling for obvious answers that every GW game has. None of it is anything that has super ambiguous answers that people will spend pages arguing over. So far at least...

Blndmage wrote:Have anyone tried sub 100PL games? Like 75 or 50PL per side?


I have not tried yet.

I see 2 "problems".

1) At those small levels you have 1 MAYBE 2 detachments which gets rid of a lot of the dynamic of issuing orders and the effects of a lot of the cards. You could of course get rid of the rules where a detachment has to stay within 12" of their warlord and issue orders on a unit by unit basis and that might make it work. But it's hard to tell and things start getting wonky (a lot of the cards interactions for example). It's not something I actually have interest in doing. I think 100 is as low as I will ever go.

2) there is both a heavy mechanical incentive to build tight detachments with as few units as possible (MSD ?) with synergy amongst the units and a unified purpose on the battlefield but also to build up the individual units as big as possible because they get more attacks and wounds and will stick around a lot longer. At that low of a PL you both can't bring the detachments AND the units can't be built up that big which means things die a lot faster and you have less things to loose.

I just don't think it will work that well or be that fun sub 100 PL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
jamshaman wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
jamshaman wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
2 nids tau and orks. 150 pl. 125ish is roughly equivalent to 2k points. 4-5 non specialist detachments in each army.

There is also a way to read things with out making others sound like a douche. Start by assuming nobody is posting with ill will. Then a statement is just a statement, free of snark.


That's not a big enough sample size to make such a definitive statement as you did, not to mention the fact that even had you played 100 games, you have no credentials that we know of that make you the end all be all of game testers. To bring this back on topic, I think this is WAY too early to tell if the "Detachments are fine" as is at lower points levels. As it says in the rules Apoc was designed to be played at over 300PL, so it stands to reason that they made the detachment requirements reflect that. This whole thread is about how to scale the game down.

At a lower points level, making large detachments is still viable, but the opposite is not true. Reducing the requirements by one, for example, would only allow for more tactical flexibility, theoretically.


You are welcome to whatever opinion you want to have. However, my 2 games with 3 armies is more experience then your none. So how about you try playing before you start coming up with ideas for how you think it might need to change? I am not even saying there wont be problems that crop up. Just that what you are saying right now is based on nothing with experience doing nothing.


The difference is that I'm just asking questions instead of making absolute statements based on 2 games. TWO GAMES! lol - Admit you were being arrogant, apologize, and move on sir, you'll be ok, I promise...

Having said that, we're actually kind of agreeing with each other, yes problems will crop up. Right now, having played 2 games myself, the biggest priority would be to errata the Data Sheets, there are some glaring mistakes.





Again, don't assume ill will. There is no arrogance. You suggested that at 100-150PL the detachment requirements should be reduced. I said, from experience, it is not needed. Thats not a statement to start a fight or put you down or make you feel bad. Just read the individual words and take them for their base line meaning. Stop being so sensitive about being disagreed with. So you played? What does anyone who has played think? Should detachment requirements be reduced to make 100-150 PL games functional or does it just work right now?


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/14 19:31:23


Post by: Blndmage


Would reducing the Detachment requirements when playing sub 100PL games make taking more detachments viable?


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 00:53:29


Post by: Lance845


 Blndmage wrote:
Would reducing the Detachment requirements when playing sub 100PL games make taking more detachments viable?


Maybe? The requirements are already so low.

To take a primary detachment only requires 3 units of a single type (troops, heavy, fast, elite)

A patrol only requires 1 troop and you can take 3 patrols for every 1 primary.

As was argued some armys can fill out a patrol with a hq to draw cards for 5pl.

Adeptus custodes (one of the most expensive per unit armies if not the most) is 7pl for their troops. 6 pl for an elite. So 18 pl for a primary + 7 pl for each patrol and then fill out the rest as need be. How low do you want to get the pl before your just playing kill team?


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 01:00:02


Post by: Blndmage


 Lance845 wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
Would reducing the Detachment requirements when playing sub 100PL games make taking more detachments viable?


