Switch Theme:

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

Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/07 14:54:36


Post by: Zond


Tried Apocalypse today for the first time and it's easily my favourite GW system alongside LotR. Plays very cleanly. It can be a tad swingy but the cards add an extra level of flavour and strategy I miss in regular 40k.

I was wondering if anyone had any experience and was aware of any balance issues/overpowered/underpowered units, armies or cards to avoid any potential issues.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/07 15:07:00


Post by: Lance845


It's going to take awhile to figure those things out.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/07 15:14:37


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


 Lance845 wrote:
It's going to take awhile to figure those things out.


Sure, if you are one of those people that reads the rules, plays a few games and checks other peoples experience for confirmation.

This is Dakka Dakka where we have players are so good they can find the flaws from a few blurry pics of the rule book and a few teasers. I am sure they will be along shortly to point out flaws without even seeing all the rules. Let alone actually playing a few games.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/07 15:15:40


Post by: locarno24


I would assume much the same as in 40k.
You don't have command point spam, but you do have similar issues;

A big knight detachment (to give maximum punch to 'every unit in a detachment' type cards) and several minimum sized guard battalions with officers leading them (to give you the rate-of-card-draw to reliably get the asset cards you need) means that something not a million miles from loyal 32 + knights is still likely to be a thing.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/07 15:48:22


Post by: Peregrine


IMO the balance issue is the card system itself. Just looking at IG cards there are a couple different ones that effectively say "your whole detachment shoots twice", and it's complete RNG whether you get them. If you want balance you're probably better off removing the card mechanic entirely.

Needless to say there are also tons of unit balance issues where GW doesn't seem to understand how basic math works. For example, a LRBT's battle cannon is one shot at 6+/6+ with 72" range. A LR Executioner's plasma cannon is one shot at 7+/7+ with 72" range, or you can overload and risk killing your own unit to make it 6+/6+. IOW, for the same price as the LR Executioner you can have a LRBT that has the same firepower with double the range and no risk of damaging your own unit. But are these catastrophic issues? Probably not, as long as you don't insist on WYSIWYG. Everyone will just use the best option and ignore the redundant ones, and most of the IG balance issues seem to be cases where the best option is reasonable and the issue is that the bad options are unplayable.


 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
It's going to take awhile to figure those things out.


Sure, if you are one of those people that reads the rules, plays a few games and checks other peoples experience for confirmation.

This is Dakka Dakka where we have players are so good they can find the flaws from a few blurry pics of the rule book and a few teasers. I am sure they will be along shortly to point out flaws without even seeing all the rules. Let alone actually playing a few games.


You know the game is out, right? And that some of us have all of the rules right here, no blurry pictures needed?


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/07 15:49:05


Post by: Spreelock


Hey, I have read through the cards and most of the rules, seems so far that everything is well balanced. The only thing that needs some careful planning is the command radius, units seem very vulnerable once out of 12" from commander.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/07 15:51:16


Post by: ZebioLizard2


 Peregrine wrote:
 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
It's going to take awhile to figure those things out.


Sure, if you are one of those people that reads the rules, plays a few games and checks other peoples experience for confirmation.

This is Dakka Dakka where we have players are so good they can find the flaws from a few blurry pics of the rule book and a few teasers. I am sure they will be along shortly to point out flaws without even seeing all the rules. Let alone actually playing a few games.


You know the game is out, right? And that some of us have all of the rules right here, no blurry pictures needed?
He's being sarcastic about some of the posters on Dakkadakka who seem to have all the answers on whats trash or not even after a five minute glance, not being literal about the rules.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/07 15:57:42


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


Peregrine wrote:
 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
It's going to take awhile to figure those things out.


Sure, if you are one of those people that reads the rules, plays a few games and checks other peoples experience for confirmation.

This is Dakka Dakka where we have players are so good they can find the flaws from a few blurry pics of the rule book and a few teasers. I am sure they will be along shortly to point out flaws without even seeing all the rules. Let alone actually playing a few games.


You know the game is out, right? And that some of us have all of the rules right here, no blurry pictures needed?


I am aware.

ZebioLizard2 wrote: He's being sarcastic about some of the posters on Dakkadakka who seem to have all the answers on whats trash or not even after a five minute glance, not being literal about the rules.


Thank you.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/07 17:09:07


Post by: Xenomancers


My first game was a crap fest.

The cards are way unbalanced. Like...You shouldn't be high when you write rules.

"Go to ground" is the most busted card. Double the dice rolls for your saves for an infantry unit. When played on Terminators. You basically are getting a 2+ invulnerable save.

I could go on and on about stupid stuff that I saw but that would be a waste of time. You could honestly have a lot of fun in the game if you just removed the cards all together but with cards included the game is pretty terrible.




Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/07 17:55:23


Post by: Lance845


Its mostly a one time use card. Go to ground doesnt even impact an entire detachment. Its just one unit.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/07 19:59:40


Post by: puree


The smallest recommended game would have a unit of terminators being a pretty tiny part of your force.

Being able to go to ground probably once in the game for just 1 turn, if you have that card at that point is hardly game breaking in the slightest.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 00:02:59


Post by: Xenomancers


 Lance845 wrote:
Its mostly a one time use card. Go to ground doesnt even impact an entire detachment. Its just one unit.

The lethality of the game is quite low compared to 40k. Played 400 PL vs 400 PL and I was only able to get major damage on 4 total units. One was a large unit on terminators directly in front of my lines. It had 10 large blasts on it. Without a huge amount of luck with 4+ saves and an automatic wound from morale. They should be dead. They have to be dead or I lose the game because I cant get out of my deployment zone. It was basically the firepower of 2 entire detachments that put those wounds there. It most certainly affected more than one detachment. You realize by defending this card you are defending a 2++ save right? Because that's what it can do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
puree wrote:
The smallest recommended game would have a unit of terminators being a pretty tiny part of your force.

Being able to go to ground probably once in the game for just 1 turn, if you have that card at that point is hardly game breaking in the slightest.

Read the above. It is beyond broken. Once per game matters not in the slightest. There are more broken cards too.



Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 00:10:29


Post by: lazarian


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Its mostly a one time use card. Go to ground doesnt even impact an entire detachment. Its just one unit.

The lethality of the game is quite low compared to 40k. Played 400 PL vs 400 PL and I was only able to get major damage on 4 total units. One was a large unit on terminators directly in front of my lines. It had 10 large blasts on it. Without a huge amount of luck with 4+ saves and an automatic wound from morale. They should be dead. They have to be dead or I lose the game because I cant get out of my deployment zone. It was basically the firepower of 2 entire detachments that put those wounds there. It most certainly affected more than one detachment. You realize by defending this card you are defending a 2++ save right? Because that's what it can do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
puree wrote:
The smallest recommended game would have a unit of terminators being a pretty tiny part of your force.

Being able to go to ground probably once in the game for just 1 turn, if you have that card at that point is hardly game breaking in the slightest.

Read the above. It is beyond broken. Once per game matters not in the slightest. There are more broken cards too.



The card is completely fine given you will see it once a game on one total unit. You also feature this card in your deck as well so what exactly are you on about?

The cards are dynamic, maybe too strong however over the weekend I played or taught seven games with a variety of skilled players. Cards were helpful but no game were won by cards.

One turn unharmed terminator unit is easily moved away from the next turn or moved around or any number of things. Trying to frame an answer as you have to 'defend' something proves you need a nap.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 00:17:14


Post by: Xenomancers


 lazarian wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Its mostly a one time use card. Go to ground doesnt even impact an entire detachment. Its just one unit.

The lethality of the game is quite low compared to 40k. Played 400 PL vs 400 PL and I was only able to get major damage on 4 total units. One was a large unit on terminators directly in front of my lines. It had 10 large blasts on it. Without a huge amount of luck with 4+ saves and an automatic wound from morale. They should be dead. They have to be dead or I lose the game because I cant get out of my deployment zone. It was basically the firepower of 2 entire detachments that put those wounds there. It most certainly affected more than one detachment. You realize by defending this card you are defending a 2++ save right? Because that's what it can do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
puree wrote:
The smallest recommended game would have a unit of terminators being a pretty tiny part of your force.

Being able to go to ground probably once in the game for just 1 turn, if you have that card at that point is hardly game breaking in the slightest.

Read the above. It is beyond broken. Once per game matters not in the slightest. There are more broken cards too.



The card is completely fine given you will see it once a game on one total unit. You also feature this card in your deck as well so what exactly are you on about?

The cards are dynamic, maybe too strong however over the weekend I played or taught seven games with a variety of skilled players. Cards were helpful but no game were won by cards.

One turn unharmed terminator unit is easily moved away from the next turn or moved around or any number of things. Trying to frame an answer as you have to 'defend' something proves you need a nap.

Clearly playing a different game if your games were not determined by cards. I literally just described a card which essentially makes a unit invulnerable. After you decide to put 1/4 of your armies shooting into it. Sorry...that wins games. At the very least this card needs to be played during the action phase when they are targeted for an attack. To be played in the damage phase is HAHA - this unit that should be dead due to overkill - nope - it lives.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 00:44:55


Post by: BrianDavion


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Its mostly a one time use card. Go to ground doesnt even impact an entire detachment. Its just one unit.

The lethality of the game is quite low compared to 40k. Played 400 PL vs 400 PL and I was only able to get major damage on 4 total units. One was a large unit on terminators directly in front of my lines. It had 10 large blasts on it. Without a huge amount of luck with 4+ saves and an automatic wound from morale. They should be dead. They have to be dead or I lose the game because I cant get out of my deployment zone. It was basically the firepower of 2 entire detachments that put those wounds there. It most certainly affected more than one detachment. You realize by defending this card you are defending a 2++ save right? Because that's what it can do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
puree wrote:
The smallest recommended game would have a unit of terminators being a pretty tiny part of your force.

Being able to go to ground probably once in the game for just 1 turn, if you have that card at that point is hardly game breaking in the slightest.

Read the above. It is beyond broken. Once per game matters not in the slightest. There are more broken cards too.



honestly, if terminators where hard to kill I don;t see that as being a negative. what kind of firepower where you throwing at them? simply tons of small arms, or where you dropping large amounts of dedicated tank weapons on them?


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 01:59:49


Post by: lazarian


The card in question also came up in this exact circumstance in a game we had this weekend (we played seven games). The result was the terminators lived another turn before getting demolished by Tau who were simply far faster than them. The damage they do is middling and they are expensive for a variety of reasons.

You have this card in your deck as well, while it could win you the game, durability on one light infantry squad with pedestrian shooting or fair melee coupled with terrible movement after the drop isn't impressive.

TH/SS termies have a 3+ save, they will regularly make that save against large blast markers in any event, even with massive shooting. It sounds like you made no effort to spread your shooting or made reasonable accommodations to figure out a plan B if they survived.

Something doesn't add up given you have the exact same tools in your army. What were you playing that couldn't handle a second round of a unit who pays a ton of points for deep strike?


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 02:38:02


Post by: Lance845


I have the card in my deck. I put it in there in the hope that it worked out to saving my Swarmlords ass at some point.

There is a huge difference between a 2++ in 40k where it's constant and a 2++ in one turn because of a one off card. I am fine with a card granting a single unit a "essentially" 2++. But that is not equatable to what you are comparing it to.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 02:53:43


Post by: Sledgehammer


 Peregrine wrote:
IMO the balance issue is the card system itself. Just looking at IG cards there are a couple different ones that effectively say "your whole detachment shoots twice", and it's complete RNG whether you get them. If you want balance you're probably better off removing the card mechanic entirely.

Needless to say there are also tons of unit balance issues where GW doesn't seem to understand how basic math works. For example, a LRBT's battle cannon is one shot at 6+/6+ with 72" range. A LR Executioner's plasma cannon is one shot at 7+/7+ with 72" range, or you can overload and risk killing your own unit to make it 6+/6+. IOW, for the same price as the LR Executioner you can have a LRBT that has the same firepower with double the range and no risk of damaging your own unit. But are these catastrophic issues? Probably not, as long as you don't insist on WYSIWYG. Everyone will just use the best option and ignore the redundant ones, and most of the IG balance issues seem to be cases where the best option is reasonable and the issue is that the bad options are unplayable.


 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
It's going to take awhile to figure those things out.


Sure, if you are one of those people that reads the rules, plays a few games and checks other peoples experience for confirmation.

This is Dakka Dakka where we have players are so good they can find the flaws from a few blurry pics of the rule book and a few teasers. I am sure they will be along shortly to point out flaws without even seeing all the rules. Let alone actually playing a few games.


You know the game is out, right? And that some of us have all of the rules right here, no blurry pictures needed?


Which assets are those? From our local reading first rank fire second rank fire only lets you change an order to shooting in case you made a mistake.

I didn't see anything like that.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 03:02:11


Post by: Xenomancers


 Lance845 wrote:
I have the card in my deck. I put it in there in the hope that it worked out to saving my Swarmlords ass at some point.

