I'll echo lance as to the fact I really like the flow of gameplay better. I feel like there are more meaningful choices and less lagtime between making a choice and resolving the action. I also like the lack of downtime.
I dislike the way hero characters feel incredibly unimpactful and dislike the loss of the generic "reroll for a point" particularly with the low numbers of dice involved. a bad 1 really feels like a whammy in apoc.
I also dislike how GW seems to have made some decisions based on very simple math-costing formulas that lead many units to feel incredibly good and well balanced - seriously, crunching the numbers on the sliding scale of durability vs damage dealt a shocking number of units in the game fall really nicely on a linear scale - but where they seem to have lost their edge is with shared weapon profiles. A large number of the balance issues I've found have come from a unit like the Ironstrider Balistarii that has a shared profile weapon like a lascannon or Autocannon, and those units are the ones they seem to have tried to price manually...and failed.
There are other head-scratcher units (Why are all the imperial assassins sooooooooooooo bad?) but in general...I'm pretty happy. Happier than with 40k at least.
The core rule set is strictly better. The unit to unit balance can be off, and will hopefully get gw to adjust in the coming future. This is where my fear is though, apoc is unlikely to be picked up by the competitive community at large, unlike kill team, which is often a generator of balancing decisions, and there’s already a collection of folks going “well you could just take literally nothing but the best units from every army”
It's probably because I have not fought the armies or units with the biggest imbalances but I can say in the matches I have played the unit balance seems to be over all better than in 40k. Not perfect mind you. Things are not 100% tuned. But better.
Characters can be weaker. But the protector units are significantly more valuable and make the characters much more survivable. Lychguard, tyrant guard, etc... much better units in apoc and I like that. Not just because they do their protector job and that job is now more valuable but because they are also good units in and of themselves (lychguard are BRUTAL with warscythes).
The missions seem good, and the random mission generator is a nice addition in the book to keep things fresh.
While I would like a competitive element to take off because more people playing is better, I also don't participate in that so I don't actually care at all about it.
You can easily just say "1 army only" for competitive. Or "no more than 2 armies per player". The most egregious issues in apocs core rules are fixed with the easiest of house rules.
Lance845 wrote: It's probably because I have not fought the armies or units with the biggest imbalances but I can say in the matches I have played the unit balance seems to be over all better than in 40k. Not perfect mind you. Things are not 100% tuned. But better.
Characters can be weaker. But the protector units are significantly more valuable and make the characters much more survivable. Lychguard, tyrant guard, etc... much better units in apoc and I like that. Not just because they do their protector job and that job is now more valuable but because they are also good units in and of themselves (lychguard are BRUTAL with warscythes).
The missions seem good, and the random mission generator is a nice addition in the book to keep things fresh.
While I would like a competitive element to take off because more people playing is better, I also don't participate in that so I don't actually care at all about it.
You can easily just say "1 army only" for competitive. Or "no more than 2 armies per player". The most egregious issues in apocs core rules are fixed with the easiest of house rules.
They would be, but man is it not fun for the jerk to show up with his 20 faction army whining loudly about how no one wants to play his perfectly mathmatically optimized lists and how the tournies are pandering to casuals because they do something so heinous as demand at least one faction key word in common for lists.
But again, what is worse is if no tournies pick this up, I don't see much balancing being done at all. I dunno if anyone else has noticed, but GW tends to balance as a result of tourney abuse. "Oh people showed up at adeptecon with 10 flyrants in their list" *implements rule of three* "Wow that plague flail is rolling people in a death guard kill team" *Plague flail's attacks and damage reduced*.
Sure, but thus far nothing in apoc is drastically overhwelming the competition like that. Again, maybe i just havent seen it, but in apoc no unit matters as much as a cohesive synergistic detachment.
And the detachments built well balance well.
Some few units or options are complete crap (looking at you lictors/deathleaper). But auto not include is a significantly smaller issue than auto include.
I dunno, I do feel like my hurricane bolters are running a biiiit rampant, but that might change if I run into someone that's put more thought into their lists.
The core rules are solid. The CCG mechanic of the stratagem deck is easily the game's biggest flaw, but it's also something you don't need to use as long as you're willing to house rule a replacement for psychic powers. Other than that there's nothing that stands out as an obvious game-breaking problem like normal 40k's IGOUGO system. If you're playing small games you might consider moving to a unit-by-unit system for alternating activations since a single detachment becomes a much larger percentage of your army and moves the game closer to IGOUGO, and if you go too small you'll probably find that the all-or-nothing system for resolving attacks makes the game excessively swingy and prone to slap fights. But needing minor changes like that is way better than 8th.
The datasheets are definitely lacking. There's some balance issues and a lot of units with nonsensical rules. Superheavy tank destroyers being outgunned by a basic LRBT, weapon options that are strictly worse than other options the unit can take, and various things like that which make you wonder if anyone at GW knows how math works. But from what I've seen so far nothing stands out as blatantly overpowered like some of the stuff in normal 40k, and agreeing on house rules to fix a few nonsensical datasheets (if you even have those models in your collection) is much easier than trying to make a functioning game out of 8th edition.
The cards are an important part to split up purely mathematic gameplay. Plugging in the highest damage to cost ratios and spamming it out.