Maybe? The requirements are already so low.

To take a primary detachment only requires 3 units of a single type (troops, heavy, fast, elite)

A patrol only requires 1 troop and you can take 3 patrols for every 1 primary.

As was argued some armys can fill out a patrol with a hq to draw cards for 5pl.

Adeptus custodes (one of the most expensive per unit armies if not the most) is 7pl for their troops. 6 pl for an elite. So 18 pl for a primary + 7 pl for each patrol and then fill out the rest as need be. How low do you want to get the pl before your just playing kill team?


With those requirements, even my Necrons (who always seem boned by costs) can make a few detachments at low PL,

Due to safety issues within my local 50k community, I'm stuck running solo stuff at home, it's fun, I'm beuinging a cool story from it, but using 50k rules for even as small as 25PL games takes so much dice rolling and time (we have a long couch, and I run battle end to end, loads of terrain) that's it's really hard to be through.

I'm really hoping that it'll only take a few basic tweaks ru run Apoc at this level. I run, Necrons, Kroot, Nids, and Grots.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 01:03:26


Post by: Lance845


Nids have troops that at base cost 2 pl. 7 pl for 30 hormagaunts. So 21 pl + 9 for a hive tyrant = 30 pl primary detachment that draws 2 cards.

At min sized 10 model units its 15pl.

Cheap.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 02:43:36


Post by: the_scotsman


Ran a game at 150PL each using the base rules today, Orks vs Guard, and I was pretty pleased with the results. I got to see a few of the cards I was worried about in action (Gunners, Kill on Sight for three quad-firing leman russes and Industrial efficiency on a Baneblade variant within 18" of my units) and honestly, those were less impactful it felt like than any of the defensive cards that got used on either side. The Baneblade got saved from certain death by Psychic Barrier and I managed to weasel two 30-blobs of orks out of dying using Grot Shields and an amazing Armor of Contempt that stopped 4 big blasts.

End of turn 5 the orks won 5-3, we rolled "double objectives" on the twist table and played a mixture of progressive scoring and score at the end objectives, so the fact that my army was toddling across the middle of the board proved to be a big advantage, though he stole the progressive point away in 2 rounds using a Scout Sentinel and a 5-man squad of Scions.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 04:08:33


Post by: jamshaman


 Lance845 wrote:

Again, don't assume ill will. There is no arrogance. You suggested that at 100-150PL the detachment requirements should be reduced. I said, from experience, it is not needed. Thats not a statement to start a fight or put you down or make you feel bad. Just read the individual words and take them for their base line meaning. Stop being so sensitive about being disagreed with. So you played? What does anyone who has played think? Should detachment requirements be reduced to make 100-150 PL games functional or does it just work right now?


Nice try bud, but that's not what you said, you said "Unneeded. Ive already played it. The detachment requirments are fine." You can try and talk your way around it until eternity, but your statement was arrogant and smacks of narcissism, which you may never understand by definition.

But hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, either way you might want to watch your phrasing so you don't sound like Jeff Albertson.

Anyways back on topic, at 100PL, you're forced to make awkward detachments where some units may not benefit from an given order, and/or you wind up slapping a unit on to a detachment simply because it has nowhere else to go.. I don't know exactly what the right tweak is, but I'd love to hear anyone's experience trying reduced detachment requirements, for example a Battalion would need 2 troops units minimum instead of 3, etc...


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 04:33:49


Post by: Lance845


That has not been my experience. Today i did 90 pl vs space wolves. 3 detachments.

Patrol, swarmlord, venomthropes, 2 hormagaunts, tyrant guard.

Patrol, nid prime. Neurothrope, 2 warrior broods

Fa primary, red terror 2 raveners.

Each detachment was geared for its specific job.

Deep strike strike team, gun battery, melee wall.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 04:43:49


Post by: Peregrine


Yeah, I'm not really sure why you'd have awkward detachments when the requirements to make a new detachment are so low.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 04:56:25


Post by: Lance845


Why don't you post some of your lists so we can see what you are doing and maybe we can help you work out the kinks?