There is a huge difference between a 2++ in 40k where it's constant and a 2++ in one turn because of a one off card. I am fine with a card granting a single unit a "essentially" 2++. But that is not equatable to what you are comparing it to.

No - it's a lot better. A 2++ when you thought they had a 4++. You'd simply ignore a 2++ because it's impossible to kill. Since it happens in the damage phase - you waste firepower. There are also mortal wounds in 40k. I CAN NOT believe people are actually defending this. Whatever. Defend 2++ all you want - I am out.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 03:02:40


Post by: Peregrine


 Sledgehammer wrote:
Which assets are those?


Two obvious ones:

"Gunners, kill on sight!" allows three LRBTs to take a free shooting action after they finish their normal activation, which of course benefits from the shoot twice buff for not moving over half speed. Not quite a full detachment (I misread this initially), but pretty significant. And in a normal 40k game that's broken as hell.

Industrial Efficiency (Armageddon) gives every unit in the detachment the rapid fire rule for all of their weapons. With IG having plenty of tank guns with extremely long range this effectively doubles the firepower of a tank detachment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
No - it's a lot better. A 2++ when you thought they had a 4++. You'd simply ignore a 2++ because it's impossible to kill. Since it happens in the damage phase - you waste firepower. There are also mortal wounds in 40k. I CAN NOT believe people are actually defending this. Whatever. Defend 2++ all you want - I am out.


You don't know the particular unit, but you do know that the card exists and you can spread out your fire to make it inefficient. Single-unit stratagems just aren't that impressive, especially when they only apply to infantry units. The real game-breaking stuff is the ones that apply to tons of units at once. Even if it literally said "remove all blast markers from a single infantry unit" it would still be underwhelming compared to an IG player getting to shoot twice with dozens of artillery tanks.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 06:26:29


Post by: Spoletta


Go to Ground is not that good in a game where focus fire is bad math wise.
If your opponent managed to put you in a situation where you were forced to focus fire a light infantry unit and he had that card, then it was a good play on his part.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 14:49:26


Post by: the_scotsman


There is also (I believe) pretty near universal access to "counterspell" cards in apoc. Not a thing with stratagems in 8th. Something to consider.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 14:59:49


Post by: Xenomancers


So its magic the gathering...not apoc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
Which assets are those?


Two obvious ones:

"Gunners, kill on sight!" allows three LRBTs to take a free shooting action after they finish their normal activation, which of course benefits from the shoot twice buff for not moving over half speed. Not quite a full detachment (I misread this initially), but pretty significant. And in a normal 40k game that's broken as hell.

Industrial Efficiency (Armageddon) gives every unit in the detachment the rapid fire rule for all of their weapons. With IG having plenty of tank guns with extremely long range this effectively doubles the firepower of a tank detachment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
No - it's a lot better. A 2++ when you thought they had a 4++. You'd simply ignore a 2++ because it's impossible to kill. Since it happens in the damage phase - you waste firepower. There are also mortal wounds in 40k. I CAN NOT believe people are actually defending this. Whatever. Defend 2++ all you want - I am out.


You don't know the particular unit, but you do know that the card exists and you can spread out your fire to make it inefficient. Single-unit stratagems just aren't that impressive, especially when they only apply to infantry units. The real game-breaking stuff is the ones that apply to tons of units at once. Even if it literally said "remove all blast markers from a single infantry unit" it would still be underwhelming compared to an IG player getting to shoot twice with dozens of artillery tanks.

I was fortunate then to not play against imperial guard then. Yeah - that is obviously busted too.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 16:51:41


Post by: Spoletta


 Peregrine wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
Which assets are those?


Two obvious ones:

"Gunners, kill on sight!" allows three LRBTs to take a free shooting action after they finish their normal activation, which of course benefits from the shoot twice buff for not moving over half speed. Not quite a full detachment (I misread this initially), but pretty significant. And in a normal 40k game that's broken as hell.

Industrial Efficiency (Armageddon) gives every unit in the detachment the rapid fire rule for all of their weapons. With IG having plenty of tank guns with extremely long range this effectively doubles the firepower of a tank detachment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
No - it's a lot better. A 2++ when you thought they had a 4++. You'd simply ignore a 2++ because it's impossible to kill. Since it happens in the damage phase - you waste firepower. There are also mortal wounds in 40k. I CAN NOT believe people are actually defending this. Whatever. Defend 2++ all you want - I am out.


You don't know the particular unit, but you do know that the card exists and you can spread out your fire to make it inefficient. Single-unit stratagems just aren't that impressive, especially when they only apply to infantry units. The real game-breaking stuff is the ones that apply to tons of units at once. Even if it literally said "remove all blast markers from a single infantry unit" it would still be underwhelming compared to an IG player getting to shoot twice with dozens of artillery tanks.


Why would that LRBT stratagem be busted? It's 6 shots. Even with 3 command tanks, you are looking at less than 3 blasts. Many cards do much more than that.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 17:01:00


Post by: Peregrine


It's way more than that, because if you know how dice work you're taking the two-shot tanks. So 12 free shots (remember you get to double tap), hitting on 2s. And if RNG is cooperative and you get to add the Armageddon buff that's 24 free shots. And then you have to add in the shots from the secondary weapons, not just the main guns.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 17:14:08


Post by: WisdomLS


Haven't played my first game as yet (looking forward to trying it) but many of the "that's busted!" arguments in this threat seem to be talking about stuff in the context of 40K.

This is apocalypse, it's a completely different scale. Who cares if a unit of infantry doesnt die for a turn, who cares if three tanks get to shoot twice, both of those example would be a massive issue in normal 40k but apoc games should be dealing with 30-40 units a side minimum thus these bonuses have far less effect on the game as a hole. I for one want the card to have decent effect, its suppose to be a game about epic scale and awesome things happening.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 17:21:38


Post by: Spoletta


 Peregrine wrote:
It's way more than that, because if you know how dice work you're taking the two-shot tanks. So 12 free shots (remember you get to double tap), hitting on 2s. And if RNG is cooperative and you get to add the Armageddon buff that's 24 free shots. And then you have to add in the shots from the secondary weapons, not just the main guns.


No it's 6 shots, i already doubled them for double tap. What gun are you considering? And why hitting on 2's?


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 17:34:23


Post by: the_scotsman


 Peregrine wrote:
It's way more than that, because if you know how dice work you're taking the two-shot tanks. So 12 free shots (remember you get to double tap), hitting on 2s. And if RNG is cooperative and you get to add the Armageddon buff that's 24 free shots. And then you have to add in the shots from the secondary weapons, not just the main guns.


....hitting on 2s? You said this was 3 LRBTs, which hit on 4s, or 5s if damaged.

I'm going to have to read these cards for myself when I get the set.

Assuming that the Armageddon stratagem is indeed "Rapid fire for all weapons on all models" and does work on everything from an infantry squad to a super-heavy detachment of five baneblades with titan-class weapons, and assuming the LRBT stratagem does work concurrent to that and does work with Grinding Advance and does give you guaranteed hits on 2s, then yeah, that combination of two cards seems like it'd be pretty bonkers.

I will say I'm not crazy scared of leman russ tanks in general, just because for the power level you pay for them they seem like extreme glass cannons especially the higher-ballistic skill commanders who will probably be Warlords. They've got pretty low LD and a 6+sv so throw 3-4 blasts their way and you've got a fairly decent chance of one rounding them. I feel like in a lot of situations it'll be a matter of trying to make up their 10-15PL in just a single round of shooting, because every long range anti-tank gun I've got is going to be heading their way. Plus, if the super bonkers crazy-amazing stratagem is in fact Leman Russes specifically, I know exactly what you'll be trying to do if you plop down a detachment with 3 of them, and I know how to make that threat go away.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
It's way more than that, because if you know how dice work you're taking the two-shot tanks. So 12 free shots (remember you get to double tap), hitting on 2s. And if RNG is cooperative and you get to add the Armageddon buff that's 24 free shots. And then you have to add in the shots from the secondary weapons, not just the main guns.


No it's 6 shots, i already doubled them for double tap. What gun are you considering? And why hitting on 2's?


Nova Cannon, Vanquisher, Demolisher and Exterminator are all 2 shots base, which doubles to 4 with grinding advance, so getting to double-shoot if the wording of the card is exactly as perri says would get your 3 leman russes making 12 shots total.

which would be, best case, 5.5 blasts vs tanks with a full detachment of Vanquisher+Lascannon russes. Enough to reliably blow away something outrageous like 1-1.5 standard-size vehicles.

Hide yo kids, hide yo rhinos.



Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 18:09:44


Post by: Peregrine


the_scotsman wrote:
..hitting on 2s? You said this was 3 LRBTs, which hit on 4s, or 5s if damaged.


Tank commanders are BS 3+ and aimed fire gives +1 to hit.



Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 18:56:30


Post by: locarno24


Spoletta wrote:
Go to Ground is not that good in a game where focus fire is bad math wise.
If your opponent managed to put you in a situation where you were forced to focus fire a light infantry unit and he had that card, then it was a good play on his part.


True, but it's basically for "this is the unit on the objective" moments, I guess.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 19:15:47


Post by: the_scotsman


 Peregrine wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
..hitting on 2s? You said this was 3 LRBTs, which hit on 4s, or 5s if damaged.


Tank commanders are BS 3+ and aimed fire gives +1 to hit.



Sure. Do Supreme Command detachments exist in Apocalypse (I don't remember seeing them in the detachment list). Is there any detachment that includes 3x HQ slots?

Understand that at the moment, I haven't read all the rules involved here, and you're invoking two separate cards that you've only given a brief summary of and several core rule interactions. Does Aimed Fire apply to all shoot actions you take during the turn, or does the Aimed Fire order give you a shoot action with a +1 to hit or a fight action with -1 to hit? Does the card specify any restrictions beyond models with the LEMAN RUSS keyword, or does it specify as you initially said, Leman Russ Battle Tanks (which is the profile with the 4+ ballistic skill).

Let's assume the pure nightmare scenario: The rules interact in exactly the way you say they do, and my full detachment of Leman Russ Vanquisher/lascannon tank commanders can double tap with 2+BS on turn 1, before you get to tie me up, and I'm playing a low point 100PL game with a big old battalion detachment with 3x tank commanders and 3x infantry squads and that's 48 of my 100pl.

I have a roughly 1% chance of those 2 particular cards appearing in my turn 1 draw assuming I can get 5 draws into my detachment in my 100pl game (not too hard with IG commanders), and I've got a 50% chance of going first before any opposing deep strikers get to possibly close to melee range. If I do draw that perfect combo, I can dish out an enormous 15 blasts from 24 vanquisher shots on average to enemy Heavy units.

That does seem legitimately fairly crazy. 7.5, round it up to 10 extra blasts from 2 cards if you include the lascannon fire.

5 blasts for one card definitely seems like an edge case when you look at some of the other cards we've been shown. Only a 3.6% chance to get 5 or more blasts out of Doombolt. You need 9 units within 6" of a point on the battlefield to deal 5 blasts on average with infernal gateway.

You need to have a particular combination of 3 fairly glass cannon units (12PL for W2 Sv6+ and LD5 seems fairly flimsy for apoc) built one particular way and a combination of two particular cards to achieve an edge case result like that. And while it seems pretty crazy, it doesn't seem head and shoulders higher than other direct damage cards' edge-case results. With the high model counts and clumped formations in apoc, I can see getting 9 units clumped up together within 24" of one of your tzeentch psykers being something that's not totally unheard of.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 19:23:14


Post by: Da-Rock


Damn,

I need to tell my Termies and just about everything else that I don't need to roll for them if they are a 2+ because they are invulnerable!

I also need to tell everyone I play that I can't fail with rolling ones because Xenomancer said so.

Its a good thing my Termies can't fail because with 2 wounds even 1 wound would make them suck.......wew!


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 22:05:40


Post by: Peregrine


the_scotsman wrote:
I have a roughly 1% chance of those 2 particular cards appearing in my turn 1 draw assuming I can get 5 draws into my detachment in my 100pl game (not too hard with IG commanders)


This is the important part of why it's a bad, if not unbalanced, mechanic. First of all, it's more than a 1% chance. You have about a 2% chance of getting both cards in your opening hand of five cards assuming blind draws, but then you also have to consider the fact that there are two cards (Inspired Tactics and Strategic Brilliance) that let you search for any card you want. Now you're up to a 40% chance of drawing either card, and a 14.5% chance of drawing both. That takes it well out of the realm of "never going to happen" and into "does RNG say I win or not". And if you consider a second-turn attack a valid threat...

Of course the dual card combo is pretty theoretical when in reality if you're making an Armageddon list you aren't wasting your stratagem on a squadron of LRBTs. You're taking a whole detachment full of artillery or LoW. For example, if you think you can get within 30" 5x Macharius Vulcan will give you 40 free shots, delivering 22 blast markers against infantry or 15.5 against anything else. Or maybe let's take some Baneswords with 70" rapid fire range. 20 free attacks, for 22 blast makers against vehicles or 13 against infantry (isn't Destroyer great?) plus whatever the secondary weapons get you. Or I suppose if you really hate the idea of being out of range you could buy 18 Basilisks (with 3x masters of ordnance to buff them and add more artillery) and drop 21 free artillery shots anywhere on the table. Less firepower, but shrug, at least there's nowhere to hide.