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 07:36:01


Post by: stonehorse


Seems to be the verdict is the game works at 100PL with a minr tweek of using a 6'x4' table and deploying on the 4' edge.

I'll no doubt end up picking up a copy come pay day.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 08:15:16


Post by: Ice_can


If anything the requirements of the detachments seem fine for low power levels and their is probably only a requirement to set a maximum number of detachments for competitive play to stop the who min maxing of card drawing.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 10:13:11


Post by: Spoletta


Ice_can wrote:
If anything the requirements of the detachments seem fine for low power levels and their is probably only a requirement to set a maximum number of detachments for competitive play to stop the who min maxing of card drawing.


This has yet to be proved as a real problem.
Right now it's just a guess, there is no real data.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 10:41:14


Post by: Ice_can


Spoletta wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
If anything the requirements of the detachments seem fine for low power levels and their is probably only a requirement to set a maximum number of detachments for competitive play to stop the who min maxing of card drawing.


This has yet to be proved as a real problem.
Right now it's just a guess, there is no real data.

It's not conclusively proven yet, but this sounds far too much like Guard CP farming in 40k which resulted in nerfs that screwed every other faction worse and made 8th edition the nothing but soup edition.
I'd rather see it sacked off prematurely and eased upon at a later date than see everyone else be reduced to having to take a mandatory IG Card Farm just like the 40k CP farm's.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 15:25:07


Post by: the_scotsman


Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
If anything the requirements of the detachments seem fine for low power levels and their is probably only a requirement to set a maximum number of detachments for competitive play to stop the who min maxing of card drawing.


This has yet to be proved as a real problem.
Right now it's just a guess, there is no real data.

It's not conclusively proven yet, but this sounds far too much like Guard CP farming in 40k which resulted in nerfs that screwed every other faction worse and made 8th edition the nothing but soup edition.
I'd rather see it sacked off prematurely and eased upon at a later date than see everyone else be reduced to having to take a mandatory IG Card Farm just like the 40k CP farm's.


So, because it was something I was heavily curious about, I was extremely careful to keep track of the card use and effects in the game I played yesterday, as well as how many cards were drawn by each side.

At 150PL per side, I had the following:

-1 Supreme Command with my Warboss, Waaagh nob, and 1 weirdboy
-1 Battalion with 90 boyz and 10 gretchin (not drawing cards)
-1 Outrider with wartrike, 3x3 warbikes and 3 different buggies
-1 Spearhead with 9 killa kanz and 4x1 Deff Dreads
-1 Patrol with a KFF big mek and 10x gretchins
-1 Vanguard with Badrukk and flash gits in a battlewagon

So my card draw was 5 total.

My opponent took the following (I had noticed the LD-discrepancy the day before and had shuffled my HQs over to the patrol and Supreme Command, but since my opponent didn't notice the rule, we allowed the Vanguard to draw as if the Platoon Command could be the Warlord)

-Spearhead with 2x tank commanders, 1x battle tank, 1x Techpriest, 1x Malcador Defender and 1x Wyvern
-Vanguard with Platoon Commander, Priest and Bullgryns in a chimera+1 Hellhound
-Battalion with 3x infantry squads, company commander
-patrol with 5x scions+prime
-SH aux with Bane..something. The one with the quake cannon that halves your movement.

Total card draw of 8, assuming all commanders on the board and out of transports (Officer rule doesn't work from inside transports but you still draw one card)

Turn 1, all my warlords were on the board, and my opponent had one in Reserves (the rules list an exception for Transported warlords but Reserved warlords do not generate cards) and one in a transport (invalidating its Officer rule) so he and I both drew 5 cards.

I used the generic orbital bombardment card which would eventually cause 1 damage to two separate infantry squads. it dealt a total of 4 blasts.
I used "Da Jump" to teleport 30 boyz next to the Baneblade, since they would not be removed due to out of command until the end of the next turn.