With the high model counts and clumped formations in apoc, I can see getting 9 units clumped up together within 24" of one of your tzeentch psykers being something that's not totally unheard of.


Sure. And IG also have an artillery barrage stratagem that drops a blast marker on everything within 12" on a 9+. Not a bad consolation prize if RNG gives you that one instead of buffing your artillery parking lot. Which is really demonstrating the problem, some of the effects are absurdly powerful and some of them are pretty weak. And it's pure RNG whether you get an opening salvo of powerful assets or a bunch of filler you had to take to bring your deck up to 30 cards.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 22:46:09


Post by: Blndmage


 Peregrine wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
I have a roughly 1% chance of those 2 particular cards appearing in my turn 1 draw assuming I can get 5 draws into my detachment in my 100pl game (not too hard with IG commanders)


This is the important part of why it's a bad, if not unbalanced, mechanic. First of all, it's more than a 1% chance. You have about a 2% chance of getting both cards in your opening hand of five cards assuming blind draws, but then you also have to consider the fact that there are two cards (Inspired Tactics and Strategic Brilliance) that let you search for any card you want. Now you're up to a 40% chance of drawing either card, and a 14.5% chance of drawing both. That takes it well out of the realm of "never going to happen" and into "does RNG say I win or not". And if you consider a second-turn attack a valid threat...

Of course the dual card combo is pretty theoretical when in reality if you're making an Armageddon list you aren't wasting your stratagem on a squadron of LRBTs. You're taking a whole detachment full of artillery or LoW. For example, if you think you can get within 30" 5x Macharius Vulcan will give you 40 free shots, delivering 22 blast markers against infantry or 15.5 against anything else. Or maybe let's take some Baneswords with 70" rapid fire range. 20 free attacks, for 22 blast makers against vehicles or 13 against infantry (isn't Destroyer great?) plus whatever the secondary weapons get you. Or I suppose if you really hate the idea of being out of range you could buy 18 Basilisks (with 3x masters of ordnance to buff them and add more artillery) and drop 21 free artillery shots anywhere on the table. Less firepower, but shrug, at least there's nowhere to hide.

With the high model counts and clumped formations in apoc, I can see getting 9 units clumped up together within 24" of one of your tzeentch psykers being something that's not totally unheard of.


Sure. And IG also have an artillery barrage stratagem that drops a blast marker on everything within 12" on a 9+. Not a bad consolation prize if RNG gives you that one instead of buffing your artillery parking lot. Which is really demonstrating the problem, some of the effects are absurdly powerful and some of them are pretty weak. And it's pure RNG whether you get an opening salvo of powerful assets or a bunch of filler you had to take to bring your deck up to 30 cards.


Have you actually played a game of Apocalypse, or is this just theory?


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 22:56:56


Post by: Da-Rock


So wait....the big complaint is that there is a chance that someone can get a powerful first turn and destroy a lot?

I am confused, for three reasons:

1 - I am always confused!

2 - Isn't this the very same condition in every table top game out there.

3.- If you removed the cards and then someone rolls really well while the opponent rolls poorly, don't you have the same problem with a first turn wipe out?

I say grow a pair and stop whining about every gosh darned angle of every game on Earth! Jeeez! :-)


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/08 23:48:16


Post by: the_scotsman


Having given it a read-through, it does seem like there are a few command asset cards that are a little nutty when scaled up to monster - size detachments. Like if you cram a harlequin detachment with like 120pl of harlequins and get the Prismatic Blur card, gak gets dumb.

One thing to consider though is that there is a blanket rule against using a card before another card is fully resolved, and free actions are not affected by the modifiers granted by orders, most notably Aimed Fire. So some of the combo potential is limited. That Armageddon strat is truly goofy when applied to bane blades though.

If my biggest complaint about the cards can be that they seem inordinately stacked towards giant over the top army detachments and superheavies in an apocalypse game....well....

I think if you want to play small games of Apoc, maybe try to play with either a very limited card set or drop the mechanic. If you only have 100pl in 2 detachments and uou get the "oops I'm changing your detachments order trololol" card, you're gonna have a bad time.

I like the action resolution/reduced fldowntime, LOVE the terrain and ditching of almost all TLOS crap, like the damage mechanic and I'm pretty lukewarm on the cards.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 00:50:47


Post by: Peregrine


 Da-Rock wrote:
3.- If you removed the cards and then someone rolls really well while the opponent rolls poorly, don't you have the same problem with a first turn wipe out?


You do, but the odds of having dice luck skew that much are greatly reduced by the number of dice rolled and completely one-sided games become an extreme outlier. The Apocalypse CCG has a small number of RNG events with disproportionately large impact and therefore games being decided by luck will be much more common.

I say grow a pair and stop whining about every gosh darned angle of every game on Earth! Jeeez! :-)


I see, so apparently in the thread asking about balance issues the only acceptable answer is "GW is perfect and everything is great".


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 02:25:20


Post by: Crablezworth


 Peregrine wrote:


I see, so apparently in the thread asking about balance issues the only acceptable answer is "GW is perfect and everything is great".


Yeah that would seem to be the case so far



Tell me more about the stuff removing terrain, this sounds like that short lived marine expansion with the insane psychic powers that let you move terrain with models on it. The garrisoning terrain thing seems like a pretty limited concept unless infantry like garrisoning a cactus's when ruins aren't available.

I remember playing dropzone commander and while the game was ok the cards really did just mess things up and really detracted from the games they were used in. That and alternating activation is overrated and honestly really complicated when the equiv of formations were spread out all over the board.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 02:43:52


Post by: Peregrine


 Crablezworth wrote:
Tell me more about the stuff removing terrain


It's specific assets, not a general rule. There may be others, but the Demolitions asset has you treat a single terrain feature as a superheavy transport for that turn and if it has 3+ large blast markers at the end of the turn the terrain is removed and any units garrisoning it must leave as if disembarking from a destroyed transport. So it's a one-time thing that requires you to draw the card and commit non-trivial resources to destroying the terrain, and it lets the unit(s) using the terrain continue to do so for the rest of the turn and then get a chance to react on the following turn before you can blow them away (if you choose to activate them early). I think it's a thematic option that probably won't be a balance issue, especially compared to other assets.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 03:10:38


Post by: Crablezworth


 Peregrine wrote:
 Crablezworth wrote:
Tell me more about the stuff removing terrain


It's specific assets, not a general rule. There may be others, but the Demolitions asset has you treat a single terrain feature as a superheavy transport for that turn and if it has 3+ large blast markers at the end of the turn the terrain is removed and any units garrisoning it must leave as if disembarking from a destroyed transport. So it's a one-time thing that requires you to draw the card and commit non-trivial resources to destroying the terrain, and it lets the unit(s) using the terrain continue to do so for the rest of the turn and then get a chance to react on the following turn before you can blow them away (if you choose to activate them early). I think it's a thematic option that probably won't be a balance issue, especially compared to other assets.


I'm always weary of anything like that because it's untenable for any board with fixed terrain elements like some of the cooler boards at warhammer world. Glad it's no a core thing.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 03:22:55


Post by: Peregrine


 Crablezworth wrote:
I'm always weary of anything like that because it's untenable for any board with fixed terrain elements like some of the cooler boards at warhammer world. Glad it's no a core thing.


Yeah, it's a minor thing. And TBH if you have fixed terrain elements you could just say "this is destroyed, no more units may enter it and we'll pretend it doesn't block LOS" as a solution. It's not perfect, but it's probably good enough in the rare case where someone really wants to destroy a particular terrain feature.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 04:30:21


Post by: jamshaman


Suffice to say the data sheets need massive overhaul, just judging by the Eldar alone. For example there's no reason to take a Scatter Laser when a Missile Launcher is better in every way. The Autarch doesn't even have a pistol at 5PL? Warlocks probably need the "Character" keyword.

Just to name a few...


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 04:51:21


Post by: Lance845


Warlocks for sure do not need the character keyword.

What would a pistol do? There are no rules for pistols.

The scatter laser thing is an issue I have seen on any unit that has that many options. Too many options not enough design space. Just take the missiles and carry on.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 05:47:34


Post by: Spoletta


 Crablezworth wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:


I see, so apparently in the thread asking about balance issues the only acceptable answer is "GW is perfect and everything is great".


Yeah that would seem to be the case so far



Tell me more about the stuff removing terrain, this sounds like that short lived marine expansion with the insane psychic powers that let you move terrain with models on it. The garrisoning terrain thing seems like a pretty limited concept unless infantry like garrisoning a cactus's when ruins aren't available.

I remember playing dropzone commander and while the game was ok the cards really did just mess things up and really detracted from the games they were used in. That and alternating activation is overrated and honestly really complicated when the equiv of formations were spread out all over the board.


It's a problem of time.
Before at least 3 months have passed, any discussion about balance is void.
"But math!!! You don't need time when math is obvious!!!"... no. This mantra has been repeated many times, in many threads, in many games, in many editions. It turns out to be false most of the time.
Even in the rumors thread of apoc there where those that said "X, Y and Z are obviously OP, you don't even need to play the game! The math is so obvious!! GW designers suck!!11!!" and they were proven wrong no less than 2 hours later.

So, take your time, it could possibly be that the cards are a bit too swingy, but for now we cannot tell, even if it seems obvious.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 06:00:12


Post by: Peregrine


Spoletta wrote:
It's a problem of time.
Before at least 3 months have passed, any discussion about balance is void.
"But math!!! You don't need time when math is obvious!!!"... no. This mantra has been repeated many times, in many threads, in many games, in many editions. It turns out to be false most of the time.
Even in the rumors thread of apoc there where those that said "X, Y and Z are obviously OP, you don't even need to play the game! The math is so obvious!! GW designers suck!!11!!" and they were proven wrong no less than 2 hours later.

So, take your time, it could possibly be that the cards are a bit too swingy, but for now we cannot tell, even if it seems obvious.


Disagree strongly. In some cases it's very obvious that two things are not balanced because the math is so blatantly in favor of one of them. To give an obvious example a LR Executioner has zero reason to exist and a standard LRBT is better in every conceivable situation. You don't need experience to know that GW screwed up the math and made the battle cannon strictly better than the plasma cannon. You don't need experience to know that the LR Vanquisher is, while not better in every conceivable way, vastly better against vehicles in a game where vehicles are the dominant threat and only slightly less effective against infantry because GW apparently doesn't understand that having twice the number of shots makes up for the poor SAP. The various options are so similar except for the math differences that the only thing that matters is the math.

Likewise, it doesn't take a ton of playtesting to realize that shooting twice with an entire IG artillery parking lot is better than getting to re-roll 1s to hit. It doesn't take a ton of playtesting to look at the IG datasheets, do the math on what guns will be shooting twice, and see that dropping 20+ blast markers on stuff is vastly out of line with the effects of most other cards. And this is not a case of rumor threads where we're trying to do analysis on blurry pictures of half the rules, we have the full rules for Apocalypse available and there is nothing left hidden that could change the analysis.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 06:13:35


Post by: Ice_can


Surely this is just the to be expected GW level of well this effect sounds perfectly fluffy add to game without actually having considered the extent to which is can be gamed.

The reason that LR tanks overlap so much is because GW have gone overboard with trivial different versions that left 0 design space to differentiate between the options.

This may also be that they are trying to resolve issues from 40k in Apocolyse ie vanquishers in 40k never seen tables, atleast now they have a game system in which they are worth playing.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 06:18:13


Post by: Spoletta


 Peregrine wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
It's a problem of time.
Before at least 3 months have passed, any discussion about balance is void.
"But math!!! You don't need time when math is obvious!!!"... no. This mantra has been repeated many times, in many threads, in many games, in many editions. It turns out to be false most of the time.
Even in the rumors thread of apoc there where those that said "X, Y and Z are obviously OP, you don't even need to play the game! The math is so obvious!! GW designers suck!!11!!" and they were proven wrong no less than 2 hours later.

So, take your time, it could possibly be that the cards are a bit too swingy, but for now we cannot tell, even if it seems obvious.


Disagree strongly. In some cases it's very obvious that two things are not balanced because the math is so blatantly in favor of one of them. To give an obvious example a LR Executioner has zero reason to exist and a standard LRBT is better in every conceivable situation. You don't need experience to know that GW screwed up the math and made the battle cannon strictly better than the plasma cannon. You don't need experience to know that the LR Vanquisher is, while not better in every conceivable way, vastly better against vehicles in a game where vehicles are the dominant threat and only slightly less effective against infantry because GW apparently doesn't understand that having twice the number of shots makes up for the poor SAP. The various options are so similar except for the math differences that the only thing that matters is the math.