My opponent used "Volley Fire" on his infantry battalion to give them a free extra shot against my jumped Boyz with 2 infantry squads in rapid fire. this generated 2 additional blasts.
My opponent also used the generic order-switching card to change his Vanguard from a double-move order to a move and fire order, allowing the Hellhound and Chimera to attack the jumped boyz.

Turn 2, my opponent had his platoon commander out so he drew 6. I drew 4 because my warboss had been sniped out in an unsurprising turn of events, +1 psychic power card from my Weirdboy's ability.

I used Grot Shields to deny a kill on a 30 boyz squad, instead losing the Gretchins squad and leaving the Boyz with 2 wounds remaining.
I used Telekine Dome to deny 4 big blasts of damage on another 30 boyz squad, leaving them with 4 wounds remaining.
I used Divine Intervention to change my Big Mek's save roll from a 3 to a 6, saving him from the 1 large blast that was on him.
I used the generic card to grant an advancing detachment reroll 1s to hit on my Boyz, which didn't do much but a couple blasts on the Baneblade from the jumped boyz.
I used the generic card to grant reroll 1s to hit on an aimed fire order on my Flash Gitz detachment, blowing up the Malcador, the Command Tank, and hurting the baneblade.

My opponent used Gunners, Kill on Sight for extra shots out of his tanks, I didn't keep track of exactly what died from that but he stacked a bunch of the damage on my Boyz up from that card and his Vanquisher was able to guarantee the kill on my Snazzwagon.
He also used Industrial Efficiency on his Baneblade, hitting my walkers with extra lascannons and killa kanz with the quake cannon. The extra shots did a total of 4 extra blasts (KFF stopped a couple)
My opponent used Minefields on my advancing walkers, which did a small blast to two deff dreads, who both ended up saving it.

Turn 3, I drew 4 and my opponent drew 7, discarding down to 10.

I used Da Krunch to put 3 blasts on the Scion Officer
I used Reinforcements to bring back the Boomdakka Snazzwagon to attack the Scions who had dropped in backfield to attack an objective.

My opponent used Laserburn and Rolling Bombardment on my walkers, dealing out 2 blasts and 3 blasts.
My opponent used Voxnet Subverted to prevent an Advance order on the Flash Gitz detachment, preventing them from shooting effectively.
my opponent used First Rank Fire on his infantry to finish off my damaged ork boyz.

Turn 4, I drew 1 and my opponent drew 3, because all Warlords except one company commander decided today was a good day to die.

I used the card that allowed me to reroll all wounds against a superheavy, dealing an enormous number of additional blasts. At least 5.

My opponent used Psychic Barrier, which prevented 2 large blasts, leaving the baneblade alive with 2 wounds remaining.
My opponent also used Seize the Initiative to act first with his remaining tanks, allowing them to fire before being engaged on by Deff Dreads.

Turn 5 we both drew 1.

I used armor of contempt to fail to block 2 big blasts on my last undamaged deff dread. It still died.
I used Insane Bravery to pass a morale test and save my killa kanz from death.

My opponent used Orbital Strike on 3 units, it did not do damage.

So, big flurry of card activity turn 2 and turn 3, with defensive cards averaging much more impactful than offensive cards overall due to how the blast system works (Denying a large blast is effectively dealing 2 blasts of damage).

At end of game, my opponent had a techpriest, a company commander, an infantry squad, a wyvern, one non-commander russ, and the baneblade with 2 wounds. I had 30 boyz with 4 wounds, 6 killa kanz with 5 wounds, 2 deff dreads with a wound each, 1 unit of flash gitz, 1 unit of gretchins with 1 wound, a waagh banner, two weirdboyz, a squigbuggy, and a boomdakka snazzwagon.

Basically, far less deadly than any game of 8th I've played.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 16:16:59


Post by: Da-Rock


That was similar to our fight which was Astral Claws vs Chaos Knights that I spoke about above......

I can't remember the name of the psychic card, but it was the one where you pick 3 detachments and change their orders.

He played it and I denied the Witch, (barely rolled a friggin 2!). I then played mine and he Denied the Witch! lol

To be honest, the mass card draw BS that some are having a Conniption fit over really only would be a big issue if one player was doing it and the other had only 2 or 3 card draw per turn. Again, only the @sshats of the world will build lists like that.



Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 16:40:10


Post by: the_scotsman


 Da-Rock wrote:
That was similar to our fight which was Astral Claws vs Chaos Knights that I spoke about above......

I can't remember the name of the psychic card, but it was the one where you pick 3 detachments and change their orders.

He played it and I denied the Witch, (barely rolled a friggin 2!). I then played mine and he Denied the Witch! lol

To be honest, the mass card draw BS that some are having a Conniption fit over really only would be a big issue if one player was doing it and the other had only 2 or 3 card draw per turn. Again, only the @sshats of the world will build lists like that.



I don't even know if it'd be a huge issue, tbh. Characters die RIDICULOUSLY fast. One single blast is all that's required to take out the IG commanders everyone is positing as the end of balance as we know it, which even if you played on a magical terrain-filled wonderland board such that they could all be hidden out of LOS happens the second someone throws around a few direct-damage cards or fires a barrage weapon.

My experience looking at the game as it played out was:

1) Bigger (units) is better
2) Deep strike/infiltrate is amazing
3) transports in general are super worthwhile for actually keeping detachments (and by extension card draw) alive and kicking.

That doesn't lead me at least to envision a meta where I'm spending 30PL on Company Commanders to try and draw up the whole deck just to get the exact set of 10 cards I want top of turn 1.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 16:41:01


Post by: LunarSol


 Lance845 wrote:

2) there is both a heavy mechanical incentive to build tight detachments with as few units as possible (MSD ?) with synergy amongst the units and a unified purpose on the battlefield but also to build up the individual units as big as possible because they get more attacks and wounds and will stick around a lot longer.


I get the low PL problem, but man that description makes me excited to play Apoc.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 17:02:09


Post by: the_scotsman


 LunarSol wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:

2) there is both a heavy mechanical incentive to build tight detachments with as few units as possible (MSD ?) with synergy amongst the units and a unified purpose on the battlefield but also to build up the individual units as big as possible because they get more attacks and wounds and will stick around a lot longer.


I get the low PL problem, but man that description makes me excited to play Apoc.


I did find that the primary "Feels bad" moments of standard 40k were pretty much absent. My biggest complaints would be the fact that Psykers are so vital for your having a good deck, but they universally have the Character Problem (see below) and that you sometimes just don't get the cards for the powers you put in. My two weirdboyz got to cast two powers all game (Admittedly both were pretty effective, but still)

The biggest thing is that there is just no way for your light characters to not bite it super fast relative to the rest of your army. I STACKED my deck with protection cards because I was running mostly footslogging orks that I knew would be eating tons of fire, and still most characters just bit the dust unless they weren't accomplishing much anyway.

Some of that was luck (Kaptin Badrukk for example got his wagon blown up, disembarked to a building and got randomly bopped by a single small blast from a direct damage card) but it also just seems like with nearly everyone at 1W, and the "big blast is almost assuredly going to do a wound" thing, characters feel super wimpy.

At some level, I'm ok with that, at least it's a bit of a relief after the herohammer of 8th edition and seeing 100pt captains smash knights in one go, but it does feel like a classic GW move swinging the pendulum super hard in the opposite direction.

A -2 to hit base instead of -1 would have put them in a pretty good spot. Or at the very least give them an additional -1, so that they can also benefit from cover and become -2.



Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 17:17:35


Post by: Ice_can


 Da-Rock wrote:
That was similar to our fight which was Astral Claws vs Chaos Knights that I spoke about above......

I can't remember the name of the psychic card, but it was the one where you pick 3 detachments and change their orders.

He played it and I denied the Witch, (barely rolled a friggin 2!). I then played mine and he Denied the Witch! lol

To be honest, the mass card draw BS that some are having a Conniption fit over really only would be a big issue if one player was doing it and the other had only 2 or 3 card draw per turn. Again, only the @sshats of the world will build lists like that.