Likewise, it doesn't take a ton of playtesting to realize that shooting twice with an entire IG artillery parking lot is better than getting to re-roll 1s to hit. It doesn't take a ton of playtesting to look at the IG datasheets, do the math on what guns will be shooting twice, and see that dropping 20+ blast markers on stuff is vastly out of line with the effects of most other cards. And this is not a case of rumor threads where we're trying to do analysis on blurry pictures of half the rules, we have the full rules for Apocalypse available and there is nothing left hidden that could change the analysis.


I heard the same exact argument that you are making now in many many other cases, as i told you.

It may seem absolutely obvious now, doesn't mean that it will prove to be true.

I do agree though that GW put herself in a bind spot with some of those weapons, simply not enough design space to represent them all correctly.
Should have gone the way of the tyranids, instead of trying to represent all weapon choices on a warrior she went "Generic Ranged weapons" and "Generic melee weapons". I prefer it that way.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 06:24:05


Post by: Peregrine


Spoletta wrote:
It may seem absolutely obvious now, doesn't mean that it will prove to be true.


Could you provide some ideas about what missing information would make "remove a Warhound titan from the table" a balanced effect for a single card? Because that's the kind of firepower buff you're talking about with that card, from the extra shots alone. The detachment's normal shooting is another 20+ blast markers.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 06:25:16


Post by: Lance845


Spoletta wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
It's a problem of time.
Before at least 3 months have passed, any discussion about balance is void.
"But math!!! You don't need time when math is obvious!!!"... no. This mantra has been repeated many times, in many threads, in many games, in many editions. It turns out to be false most of the time.
Even in the rumors thread of apoc there where those that said "X, Y and Z are obviously OP, you don't even need to play the game! The math is so obvious!! GW designers suck!!11!!" and they were proven wrong no less than 2 hours later.

So, take your time, it could possibly be that the cards are a bit too swingy, but for now we cannot tell, even if it seems obvious.


Disagree strongly. In some cases it's very obvious that two things are not balanced because the math is so blatantly in favor of one of them. To give an obvious example a LR Executioner has zero reason to exist and a standard LRBT is better in every conceivable situation. You don't need experience to know that GW screwed up the math and made the battle cannon strictly better than the plasma cannon. You don't need experience to know that the LR Vanquisher is, while not better in every conceivable way, vastly better against vehicles in a game where vehicles are the dominant threat and only slightly less effective against infantry because GW apparently doesn't understand that having twice the number of shots makes up for the poor SAP. The various options are so similar except for the math differences that the only thing that matters is the math.

Likewise, it doesn't take a ton of playtesting to realize that shooting twice with an entire IG artillery parking lot is better than getting to re-roll 1s to hit. It doesn't take a ton of playtesting to look at the IG datasheets, do the math on what guns will be shooting twice, and see that dropping 20+ blast markers on stuff is vastly out of line with the effects of most other cards. And this is not a case of rumor threads where we're trying to do analysis on blurry pictures of half the rules, we have the full rules for Apocalypse available and there is nothing left hidden that could change the analysis.


I heard the same exact argument that you are making now in many many other cases, as i told you.

It may seem absolutely obvious now, doesn't mean that it will prove to be true.

I do agree though that GW put herself in a bind spot with some of those weapons, simply not enough design space to represent them all correctly.
Should have gone the way of the tyranids, instead of trying to represent all weapon choices on a warrior she went "Generic Ranged weapons" and "Generic melee weapons". I prefer it that way.


Yeah. I am super happy with my nid wargear. My models are all wysiwyg and super customizable without having to nit pick wargear. Win Win.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 07:13:16


Post by: jamshaman


 Lance845 wrote:
Warlocks for sure do not need the character keyword.

What would a pistol do? There are no rules for pistols.

The scatter laser thing is an issue I have seen on any unit that has that many options. Too many options not enough design space. Just take the missiles and carry on.


Warlocks are 3 points for 1 model, the argument can be made for character keyword, too early to tell though.

A pistol would just be another weapon in this case, so it would do whatever it's stats would say it does, no extra rules. But it doesn't have to be a pistol, I'm just saying the guy is walking around a battlefield without a gun, even his jetbike doesn't have one...

Not sure what you mean about the options, but the Scatter Laser stats make no sense, it should have 2 attacks or something. Yes I will take missiles, thank you, but that wasn't the point...


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 08:19:20


Post by: Spoletta


 Peregrine wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
It may seem absolutely obvious now, doesn't mean that it will prove to be true.


Could you provide some ideas about what missing information would make "remove a Warhound titan from the table" a balanced effect for a single card? Because that's the kind of firepower buff you're talking about with that card, from the extra shots alone. The detachment's normal shooting is another 20+ blast markers.


I can think of quite a few scenarios where that armageddon card is straight out bad.

For example, the one i find more likely is that we discover with experience that competitive IG plays with multiple small detachments to maximize the production of cards, because many cards are better than few cards used on big detachments. So all cards that require a big detachment become automatically bad.

See? It was easy.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 11:42:56


Post by: the_scotsman


I think certain command cards are a legitimate issue, but I think throwing out the command card mechanic in response is tossing the baby out with the bathwater and I don't think the game will function the same without them.

For one thing, Psykers are inextricably tied to command cards. Units pay for the privilege of being psykers and their cards are going to be a significant amount of their damage output. Rubrics just look straight up bad compared to other units for their cost until you realize you can dump witchfires out of every small squad you've got.

For another, Perri, you noted the low deadliness of the game overall which I think is intended to work with the cards. A huge percentage of cards fall in the "Deals 1-3 extra blasts normally, 4-5 blasts if you hit a great use case" category. A few like Prismatic Blur and the Armageddon card create problems usually owing to the fact that they can theoretically scale up to enormous effects to an entire detachment.

I think a smarter course of action is, if you're already going the houserule route because you're a CAAC whinelord who has to change the rules because you're bad at winning the game (Sorry Perri, I couldn't resist) you should just identify which cards are clear mathmatical outliers, and remove them until GW rebalances them.

Some cards are definitely better than others, but for the most part they seem balanced on the basis of applicability: Subfaction limited cards are slightly more powerful because they may be only limited to a single detachment your opponent could kill. Ditto for psychic powers, your opponent could just shoot your psykers. The faction-specific cards are for the most part very on-par or often identical to generic cards.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 12:54:01


Post by: Eyjio


 Peregrine wrote:

This is the important part of why it's a bad, if not unbalanced, mechanic. First of all, it's more than a 1% chance. You have about a 2% chance of getting both cards in your opening hand of five cards assuming blind draws, but then you also have to consider the fact that there are two cards (Inspired Tactics and Strategic Brilliance) that let you search for any card you want. Now you're up to a 40% chance of drawing either card, and a 14.5% chance of drawing both. That takes it well out of the realm of "never going to happen" and into "does RNG say I win or not". And if you consider a second-turn attack a valid threat...

Of course the dual card combo is pretty theoretical when in reality if you're making an Armageddon list you aren't wasting your stratagem on a squadron of LRBTs. You're taking a whole detachment full of artillery or LoW. For example, if you think you can get within 30" 5x Macharius Vulcan will give you 40 free shots, delivering 22 blast markers against infantry or 15.5 against anything else. Or maybe let's take some Baneswords with 70" rapid fire range. 20 free attacks, for 22 blast makers against vehicles or 13 against infantry (isn't Destroyer great?) plus whatever the secondary weapons get you. Or I suppose if you really hate the idea of being out of range you could buy 18 Basilisks (with 3x masters of ordnance to buff them and add more artillery) and drop 21 free artillery shots anywhere on the table. Less firepower, but shrug, at least there's nowhere to hide.


With regards to the basilisk bit, 18 basilisks + 3 MoOs is 141 power into a single detachment which is worthless in melee - for that cost it'd better do something spectacular. If someone wants to take something like that I suspect it's their funeral, even if the shooting is impressive. Incidentally though, unless I'm miscalculating I reckon that, using aimed fire for 3 MoO blasts at 2+, 36 earthshaker cannon shots at 3+ reroll 1's and 36 heavy bolter shots at 3+, you get (rounding up to be generous) 28 blast templates, which is 14 large blasts. That's 13 after void shields and a warhound has a 5+ save, so will save one third of those, so takes 8.67 wounds on average. So, if you take a ridiculously unbalanced detachment which eats as much power as a decked out Reaver Titan, get the ideal cards and then fire at a Warhound, you can almost take of 3 quarters of it's health. That's... not impressive at all. Sure, you can do it from outside line of sight but also they can take 2 Titans with change for the same cost.

Macharius Vulcans do better cost wise, at only 105 power, so a mere 1.75 times the cost of a Warhound. If they used aimed fire, you switch both heavy stubbers out for the heavy bolters because they're strict upgrades and you fire from stationary, I think you get 20 heavy bolter shots at 3+, 20 twin stubber shots at 3+ and 80 vulcan shots at 3+. That gives you 39 blast templates, 38 after void shields so hurray! You actually kill a Warhound. And all you needed was perfect card draws, the enemy to set up in range, you to not move and to take 105 points of units that will still die in melee.

So, while there's no doubt its a strong combo, I have my doubts that it's actually an issue. I think for the cost I would rather take 4 knights which have less impressive shooting, but don't die to melee. or, if you particularly hated life, 52 tarantula sentry guns with twin lascannons for 104 lascannon shots a turn. There are several balance issues with Apoc, but I really don't think these scenarios are one of them.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 12:58:54


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Main one I worry about is Space Marine soup vs Others.

This of course applies predominantly in multiplayer games, and it's based on the Command Card things.

See, if one side is predominantly Astartes, and the opponents a hodge podge of Chaos and Xenos, the Astartes have a distinct Deck Building Advantage. Simply put, whether or not they go for Chapter Specific ones, it's harder for them as a collective to end up with duff cards which might only benefit a single player, compared to the Hodge Podge Alliance.

Only way I can think round that is to veto specific cards for the side with the advantage - or for their deck to be created randomly, rather than hand selected.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 13:52:58


Post by: the_scotsman


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Main one I worry about is Space Marine soup vs Others.

This of course applies predominantly in multiplayer games, and it's based on the Command Card things.

See, if one side is predominantly Astartes, and the opponents a hodge podge of Chaos and Xenos, the Astartes have a distinct Deck Building Advantage. Simply put, whether or not they go for Chapter Specific ones, it's harder for them as a collective to end up with duff cards which might only benefit a single player, compared to the Hodge Podge Alliance.

Only way I can think round that is to veto specific cards for the side with the advantage - or for their deck to be created randomly, rather than hand selected.

I mean...do they, though?

Iirc there are a couple generic astartes cards and powers, but not many, and many are VERY close to generic cards if not identical which you could use with your hodgepodge.

Honor the Chapter, Only in Death, and hunter killer missile or whatever aren't particularly bonkers cards even compared to stuff like Look out Sir, go to ground or vox net subverted which anyone can take and use.

And I think thats important. The more generic a card is the weaker it is unless it's something everyone is intended to have.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 14:48:49


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


It's still an advantage though.

As we play through it, my concern will either show it be relatively inconsequential, or one to be addressed.

If the latter, a simple 'we as your opponents choose to veto X, Y and Z' or 'you'll just have to shuffle your collection, then draw your deck at random' should be enough to mitigate


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 15:59:36


Post by: the_scotsman


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It's still an advantage though.

As we play through it, my concern will either show it be relatively inconsequential, or one to be addressed.

If the latter, a simple 'we as your opponents choose to veto X, Y and Z' or 'you'll just have to shuffle your collection, then draw your deck at random' should be enough to mitigate


The way I see it, it's only an advantage if you can demonstrate that a card you get access to is significantly stronger than a generic card. I don't have all 400 of my cards in front of me, but I believe there was no generic astartes, imperium, heretic astartes or chaos card that looked significantly stronger than the base deck of 36 generic "anyone can use" apocalypse cards.

Psychic powers IMO are always going to be inherently limited, so I'm not really concerned about the 3-4 psychic powers classed as Astartes or Heretic Astartes. Since only 1-2 models per detachment have to stay alive to use them, you're already effectively limiting by a whole tier beyond even sub-faction limited.

If you have stratagem cards roughly balanced on 3 tiers, I think they're alright:

Tier 1: On par with the generic cards, cards that just require you to have any full detachments made up of a particular broad faction.

Tier 2: Sub-faction cards, requiring 1+ model with a particular selected subfaction. These are not the highest tier because there's a baked-in "fallback use" of a re-roll on each card, just in case your opponent targets and destroys your models from that subfaction and prevents their primary use.

Tier 3: Psychic powers or cards that require other particular trigger models but don't have fall-back uses. The Gunners, Kill On Sight card mentioned earlier, I'm kind of OK with being a bit more potent than other cards, because if I see a detachment in the enemy army that includes 3 tank commanders I know I want to target those because that card is probably lurking in their deck. Sure, there is a possibility they get a good draw and pull that card, and they get lucky and score 5 blasts off a card which is maybe 30-40% higher than a normal damage card...but it isn't such a crazy gulf that I think "the card is broken if allowed to be in the deck."

The Armageddon card is a pretty serious power outlier in certain detachment configurations, which Peregrine laid out: some of the ultra high range heavy weapons the Guard have, like Basilisks and superheavy guns, where the card effectively just doubles their firepower out of the gate. That's one card I'd definitely look at putting on a ban list if I were making "ITC apocalypse rules" - not because it's always crazy powerful but because it's powerspike case is based just on how you build your list rather than a circumstance that might happen in the game.

The Harlequin card, Prismatic Blur, I'm on the fence about. Harlequins might just be a serious power outlier in their own right, and I won't know for sure until I try them out on the board a few times. A big detachment with 3 ten-man troupes, a shadowseer and a troupe master for 56 power level seems preeeeeetty dang tough to deal with for most opponents and there are several cards you can throw into the deck that give them the ability to slide right into combat unharmed and start smashing things with 16x attacks that wound on 6s rerolling. If I throw Veil of Tears, Twilight Pathways and Prismatic Blur into my deck I've got a REALLY good chance of having something that will prevent them from taking a lot of punishment turn 1, and even if I don't you need to get through -1 to hit, -1 to wound, and 6+ saves always on D12s on a W2 Ld6 unit.

Prismatic Blur is a detachment-wide 17% durability increase. Plenty of factions have 17% or 33% durability increases in the form of detachment-wide Ignore Damage (5+) stratagems, so it feels like maybe the problem would be the units themselves and not the card. But I don't know, I'll need to test and see if that harlequin detachment feels all that crazy to begin with.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 18:25:13


Post by: Da-Rock


I am trying to read and understand the angst over the Phantom, "Balance" issue that everyone complains about.

Games are not balanced if the end result of the game is one player wins and the other loses. A truly balanced game would result in a tie.

I do agree that if some of the cards become an issue then MTG provides a very easy reference on how to deal with that.

My favorite part is that the real anger always comes from the Tourny players who want the game changed for them and they don't care about anyone else. We have a great time playing a game that functions like this one does and I don't require GW to change it to a casual gamers style and shaft the Tourny players....................to be honest, no game system could EVER appease the Tourny players.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 19:17:13


Post by: Darsath


 Da-Rock wrote:
I am trying to read and understand the angst over the Phantom, "Balance" issue that everyone complains about.

Games are not balanced if the end result of the game is one player wins and the other loses. A truly balanced game would result in a tie.

I do agree that if some of the cards become an issue then MTG provides a very easy reference on how to deal with that.

My favorite part is that the real anger always comes from the Tourny players who want the game changed for them and they don't care about anyone else. We have a great time playing a game that functions like this one does and I don't require GW to change it to a casual gamers style and shaft the Tourny players....................to be honest, no game system could EVER appease the Tourny players.


This post really confused me at first. Are you suggesting that the game isn't balanced because it's possible for a player to win? Because if so, you're hilariously wrong.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 19:39:33


Post by: flandarz


I will say that, yes, all things being equal would result in draws. But this includes skill level, strategy, and (quite literally) the exact same armies. The first two points are where, in a perfect game, you would win or lose the game. The balance issues with 40k and other systems comes from the amount of variation/customization that these games provide. But even if the various factions were perfectly balanced, you'd still see imbalance due to how 40k awards VP.

In short, there's a lot of room for improvement within the 40k system, but even if it was a "perfect" game, you'd still see imbalance because that's kind of the nature of the beast.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 19:58:45


Post by: Desubot


 Da-Rock wrote:


2 - Isn't this the very same condition in every table top game out there.


Not really.

From about the 6 different games iv played 40k, and team yankee have major game setting first turn potential. and its pretty list dependent.

Dystopian wars (RIP) had its activation issues but straight first turn sinking of major ships was super rare (even though the potential to go infinite is always possible)

Bolt action and K47 mitigates the first turn rips by randomizing activation and allowing for major reactions so the second player is never not doing something.

IIRC even munda and kill teams with its alternating activation styles made for a better engaging two player game.




Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 21:05:45


Post by: Da-Rock


 Desubot wrote:
 Da-Rock wrote:


2 - Isn't this the very same condition in every table top game out there.


Not really.

From about the 6 different games iv played 40k, and team yankee have major game setting first turn potential. and its pretty list dependent.

Dystopian wars (RIP) had its activation issues but straight first turn sinking of major ships was super rare (even though the potential to go infinite is always possible)

Bolt action and K47 mitigates the first turn rips by randomizing activation and allowing for major reactions so the second player is never not doing something.

IIRC even munda and kill teams with its alternating activation styles made for a better engaging two player game.




Are you talking about 40k or Apoc? I was referring to Apoc which you can still get a round one heavy kill even with alternating turns and damage at end of round.....which I like. My point was there is no way getting away from the simple fact that in any game with dice and players you will have someone lose bad and someone win big. The people you see complain about game mechanics always complain about game mechanics because they certainly aren't going to say something simple like, "Yeah...good game" or just not say anything.

40k game system heyday ended after 5th edition, (for the most part). It has been living off of its models and a great background. 8th was a glimmer of light under the new management, but the people making the rules for 40k haven't changed the core much........but maybe Kill Teams and Apoc are gateway drugs to a new system for 40k.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 22:16:52


Post by: Desubot


 Da-Rock wrote:
 Desubot wrote:
 Da-Rock wrote:


2 - Isn't this the very same condition in every table top game out there.


Not really.

From about the 6 different games iv played 40k, and team yankee have major game setting first turn potential. and its pretty list dependent.

Dystopian wars (RIP) had its activation issues but straight first turn sinking of major ships was super rare (even though the potential to go infinite is always possible)

Bolt action and K47 mitigates the first turn rips by randomizing activation and allowing for major reactions so the second player is never not doing something.

IIRC even munda and kill teams with its alternating activation styles made for a better engaging two player game.




Are you talking about 40k or Apoc? I was referring to Apoc which you can still get a round one heavy kill even with alternating turns and damage at end of round.....which I like. My point was there is no way getting away from the simple fact that in any game with dice and players you will have someone lose bad and someone win big. The people you see complain about game mechanics always complain about game mechanics because they certainly aren't going to say something simple like, "Yeah...good game" or just not say anything.

40k game system heyday ended after 5th edition, (for the most part). It has been living off of its models and a great background. 8th was a glimmer of light under the new management, but the people making the rules for 40k haven't changed the core much........but maybe Kill Teams and Apoc are gateway drugs to a new system for 40k.


I read your line as though you meant all TTWGs end up being a first person to go wins. which i disagree. there are many games out there that mitigate first turn privilege.



Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 22:42:14


Post by: C4790M


Detachments have to stay within 12” of their commander or go out of command, which means they get instakilled at the end of the turn if they have a blast marker. This naturally limits the size of detachments, especially when you take into account terrain as well. Also, there are vect-style cards available. Furthermore, there is no charge phase and t1 deepstrike limitations. Getting into combat is trivial. As an example, a tyranid hive tyrant can deepstrike and sail 36” over enemies into combat with no overwatch. Finally, there are cards that let you seize initiative from your opponent and go first with your detachment


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/09 23:34:55


Post by: Da-Rock


Deepstrike and detachments is rough because you need to have everything deepstrike unless you are doing a shallow deepstrike and try to run a Biker up during the action phase in order to not lose a squad.......(and then someone plays a card to change your order to Aimed Fire.....!!!) :-)


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 01:20:08


Post by: Smirrors


 Peregrine wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
..hitting on 2s? You said this was 3 LRBTs, which hit on 4s, or 5s if damaged.


Tank commanders are BS 3+ and aimed fire gives +1 to hit.



Are you certain this can be used on tank commanders? Assume there will be faq out in short order to clarify


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 01:39:53


Post by: Lance845


Da-Rock wrote:Deepstrike and detachments is rough because you need to have everything deepstrike unless you are doing a shallow deepstrike and try to run a Biker up during the action phase in order to not lose a squad.......(and then someone plays a card to change your order to Aimed Fire.....!!!) :-)


It's interesting to see the dynamic on the detachments now. You need to think of each one as a little strike team. Because they need to stay within 12" of the detachments commander and they all get issued a order together you need to consider each units movement speed and movement options. Whether or not they can deep strike together. Since characters are not immune from being targetted and sniper weapons actually work as sniper weapons you maybe need to bake in some back up commanders to certain detachments. I haven't quite mastered it yet. Still looking over my options.

Smirrors wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
..hitting on 2s? You said this was 3 LRBTs, which hit on 4s, or 5s if damaged.


Tank commanders are BS 3+ and aimed fire gives +1 to hit.



Are you certain this can be used on tank commanders? Assume there will be faq out in short order to clarify


Aimed fire is an order that means the unit cannot move. It can only shoot or fight with shooting getting +1 to hit and fight getting -1 to hit.

If you reveal your detachments order to do this and the opponent plays a card to act first or just has initiative they can double move, get into melee with these units and strip them of their ability to shoot. It's good, but counter play exists now. Thats the thing I think a lot of people have a hard time seeing or taking into consideration. In the past there was no real counter play. Everyone acts fully doing whatever the hell they want and you just deal with the consequences. Apoc has a lot of counter play and well laid plans can be turned on their head before execution.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 02:19:53


Post by: Peregrine


 Smirrors wrote:
Are you certain this can be used on tank commanders? Assume there will be faq out in short order to clarify


What is unclear? The card asks for the LEMAN RUSS keyword, tank commanders (and Pask) have the LEMAN RUSS keyword. It's just like how it works in normal 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lance845 wrote:
If you reveal your detachments order to do this and the opponent plays a card to act first or just has initiative they can double move, get into melee with these units and strip them of their ability to shoot.


Assuming there are no screens in the way. Cheap infantry squads that don't die until the end of the turn make getting within 1" easier said than done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Da-Rock wrote:
My favorite part is that the real anger always comes from the Tourny players who want the game changed for them and they don't care about anyone else. We have a great time playing a game that functions like this one does and I don't require GW to change it to a casual gamers style and shaft the Tourny players....................to be honest, no game system could EVER appease the Tourny players.


Lolwut? How exactly are the tournament players hurting anyone else by asking for better balance? Better balance makes the game better for everyone, and I have no idea why some people seem to believe that the game is meant to be a masochistic slog through poorly designed rules and nonexistent balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:
I can think of quite a few scenarios where that armageddon card is straight out bad.

For example, the one i find more likely is that we discover with experience that competitive IG plays with multiple small detachments to maximize the production of cards, because many cards are better than few cards used on big detachments. So all cards that require a big detachment become automatically bad.


{whynotboth.gif}

This is IG we're talking about, the faction where you can spend 25 points to draw +10 cards per turn and still have plenty of points to fill up large detachments to buff with those cards. I can not imagine a situation where drawing 15-20+ cards is not enough and you absolutely need to dump everything that benefits from a large detachment in favor of drawing your entire deck. Though TBH with IG in a typical large Apocalypse game it's not going to be that difficult to draw the entire 30-card deck every single turn and still have full-size LoW detachments to receive your best buffs.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 02:37:01


Post by: Lance845


 Peregrine wrote:
 Smirrors wrote:
Are you certain this can be used on tank commanders? Assume there will be faq out in short order to clarify


What is unclear? The card asks for the LEMAN RUSS keyword, tank commanders (and Pask) have the LEMAN RUSS keyword. It's just like how it works in normal 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lance845 wrote:
If you reveal your detachments order to do this and the opponent plays a card to act first or just has initiative they can double move, get into melee with these units and strip them of their ability to shoot.


Assuming there are no screens in the way. Cheap infantry squads that don't die until the end of the turn make getting within 1" easier said than done.


Well for 1, it's not getting within 1" it's getting into base contact. For 2, you don't have to get into contact with the tanks. Get into melee with anyone and you take their targets away. Yeah, those screens might protect the tanks (though screening is much harder when you have to be within 1/2" of at least 1 other model if you have 5 or less models in the unit or 2 other models if you have more than 5 models in the unit. No stretching out konga lines across the whole table to build walls of models). But if you get to go first and you know what bull crap they are about to try to pull you can do a lot to reduce their effectiveness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:

This is IG we're talking about, the faction where you can spend 25 points to draw +10 cards per turn and still have plenty of points to fill up large detachments to buff with those cards. I can not imagine a situation where drawing 15-20+ cards is not enough and you absolutely need to dump everything that benefits from a large detachment in favor of drawing your entire deck. Though TBH with IG in a typical large Apocalypse game it's not going to be that difficult to draw the entire 30-card deck every single turn and still have full-size LoW detachments to receive your best buffs.


At what PL are you thinking this is happening? You draw 1 card by default. Each detachment get a warlord who, if they are a character, gets to draw another card. Certain characters generate an additional card IF they are your detachments warlord. To draw the entire deck you need a minimum 15 detachments. 14 of which need the types of characters that let you draw a second card. Oh yeah... and you have to discard back down to 10 cards.