Except both of those lists are within the bounds of the sort of limitations I am talking about of limiting people to say a max of 5-7detachments or a maximum draw of 10 cards per turn or such so that it doesn't matter if someone wants to cheese it out with a 20 card draw list they arn't gaining from it.

I get that the defensive strategums seem more powerful than the offensive ones but that still says someone being able to recycle the deck enough to be able to play them 4 turns out of 6 (20 cards per turn isn't going to be good for balance.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 17:21:46


Post by: nomadimp


Another point for people worried about taking a ton of min size detachments to generate card draw is that some of the missions in Apoc will heavily punish that kind of skew. The night march mission specifically, you'll run out of places to deploy all your tiny detachments (each gets their own deployment zone on a board edge) and the rest will have to deploy in reserve, where they won't be generating cards. Likewise, I'm pretty sure the Exterminatus mission forces you to re-organize your army into 2 detatchments of roughly equal PL, so you can't do any detatchment shenanigans there either.

The missions seem to penalize various types of skew and encourage bringing a well-rounded force if you're going to randomly determine which mission you play.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 18:27:26


Post by: LunarSol


Characters don't seem to do much for their points beyond generate cards, and are pretty easy to kill. Seems, okay? I don't have the rules, just kind of following to get an idea of how things shake out.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 19:56:30


Post by: Racerguy180


nomadimp wrote:
Another point for people worried about taking a ton of min size detachments to generate card draw is that some of the missions in Apoc will heavily punish that kind of skew. The night march mission specifically, you'll run out of places to deploy all your tiny detachments (each gets their own deployment zone on a board edge) and the rest will have to deploy in reserve, where they won't be generating cards. Likewise, I'm pretty sure the Exterminatus mission forces you to re-organize your army into 2 detatchments of roughly equal PL, so you can't do any detatchment shenanigans there either.

The missions seem to penalize various types of skew and encourage bringing a well-rounded force if you're going to randomly determine which mission you play.


I hope they really limit the number to cards you can draw.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 20:08:46


Post by: Da-Rock


Characters:

Yes, many characters do not match their cost and die to an accidental Orbital Strike......having said that, in Apoc, getting as many blast markers you can on a target is vital. Abilities like rerolling hits and wounds is huge.

In my last game I rolled the Warmaster trait of extending my aura 6". My opponent and I both agreed that was an incredible trait to conbine with Lugft Huron's reroll hits ability while he was within 12" of two detachments. (He hid behind some crates and was out of LOS. My opponent had Wall of Martyrs, but never did target Huron).

Captains and Lieutenants are vital for their rerolls

Librarians are vital for asset cards

Ancients are vital for Leadership passing (bigger deal than we expected and they are characters for generating cards)

Astra Mil Commanders have draw card abilities which is solid. I like Commissar Yarrick as he has leadership ability and rerolls of 1


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 20:12:38


Post by: Lance845


Character can die very quickly and sometimes they are just unkillable. My swarmlord only has 2w and a 5+ save (actually really great as far as characters go) but hes heavy so no obscured bonus.

Between defensive cards including a nid regeneration card, tyrant guard taking blasts off him, and adrenal glands helping to throw him and his detachment into melee asap he survived the entire game ending at full health.

I think its less that characters are hyper vulnerable and more that people need to rethink how best to position and use them.


Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games? @ 2019/07/15 20:15:50


Post by: Da-Rock


 Lance845 wrote:
Character can die very quickly and sometimes they are just unkillable. My swarmlord only has 2w and a 5+ save (actually really great as far as characters go) but hes heavy so no obscured bonus.

Between defensive cards including a nid regeneration card, tyrant guard taking blasts off him, and adrenal glands helping to throw him and his detachment into melee asap he survived the entire game ending at full health.

I think its less that characters are hyper vulnerable and more that people need to rethink how best to position and use them.


I agree and when you have one or two Super Heavies stomping down at you, turning some vital weapons towards such an easy model to kill is a hard choice in itself. I found that a lot of my stuff survived longer than they should have because other big targets were often "Over hit".