Those characters are not protected from shooting. Any sniper weapon will ignore their "obscured" -1 to hit. You think those cheap characters are surviving a long time with their crap save and 1 wound?


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 02:45:34


Post by: Peregrine


 Lance845 wrote:
Get into melee with anyone and you take their targets away.


Remember, falling back is a thing still. If you move first the screening units haven't moved yet and can use their move action to disengage from combat and let the big guns fire. And because you've already moved you can't exploit the gap until the following turn at the earliest.

Also, while locking units in combat is effective against the double-tap LRBT squadron, it does nothing against the Armageddon Banesword/Macharius battery. All melee units can do there is hope to inflict damage, and none of that damage will stop the guns from firing until the following turn.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 02:49:12


Post by: Lance845


 Peregrine wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Get into melee with anyone and you take their targets away.


Remember, falling back is a thing still. If you move first the screening units haven't moved yet and can use their move action to disengage from combat and let the big guns fire. And because you've already moved you can't exploit the gap until the following turn at the earliest.

Also, while locking units in combat is effective against the double-tap LRBT squadron, it does nothing against the Armageddon Banesword/Macharius battery. All melee units can do there is hope to inflict damage, and none of that damage will stop the guns from firing until the following turn.


Remember, those screening units are part of a detachment. If their detachment is issued an order that has them moving then that detachment is not issued an order that gives them a +1 to shoot. The controlling player would need to have issued them an order that allowed them to move before all the orders were revealed or had a card that allowed them to change their order. If they were acting as a gunline with a aimed fire order then no. They cannot fall back. They can fight at a -1 to hit.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 02:51:35


Post by: Peregrine


 Lance845 wrote:
At what PL are you thinking this is happening? You draw 1 card by default. Each detachment get a warlord who if they are a character gets to draw another card. Certain characters generate an additional card IF they are your detachments warlord. To draw the entire deck you need a minimum 15 detachments. 14 of which need the types of characters that let you draw a second card. Oh yeah... and you have to discard back down to 10 cards.


You can easily have massive card draws at 200 points. A detachment of a company commander and three astropaths and/or two-man crusader squads costs 5 points and draws two cards per turn (one for being a warlord, one for the officer rule). Each of these detachments unlocks the ability to buy three detachments of a company commander and an infantry squad for 5 points each, giving the same card draw while also supplementing your screens. And that's just pure card draw detachments. Want some guns? Three masters of ordnance and a company commander is 17 points, giving you +2 draws and three pseudo-Basilisk shots in a four-model detachment that can easily hide behind LOS blocking terrain. So yeah, for 75 points you can literally draw your entire deck every single turn. Pretty nice in team games where you can put everyone's most overpowered stratagem in the deck and ensure that everyone gets to use them every turn without any RNG...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lance845 wrote:
Remember, those screening units are part of a detachment. If their detachment is issued an order that has them moving then that detachment is not issued an order that gives them a +1 to shoot. The controlling player would need to have issued them an order that allowed them to move before all the orders were revealed or had a card that allowed them to change their order. If they were acting as a gunline with a aimed fire order then no. They cannot fall back. They can fight at a -1 to hit.


Sure, but why do you care about them not getting +1 to hit? It's a detachment of a single infantry squad and a company commander (because we need to feed the CCG engine), just give them the generic move + shoot/fight order every turn and who cares if your random lasgun dice are at maximum effectiveness.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 02:58:19


Post by: Lance845


So they fall back once, then another detachment goes and gets into melee again. No more falling back. It's not the all or nothing that 40k is. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 03:03:55


Post by: Peregrine


 Lance845 wrote:
So they fall back once, then another detachment goes and gets into melee again. No more falling back. It's not the all or nothing that 40k is. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.


You don't have to fall back immediately, you just have to do it before the shooting units need to fire. And because you're MSU IG where every infantry squad is a separate detachment you have plenty of detachments to stall and manipulate the activation sequence. Plus, as noted, the Banesword battery can't be locked in combat, so locking units in combat is purely a defensive move and any unit that activates and has its infantry squad fall back is exposed for the rest of the turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, remember that Apocalypse is rarely a 1v1 event. It's going to be an IG player bringing an Armageddon Banesword battery and the draw engine, the space marine player bringing elite infantry and the 2++ terminator squad, the harlequin player bringing the nastiest melee units in the game, etc. Everyone has their most overpowered units backed by their most overpowered assets (since, again, you draw the entire deck every turn). You aren't just charging infantry squads, you're getting into attack range for buffed harlequin detachments to roll a million dice at whatever was dumb enough to get up close.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 03:20:40


Post by: Lance845


 Peregrine wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
At what PL are you thinking this is happening? You draw 1 card by default. Each detachment get a warlord who if they are a character gets to draw another card. Certain characters generate an additional card IF they are your detachments warlord. To draw the entire deck you need a minimum 15 detachments. 14 of which need the types of characters that let you draw a second card. Oh yeah... and you have to discard back down to 10 cards.


You can easily have massive card draws at 200 points. A detachment of a company commander and three astropaths and/or two-man crusader squads costs 5 points and draws two cards per turn (one for being a warlord, one for the officer rule). Each of these detachments unlocks the ability to buy three detachments of a company commander and an infantry squad for 5 points each, giving the same card draw while also supplementing your screens. And that's just pure card draw detachments. Want some guns? Three masters of ordnance and a company commander is 17 points, giving you +2 draws and three pseudo-Basilisk shots in a four-model detachment that can easily hide behind LOS blocking terrain. So yeah, for 75 points you can literally draw your entire deck every single turn. Pretty nice in team games where you can put everyone's most overpowered stratagem in the deck and ensure that everyone gets to use them every turn without any RNG...



Every one of those units has a worse than 6+ save and a single wound. 2 successful wound rolls and, without intervention from defensive cards, they are guaranteed dead. Any one successful wound roll and you have a more than 50% chance that they are dead. This is a loosing strategy for drawing and then discarding most of your deck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
So they fall back once, then another detachment goes and gets into melee again. No more falling back. It's not the all or nothing that 40k is. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.


You don't have to fall back immediately, you just have to do it before the shooting units need to fire. And because you're MSU IG where every infantry squad is a separate detachment you have plenty of detachments to stall and manipulate the activation sequence. Plus, as noted, the Banesword battery can't be locked in combat, so locking units in combat is purely a defensive move and any unit that activates and has its infantry squad fall back is exposed for the rest of the turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, remember that Apocalypse is rarely a 1v1 event. It's going to be an IG player bringing an Armageddon Banesword battery and the draw engine, the space marine player bringing elite infantry and the 2++ terminator squad, the harlequin player bringing the nastiest melee units in the game, etc. Everyone has their most overpowered units backed by their most overpowered assets (since, again, you draw the entire deck every turn). You aren't just charging infantry squads, you're getting into attack range for buffed harlequin detachments to roll a million dice at whatever was dumb enough to get up close.


Well rarely is relative. Everyone I have spoken to in person about apoc isn't looking to do big massive 8k multi person battles on huge interconnected tables. We are all looking to play 40k but better. So sure, in games I intend to never play IG sure can generate a lot of cards and then immediately discard them while having the units that do that be weak and easily destroyed. I look forward to hearing people report back on how well or poorly it works out, but it's not actually relevant to me.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 03:42:02


Post by: Peregrine


 Lance845 wrote:
Every one of those units has a worse than 6+ save and a single wound. 2 successful wound rolls and, without intervention from defensive cards, they are guaranteed dead. Any one successful wound roll and you have a more than 50% chance that they are dead. This is a loosing strategy for drawing and then discarding most of your deck.


Being out of LOS is a 1+++ against anything but barrage weapons, and are you really wasting barrage weapons to kill single infantry models when all four models in the detachment are characters and can take over as warlord? Are you really going to let the Banesword battery keep firing while you try to snipe the draw engine? The draw engine takes a disproportionate amount of firepower to kill, and because it's so cheap it can easily pay for itself in a turn or two even if you do kill it. Remember, every Banesword battery double tap the draw engine gives you is 20+ free blast markers even if the models themselves just sit back behind LOS blocking terrain and generate assets. Every orbital bombardment the draw engine gives you is more blast markers. Etc.

Well 1) rarely is relative. Everyone I have spoken to in person about apoc isn't looking to do big massive 8k multi person battles on huge interconnected tables. We are all looking to play 40k but better.


I'm not even talking about massive battles here, all it takes is standard Apocalypse games on a 6x8 table taking the typical 3-4 hours of an 8th edition 40k game. Sure, if you're talking about playing 50 point games on your lunch break not much of this is going to be relevant, but in that case you're not really playing Apocalypse anymore.

So sure, in games I intend to never play IG sure can generate a lot of cards and then immediately discard them while having the units that do that be weak and easily destroyed.


Who cares if you immediately discard them? The point is that you guarantee availability. You pick the 10 most broken cards in the deck (plus any that can be used immediately in the orders phase) and guarantee that your team has them. The Banesword battery gets to double tap, the harlequins get their game-breaking asset, the terminator objective campers get the 2++, you immediately play all three orbital bombardment effects, etc. And then next turn you probably get to use all of those cards again because you drew the entire deck and reshuffled.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 03:50:39


Post by: Lance845


 Peregrine wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Every one of those units has a worse than 6+ save and a single wound. 2 successful wound rolls and, without intervention from defensive cards, they are guaranteed dead. Any one successful wound roll and you have a more than 50% chance that they are dead. This is a loosing strategy for drawing and then discarding most of your deck.


Being out of LOS is a 1+++ against anything but barrage weapons, and are you really wasting barrage weapons to kill single infantry models when all four models in the detachment are characters and can take over as warlord? Are you really going to let the Banesword battery keep firing while you try to snipe the draw engine? The draw engine takes a disproportionate amount of firepower to kill, and because it's so cheap it can easily pay for itself in a turn or two even if you do kill it. Remember, every Banesword battery double tap the draw engine gives you is 20+ free blast markers even if the models themselves just sit back behind LOS blocking terrain and generate assets. Every orbital bombardment the draw engine gives you is more blast markers. Etc.


If they are screening they are not out of LOS. They are easy pickings that are cheap and easy kills being used to generate valuable assets.

Well 1) rarely is relative. Everyone I have spoken to in person about apoc isn't looking to do big massive 8k multi person battles on huge interconnected tables. We are all looking to play 40k but better.


I'm not even talking about massive battles here, all it takes is standard Apocalypse games on a 6x8 table taking the typical 3-4 hours of an 8th edition 40k game. Sure, if you're talking about playing 50 point games on your lunch break not much of this is going to be relevant, but in that case you're not really playing Apocalypse anymore.


Incorrect. 300 PL on a 6x8 is more than double a standard 40k game. 2k points is roughly equivalent to 125 PL in apoc. 100-150 PL games is what people are talking about playing on a 6x4 table in roughly 1-2 hours. 1v1 is super common. More than 1 v 1 is the rarity in my meta. So as I said, rarely is relative. I can't speak for what you see in your haunts. Only my own.

So sure, in games I intend to never play IG sure can generate a lot of cards and then immediately discard them while having the units that do that be weak and easily destroyed.


Who cares if you immediately discard them? The point is that you guarantee availability. You pick the 10 most broken cards in the deck (plus any that can be used immediately in the orders phase) and guarantee that your team has them. The Banesword battery gets to double tap, the harlequins get their game-breaking asset, the terminator objective campers get the 2++, you immediately play all three orbital bombardment effects, etc. And then next turn you probably get to use all of those cards again because you drew the entire deck and reshuffled.


If the things generating all those extra cards make it to the second turn, sure. Take pictures when you see this happen and let us know how the battle went?


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 04:02:53


Post by: Peregrine


 Lance845 wrote:
If they are screening they are not out of LOS. They are easy pickings that are cheap and easy kills being used to generate valuable assets.


Why does the entire detachment have to screen? You can put the crusader squads up front and hide the asset generators behind LOS blockers. Yeah, you might be out of command if you can't find a spot near the front for the HQ, but the crusaders are a 1W unit so getting a blast marker is probably a death sentence anyway. You can hide the masters of ordnance out of LOS and fire barrage shots because they aren't intended to screen at all. Hell, you can just take the astropath spam detachments and consider the draw engine a pure draw engine and ignore any screening questions and still come out ahead.

But mostly I think you aren't fully grasping just how cheap and spammable these detachments are and how much redundancy the IG player can bring. It honestly doesn't matter if you can target the asset generators when every single infantry squad on the table is attached to an asset generator. Bringing 10 infantry squads? That's 10 company commanders on the table generating 20 assets per turn for 20 points, even sitting out in the open that's a lot of single-model units that have to be attacked individually while you don't use that firepower on anything else.

Incorrect. 300 PL on a 6x8 is more than double a standard 40k game. 2k points is roughly equivalent to 125 PL in apoc. 100-150 PL games is what people are talking about playing on a 6x4 table in roughly 1-2 hours. 1v1 is super common. More than 1 v 1 is the rarity in my meta. So as I said, rarely is relative. I can't speak for what you see in your haunts. Only my own.


I'm not sure how you can say anything is "super common" when the game has been out for less than a week and nobody has had time to establish any trends of what will be popular. And the rulebook explicitly states that Apocalypse isn't meant to be played below 300 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, this is just going around in circles about every possible "counter" and coming up with potential counter-plays does not change the fact that there is a balance issue. You don't have to automatically win 100% of your games for something to be a problem. And it is very clear that:

1) Some assets are blatantly overpowered. The Armageddon Banesword battery is obviously way out of line compared to most other assets, and it isn't the only example of the CCG mechanic creating something broken. An army built with an optimized CCG deck and the units to exploit it is going to trash a "normal" army of a bunch of random units with some thematic assets.

2) RNG is an insufficient balancing factor when it's so easy to draw the entire deck every turn. The various IG draw engine options can effortlessly give you 10+ draws in even a small Apocalypse game, and in a typical 500+ point game an optimized Apocalypse army is going to be drawing all 30 cards (and then discarding down to the 10 best ones). You can not make the argument that an asset is ok because you won't see it all the time. If an asset breaks the game it will be played on turn 1 and probably multiple times after that. Just like the loyal 32 in an 8th edition game every competitive Apocalypse army is going to include some form of draw engine to remove the RNG factor and exploit the CCG mechanic as much as possible.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 04:35:48


Post by: Lance845


 Peregrine wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
If they are screening they are not out of LOS. They are easy pickings that are cheap and easy kills being used to generate valuable assets.


Why does the entire detachment have to screen? You can put the crusader squads up front and hide the asset generators behind LOS blockers. Yeah, you might be out of command if you can't find a spot near the front for the HQ, but the crusaders are a 1W unit so getting a blast marker is probably a death sentence anyway. You can hide the masters of ordnance out of LOS and fire barrage shots because they aren't intended to screen at all. Hell, you can just take the astropath spam detachments and consider the draw engine a pure draw engine and ignore any screening questions and still come out ahead.


Because the entire detachment has to stay within 12" of it's commander.

Lets correct a misconception. You don't need a blast marker on a unit to route it. It only needs to have a Out of Command Marker. If a unit becomes more than 12" away during a turn it will receive the OOC maker at the beginning of the next. It has THAT turn to get back within 12" or it's gone in the damage phase. If you intend for your screens to last 1 turn then good luck. I would love for my opponents to kill off their own units for me.

But mostly I think you aren't fully grasping just how cheap and spammable these detachments are and how much redundancy the IG player can bring. It honestly doesn't matter if you can target the asset generators when every single infantry squad on the table is attached to an asset generator. Bringing 10 infantry squads? That's 10 company commanders on the table generating 20 assets per turn for 20 points, even sitting out in the open that's a lot of single-model units that have to be attacked individually while you don't use that firepower on anything else.


It's more that I just don't think it matters. Lots of little dirt cheap detachments will get lots of activations and generate a lot of cards and then get killed quickly. These are not ongoing issues throughout a match. They are issues on turn 1. 2 tops. Masters of Ordinance do not generate a second card. Only the one. The units that actually generate a second card are: Tempestor Prime, Platoon Commander, Company Commander, Straken, Creed.

So again, to get all 30 cards on 1 turn you need 15 detachments lead by one of those guys. For every detachment that is not lead by one of those guys you need 2 detachments lead by some other character. Each detachment needs 3 of some other units. So lets just assume troops since they're the cheapest. 3 PL per infantry so 9 +2 for your cheapest dude. 11 PL x 15 = 165 PL. Roughly equivalent to 2600 points in card generator detachments with las guns. Not only do you need to fit 450 IG infantry models around the table to do this, somehow you need to do it while keeping them within 12" of their commanders and keep those commanders out of LOS. AND THEN you need to start bringing your big tanks so that doing any of this crap would be worth anything.

The chance that any of us will see this on a table is miniscule. Or do you regularly play with 400+ infantry?

Incorrect. 300 PL on a 6x8 is more than double a standard 40k game. 2k points is roughly equivalent to 125 PL in apoc. 100-150 PL games is what people are talking about playing on a 6x4 table in roughly 1-2 hours. 1v1 is super common. More than 1 v 1 is the rarity in my meta. So as I said, rarely is relative. I can't speak for what you see in your haunts. Only my own.


I'm not sure how you can say anything is "super common" when the game has been out for less than a week and nobody has had time to establish any trends of what will be popular. And the rulebook explicitly states that Apocalypse isn't meant to be played below 300 points.


I give exactly no feths what PL the book tells me to play at. And again, I have spoken with the people I play with in my local area. I know the PL we have been talking about playing at.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 05:37:53


Post by: Spoletta


Peregrine you are making the mistake of assuming that IG will be OP in your arguments, which we have possibly no data to determine. We can only get a gut feeling by reading the stats, and honestly my gut feeling is that they screwed IG pretty badly this time.
The new save and morale system turned them from being the most durable army in the empire to being the biggest glass cannons...without improving on the cannon part though.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 05:42:23


Post by: Ice_can


Spoletta wrote:
Peregrine you are making the mistake of assuming that IG will be OP in your arguments, which we have possibly no data to determine. We can only get a gut feeling by reading the stats, and honestly my gut feeling is that they screwed IG pretty badly this time.
The new save and morale system turned them from being the most durable army in the empire to being the biggest glass cannons...without improving on the cannon part though.

If he is right though this is another prime example of why you shouldn't let faction fanboys write the rules for that faction without oversight.
Though I have to say the fact that they even considered giving IG commanders that ability to draw extra cards was a concern from the previews as it sounded exactlly like IG CP farming. Poorly thought out fanboyism.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 06:12:14


Post by: Lance845


Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Peregrine you are making the mistake of assuming that IG will be OP in your arguments, which we have possibly no data to determine. We can only get a gut feeling by reading the stats, and honestly my gut feeling is that they screwed IG pretty badly this time.
The new save and morale system turned them from being the most durable army in the empire to being the biggest glass cannons...without improving on the cannon part though.

If he is right though this is another prime example of why you shouldn't let faction fanboys write the rules for that faction without oversight.
Though I have to say the fact that they even considered giving IG commanders that ability to draw extra cards was a concern from the previews as it sounded exactlly like IG CP farming. Poorly thought out fanboyism.


Almost everybody has a unit or more that has the same ability by another name. Hivetyrants and the Swarmlord do the same thing for Nids. Immotek does it for Crons.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 06:13:27


Post by: Spoletta


Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Peregrine you are making the mistake of assuming that IG will be OP in your arguments, which we have possibly no data to determine. We can only get a gut feeling by reading the stats, and honestly my gut feeling is that they screwed IG pretty badly this time.
The new save and morale system turned them from being the most durable army in the empire to being the biggest glass cannons...without improving on the cannon part though.

If he is right though this is another prime example of why you shouldn't let faction fanboys write the rules for that faction without oversight.
Though I have to say the fact that they even considered giving IG commanders that ability to draw extra cards was a concern from the previews as it sounded exactlly like IG CP farming. Poorly thought out fanboyism.


What i see is actually a faction with no deepstrike in a game where assault from deepstrike is king.
I see no dedicated melee elements in a game where the first battle reports show a melee focus.
I see a faction based on 7-14 PL tanks as the main part of the army, which go down with a single small blast.

I can obviously be wrong so early in the game, but i really don't see full IG being a competitive faction. They will maybe be useful for card farming.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 06:39:55


Post by: Ice_can


 Lance845 wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Peregrine you are making the mistake of assuming that IG will be OP in your arguments, which we have possibly no data to determine. We can only get a gut feeling by reading the stats, and honestly my gut feeling is that they screwed IG pretty badly this time.
The new save and morale system turned them from being the most durable army in the empire to being the biggest glass cannons...without improving on the cannon part though.

If he is right though this is another prime example of why you shouldn't let faction fanboys write the rules for that faction without oversight.
Though I have to say the fact that they even considered giving IG commanders that ability to draw extra cards was a concern from the previews as it sounded exactlly like IG CP farming. Poorly thought out fanboyism.


Almost everybody has a unit or more that has the same ability by another name. Hivetyrants and the Swarmlord do the same thing for Nids. Immotek does it for Crons.

Single HQ's arn't the same, if it had been kept to actual comanders not handed out to everyone with the officer titles or required a set detachment requirement to be met that wpuld be better IMHO.
But getting 6 cards for 5 infanty squads and 3 commanders (if peri is correct) is dumb.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 07:12:40


Post by: happy_inquisitor


Ice_can wrote:

If he is right though this is another prime example of why you shouldn't let faction fanboys write the rules for that faction without oversight.
Though I have to say the fact that they even considered giving IG commanders that ability to draw extra cards was a concern from the previews as it sounded exactlly like IG CP farming. Poorly thought out fanboyism.


Card farming is an option for pretty much any faction, Tau have no extra-card characters but can put a useful detachment that does stuff on the table for 5PL - so for half of a 300PL force they could be drawing all 30 cards from the deck every turn and also have 180 autocannon shots. It would make the Manta look cheap in real money but it would be rules legal.

Spamming MSU detachments kinda breaks the flow of the game and I think that if you were going to have any form of competitive apoc you would have a limit on detachments per power level just as we do in 40K.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 07:36:01


Post by: Spoletta


happy_inquisitor wrote:
Ice_can wrote:

If he is right though this is another prime example of why you shouldn't let faction fanboys write the rules for that faction without oversight.
Though I have to say the fact that they even considered giving IG commanders that ability to draw extra cards was a concern from the previews as it sounded exactlly like IG CP farming. Poorly thought out fanboyism.


Card farming is an option for pretty much any faction, Tau have no extra-card characters but can put a useful detachment that does stuff on the table for 5PL - so for half of a 300PL force they could be drawing all 30 cards from the deck every turn and also have 180 autocannon shots. It would make the Manta look cheap in real money but it would be rules legal.

Spamming MSU detachments kinda breaks the flow of the game and I think that if you were going to have any form of competitive apoc you would have a limit on detachments per power level just as we do in 40K.


Yeah, probably any apoc tournament ruleset would put a limit on the detachments, if anything just to limit the duration of the game. I mean, i can probably field a legal and competitive nid army with 50 detachments at 150 PL, but it wouldn't really be fun.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 13:54:25


Post by: Drager


Ice_can wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Peregrine you are making the mistake of assuming that IG will be OP in your arguments, which we have possibly no data to determine. We can only get a gut feeling by reading the stats, and honestly my gut feeling is that they screwed IG pretty badly this time.
The new save and morale system turned them from being the most durable army in the empire to being the biggest glass cannons...without improving on the cannon part though.

If he is right though this is another prime example of why you shouldn't let faction fanboys write the rules for that faction without oversight.
Though I have to say the fact that they even considered giving IG commanders that ability to draw extra cards was a concern from the previews as it sounded exactlly like IG CP farming. Poorly thought out fanboyism.


Almost everybody has a unit or more that has the same ability by another name. Hivetyrants and the Swarmlord do the same thing for Nids. Immotek does it for Crons.

Single HQ's arn't the same, if it had been kept to actual comanders not handed out to everyone with the officer titles or required a set detachment requirement to be met that wpuld be better IMHO.
But getting 6 cards for 5 infanty squads and 3 commanders (if peri is correct) is dumb.
These data sheets are available for free from GW. there's no need to speculate, just read the rule. Here's the Company Commander one. In a Patrol Detachment you can take one of these, one Infantry Squad and one... whatever and get a fully functional detachment which generates 2 cards for ~6 PL.
Spoiler:


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 14:20:33


Post by: Ice_can


Drager wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Peregrine you are making the mistake of assuming that IG will be OP in your arguments, which we have possibly no data to determine. We can only get a gut feeling by reading the stats, and honestly my gut feeling is that they screwed IG pretty badly this time.
The new save and morale system turned them from being the most durable army in the empire to being the biggest glass cannons...without improving on the cannon part though.

If he is right though this is another prime example of why you shouldn't let faction fanboys write the rules for that faction without oversight.
Though I have to say the fact that they even considered giving IG commanders that ability to draw extra cards was a concern from the previews as it sounded exactlly like IG CP farming. Poorly thought out fanboyism.


Almost everybody has a unit or more that has the same ability by another name. Hivetyrants and the Swarmlord do the same thing for Nids. Immotek does it for Crons.

Single HQ's arn't the same, if it had been kept to actual comanders not handed out to everyone with the officer titles or required a set detachment requirement to be met that wpuld be better IMHO.
But getting 6 cards for 5 infanty squads and 3 commanders (if peri is correct) is dumb.
These data sheets are available for free from GW. there's no need to speculate, just read the rule. Here's the Company Commander one. In a Patrol Detachment you can take one of these, one Infantry Squad and one... whatever and get a fully functional detachment which generates 2 cards for ~6 PL.
Spoiler:

You can actually do it for 5 PL as it's 2+3, I was hoping their might have been some limit on numbrr of warlords or suchlike somewhere else in the rules that had maybe been missed, but it sadly looks like some house rules will be needed to keep the card farming in check already.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 14:20:47


Post by: Lance845


Patrol detachments are specialist detachments. You can take up to 3 specialist detachments for every 1 main detachment.

Il have to double check tonight unless someone else can read the rules, but i think specialist detachments don't generate cards.could easily be wrong about that but i kind of remember it.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 14:47:13


Post by: JNAProductions


 Da-Rock wrote:
I am trying to read and understand the angst over the Phantom, "Balance" issue that everyone complains about.

Games are not balanced if the end result of the game is one player wins and the other loses. A truly balanced game would result in a tie.

I do agree that if some of the cards become an issue then MTG provides a very easy reference on how to deal with that.

My favorite part is that the real anger always comes from the Tourny players who want the game changed for them and they don't care about anyone else. We have a great time playing a game that functions like this one does and I don't require GW to change it to a casual gamers style and shaft the Tourny players....................to be honest, no game system could EVER appease the Tourny players.
Chess does quite a good job, methinks.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 15:30:45


Post by: the_scotsman


Drager wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Peregrine you are making the mistake of assuming that IG will be OP in your arguments, which we have possibly no data to determine. We can only get a gut feeling by reading the stats, and honestly my gut feeling is that they screwed IG pretty badly this time.
The new save and morale system turned them from being the most durable army in the empire to being the biggest glass cannons...without improving on the cannon part though.

If he is right though this is another prime example of why you shouldn't let faction fanboys write the rules for that faction without oversight.
Though I have to say the fact that they even considered giving IG commanders that ability to draw extra cards was a concern from the previews as it sounded exactlly like IG CP farming. Poorly thought out fanboyism.


Almost everybody has a unit or more that has the same ability by another name. Hivetyrants and the Swarmlord do the same thing for Nids. Immotek does it for Crons.

Single HQ's arn't the same, if it had been kept to actual comanders not handed out to everyone with the officer titles or required a set detachment requirement to be met that wpuld be better IMHO.
But getting 6 cards for 5 infanty squads and 3 commanders (if peri is correct) is dumb.
These data sheets are available for free from GW. there's no need to speculate, just read the rule. Here's the Company Commander one. In a Patrol Detachment you can take one of these, one Infantry Squad and one... whatever and get a fully functional detachment which generates 2 cards for ~6 PL.
Spoiler:


You can only take one Patrol for each Primary detachment you have, though.

Also I will need to reread the rule regarding having a hand of over 10 cards - I can't remember if you had to immediately discard if you drew over 10, or if you would be unable to draw if your hand would go over 10.

So, if I'm understanding correctly, the proposed broken strategy would be to take a full super-heavy detachment of let's say Baneswords and Stormlords, load them up with guns, assign them the <Armageddon> subfaction, and spam a bunch of company commander-led detachments full of Conscripts to draw up your cards.

2x Stormlord 3x Banesword, all with 4x THBs/LCs in a Superheavy Detachment - 150PL
Company Commander+Conscripts in a Patrol = 5PL
Company Commander+3x Conscripts in a Battalion = 11PL

If you wanted to squeeze that into 200PL, you could get 3x Battalions and 3x Patrols in there and then spend your extra 2pl on some antipersonnel weapons for a couple of your superheavies. So that's a draw of 13 cards, make sure to put your two "Search your Deck" cards (one generic one IG specific) in the deck and you're pretty much guaranteed to have Industrial Efficiency in your hand turn 1, though its worth noting you will NOT have it turn 2 because it'll be discarded.

With 240 bodies, even having to pack pretty densely for apoc you could probably corner deploy and keep your tanks from being damaged at least in melee turn 1.

Seems like a pretty powerful strategy, and something to think about "how can I beat something like this". On turns when the big boys get their double shoot card, they're laying down 19 big blasts against tanks and 17 big blasts against infantry. That's a LOT to deal with - reliably knocking down 3 knights in a turn if they want to

A couple thoughts I have about counterstrategies:

1) Officers are pretty flimsy, typically only a single small blast is required to kill them as they have a 10+ save. Each officer wiped is 2 fewer cards drawn, and they only get the possibility of the double fire card back when their deck runs dry. If you were forced into a position where you were just trying to weather and outscore the baneblades, you could wipe the 6 officers with a relatively small amount of effort, and they only have two cards that could allow the officers to survive, Look Out Sir and the "remove a single blast" one. Directing a normal army's anti-infantry fire exclusively at the officers would relatively easily wipe them, though they will undoubtedly be trying to hide behind terrain and the tanks.

2) The rule that states a unit cannot be affected by a command asset until another command asset affecting them is fully resolved does give us a small bit of solace since Industrial Efficiency states it lasts until the end of the turn. That means that cards like Armor of Contempt would not be usable to save a baneblade from focused fire. At W5 Sv6+ LD5 a baneblade isn't super durable as superheavies go. A big boy knight gets an extra wound, 2 extra LD and a 5+ instead of 6+ against large blasts, as an equal cost comparison.

My main strategy would be to focus all fire I can on officers to slow down card draw after turn 1, try to focus my antitank fire on whatever baneblade type is more threatening against the units I've got left after the initial barrage, and prioritize hunkering down on objectives because turn 1 my opponent is certainly doing nothing to control objectives.

If I am able to take out 2 baneblades and at least 3 officers turn 1 with my full army, he's not getting his double-fire card back until turn 4 at the earliest, and I don't think 3 single firing baneblades alone can serve to table the other 2/3 to 1/2 of my army. Guard don't actually have a ton of other shooting buffs that aren't subfaction-locked, and the other armageddon card is useless for baneblades.

An Aimed Firing knight Castellan with no cards puts down 3.32 big blasts against tanks. A fully decked out double firing stormsword puts out 5. If they fire at each other, both has the same .66 chance of failing morale, the stormsword takes 3.43/5 wounds of damage and the knight takes 4/6.

It is a cool trick, for sure. But you are in essence structuring your whole list around dealing about ~30% more damage than just a rando stock knight, who happens to be coincidentally about ~30% more durable than you.

I know this is a simplification, and in reality the IG player would get some other cards with which to do damage, the knight player would have a draw of probably around 3-4 cards to have the possibility of getting a defensive card, etc etc. It's just intended to highlight how you've gone from approximately mutally assured destruction in two turns.....to approximately mutually assured destruction in 2 turns.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 15:56:15


Post by: Spoletta


That list would lose immediately against anyone with a bit of deep strike flying assaulters. You cannot screen 5 super heavys against something that drops at 9" and moves 24" over other models. Surely not with just 3 conscript squads.

Yeah that's right, you will be defeated by !!||ASSAULT SQUADS||!!... wow i've been wanting for so long to say something like this...


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 16:26:48


Post by: Peregrine


Spoletta wrote:
That list would lose immediately against anyone with a bit of deep strike flying assaulters. You cannot screen 5 super heavys against something that drops at 9" and moves 24" over other models. Surely not with just 3 conscript squads.

Yeah that's right, you will be defeated by !!||ASSAULT SQUADS||!!... wow i've been wanting for so long to say something like this...


You know that superheavies can shoot even if something gets into melee, right?


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 16:27:05


Post by: Drager


Ice_can wrote:
Drager wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Peregrine you are making the mistake of assuming that IG will be OP in your arguments, which we have possibly no data to determine. We can only get a gut feeling by reading the stats, and honestly my gut feeling is that they screwed IG pretty badly this time.
The new save and morale system turned them from being the most durable army in the empire to being the biggest glass cannons...without improving on the cannon part though.

If he is right though this is another prime example of why you shouldn't let faction fanboys write the rules for that faction without oversight.
Though I have to say the fact that they even considered giving IG commanders that ability to draw extra cards was a concern from the previews as it sounded exactlly like IG CP farming. Poorly thought out fanboyism.


Almost everybody has a unit or more that has the same ability by another name. Hivetyrants and the Swarmlord do the same thing for Nids. Immotek does it for Crons.

Single HQ's arn't the same, if it had been kept to actual comanders not handed out to everyone with the officer titles or required a set detachment requirement to be met that wpuld be better IMHO.
But getting 6 cards for 5 infanty squads and 3 commanders (if peri is correct) is dumb.
These data sheets are available for free from GW. there's no need to speculate, just read the rule. Here's the Company Commander one. In a Patrol Detachment you can take one of these, one Infantry Squad and one... whatever and get a fully functional detachment which generates 2 cards for ~6 PL.
Spoiler:

You can actually do it for 5 PL as it's 2+3, I was hoping their might have been some limit on numbrr of warlords or suchlike somewhere else in the rules that had maybe been missed, but it sadly looks like some house rules will be needed to keep the card farming in check already.
You can't get a fully functional detachment for 5, because you lose your faction trait if you take less than 3 units. It's probably worth the 1 PL to keep the ability to use the commander's leadership or a few more to do that and get another solid unit.

Lance845 wrote:Patrol detachments are specialist detachments. You can take up to 3 specialist detachments for every 1 main detachment.

Il have to double check tonight unless someone else can read the rules, but i think specialist detachments don't generate cards.could easily be wrong about that but i kind of remember it.


They do generate cards as far as I can tell (looking at the book right now).

I am not as worried about this as most people seem to be. Let's imagine you want to draw all 30 cards so you need 14 Company Commander warlords and 1 more warlord of any type. To get those most efficiently lets take a Battalion and 3 patrols for every 4 commanders. That's 2 + 3x3 + 3x(2+3) = 26 PL for 8 Cards. So we take that 3 times and are at 78 PL and +24 cards per turn (CPT)! But our army is made of a bunch of slow 1 wound units.... that's not great. we need another Battalion now to unlock the remaining Specialist Detachments we need, so that's another 11PL taking us to 89PL and +26 CPT. Now let's add a Supreme Command so we can use the cards we are drawing. 3 fully upgraded Tank Commanders is 48 PL, we'll make one of these the Warmaster and our missing Warlord. We are now at +27 CPT and 137 PL. Finally, we add one more patrol at 5 power, giving us +29 CPT (30 total with the free one) and that costs us 142 PL.

That doesn't seem very scary. Most of your units don't have ObSec can't use their commanders' leadership and die to a stiff breeze. Imagine you are being shot at by Kabalites in Venoms, for every rapid-fire shot at you you lose a commander (96% chance) and 8 PL puts out 3 Rapid Fire Shots. It wouldn't be surprising in a 150 PL game to see 10 such units at only 80 power, that on average kills all your commanders turn 1, or if you have deployed so far back they can't rapid-fire you with all of your commanders it kills half of them in a single volley. Then there's the rest of the list, which is likely geared to anti tank and eats the tank commaders. You get 1 big turn, sure, but then you get... nothing.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 18:36:55


Post by: the_scotsman


Spoletta wrote:
That list would lose immediately against anyone with a bit of deep strike flying assaulters. You cannot screen 5 super heavys against something that drops at 9" and moves 24" over other models. Surely not with just 3 conscript squads.

Yeah that's right, you will be defeated by !!||ASSAULT SQUADS||!!... wow i've been wanting for so long to say something like this...


You are confused. There are 8 conscript squads, 240 models. Deploying in a corner you can absolutely screen against turn 1 assault if the tanks are in close formation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
That list would lose immediately against anyone with a bit of deep strike flying assaulters. You cannot screen 5 super heavys against something that drops at 9" and moves 24" over other models. Surely not with just 3 conscript squads.

Yeah that's right, you will be defeated by !!||ASSAULT SQUADS||!!... wow i've been wanting for so long to say something like this...


You know that superheavies can shoot even if something gets into melee, right?


This is also true. Assault units' biggest advantage would be the ability to get themselves tangled up in the infantry squads, which would likely be the best protection they could have on the battlefield as the infantry would be very unlikely to hurt them and would most likely take a turn or two to chew through.

The big con of conscripts vs Infantry is most likely going to be their tendency to give up the ghost after two turns, rather than one.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 18:49:04


Post by: Spoletta


 Peregrine wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
That list would lose immediately against anyone with a bit of deep strike flying assaulters. You cannot screen 5 super heavys against something that drops at 9" and moves 24" over other models. Surely not with just 3 conscript squads.

Yeah that's right, you will be defeated by !!||ASSAULT SQUADS||!!... wow i've been wanting for so long to say something like this...


You know that superheavies can shoot even if something gets into melee, right?


No, actually i didn't know it was like this in Apoc. Thanks for the info.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 20:06:28


Post by: Ice_can


Well that still looks like the loyal 65 is unfortunately going to be a thing in Apoc, why the Design team think IG should always have more orders when they are always a bureaucratic process driven inflexible juggernaut.

If anything they should be the last faction to be getting extra cards for just taking another joe with some gold braid.


Apocalypse - Any balance issues to be aware of? @ 2019/07/10 21:07:35


Post by: Lance845


Or just house rule it so specialist detachments dont generate cards. If you want a tiny strile team with minimum requirements that can act independantly then you can. But you dont get to draw an extra card for it.