I do however not want to see them actually CCG this game, and continue to produce cards. The cards are the cards, we have enough. Done (even if I have much salt about how few custodes cards there are).
stratigo wrote: The cards are an important part to split up purely mathematic gameplay. Plugging in the highest damage to cost ratios and spamming it out.
How exactly do they do that? The CCG mechanic is just one more set of math to optimize. Unless you mean that, with limits on how many cards you can draw per turn, the RNG factor overwhelms player agency sufficiently that it doesn't matter what your army is?
Lance845 wrote: Sure, but thus far nothing in apoc is drastically overhwelming the competition like that. Again, maybe i just havent seen it, but in apoc no unit matters as much as a cohesive synergistic detachment.
And the detachments built well balance well.
Some few units or options are complete crap (looking at you lictors/deathleaper). But auto not include is a significantly smaller issue than auto include.
The Deathleaper is actually finding its way into some of my lists as a cheap character to lead entirely deepstriking detachments. I’d probably be better off using the Red Terror though
Yup. I use the red terror with raveners. They are great. Many dice hitting on 2+ in melee.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Deathleaper has no synergy with anyone and not alot of attacks. The -1 ld aura is good if something else is doind the work of putting down blasts. But hes frankly. Incapable.
If they gave lictors rending claws AND grqsping talons so they got 2 attacks that would at least be something. Or if vrasping talons were destroyer so they were more effective at hunting specific targets.
While I am personally ok with the deck system, I can understand Peregrine's view. I am not sure what the change would be though.
I agree with Perigrine that at smaller games (sub 100PL) it should be unit by unit instead of by detachment.
I also agree with Perigrine that weapons should never be strictly worse than another in the same situation. For example, Heavy Bolters are strictly worse than Plasma Cannons and thus anything that has access to either will never have a reason to take Heavy Bolters.
stratigo wrote: The cards are an important part to split up purely mathematic gameplay. Plugging in the highest damage to cost ratios and spamming it out.
How exactly do they do that? The CCG mechanic is just one more set of math to optimize. Unless you mean that, with limits on how many cards you can draw per turn, the RNG factor overwhelms player agency sufficiently that it doesn't matter what your army is?
Card mechanics are sufficiently difficult to math that no one is gonna keep it in their head. They break up the basic ease of target priority by injecting chance (nothing is purely chance everything is statistics of course, but good luck finding someone who is that good a card counter. They'll be winning poker games in vegas) of a card to counter purely mathematically optimal target selection, or shift the order of operations of an army.
It makes the math sufficiently difficult that you can't simply do in your head except to a rough degree, making you have to plan around the possibility of a card, or take the risk of the oppenent not having the card and doing a more optimal strategy otherwise. Which is important for breaking up basic purely optimal statistical target selection. I'm terrible at math and can easily stat out the amount of damage a unit is going to do to another unit on average.
It also allows for a bit of bluffing and psychological play.
stratigo wrote: The cards are an important part to split up purely mathematic gameplay. Plugging in the highest damage to cost ratios and spamming it out.
How exactly do they do that? The CCG mechanic is just one more set of math to optimize. Unless you mean that, with limits on how many cards you can draw per turn, the RNG factor overwhelms player agency sufficiently that it doesn't matter what your army is?
Card mechanics are sufficiently difficult to math that no one is gonna keep it in their head. They break up the basic ease of target priority by injecting chance (nothing is purely chance everything is statistics of course, but good luck finding someone who is that good a card counter. They'll be winning poker games in vegas) of a card to counter purely mathematically optimal target selection, or shift the order of operations of an army.
It makes the math sufficiently difficult that you can't simply do in your head except to a rough degree, making you have to plan around the possibility of a card, or take the risk of the oppenent not having the card and doing a more optimal strategy otherwise. Which is important for breaking up basic purely optimal statistical target selection. I'm terrible at math and can easily stat out the amount of damage a unit is going to do to another unit on average.
It also allows for a bit of bluffing and psychological play.
Agree with all that. Also, card counting in poker is based around knowing what cards are in the deck. You don't know for sure which 30 cards your opponent has unless you spent time inspecting and studying their deck.
BaconCatBug wrote: While I am personally ok with the deck system, I can understand Peregrine's view. I am not sure what the change would be though.
I agree with Perigrine that at smaller games (sub 100PL) it should be unit by unit instead of by detachment.
I also agree with Perigrine that weapons should never be strictly worse than another in the same situation. For example, Heavy Bolters are strictly worse than Plasma Cannons and thus anything that has access to either will never have a reason to take Heavy Bolters.
You could do that but I don't think you could without heavy bolters having a different profile for different units. SO MANY units have lascannons, heavy bolters, etc. For a hb to be balanced against a plasma cannon for marines, a twin hb would be overpowered vs plasma cannon on dreadnoughts.
They went with consistent profiles over perfect balance. And be honest if they'd gone with inconsistent profiles you would say "lololol the same gun is different if a different unit fires it stoopid gw!!!"
the_scotsman wrote: And be honest if they'd gone with inconsistent profiles you would say "lololol the same gun is different if a different unit fires it stoopid gw!!!"
But they have gone with inconsistent profiles in some cases.
the_scotsman wrote: And be honest if they'd gone with inconsistent profiles you would say "lololol the same gun is different if a different unit fires it stoopid gw!!!"
But they have gone with inconsistent profiles in some cases.
the_scotsman wrote: And be honest if they'd gone with inconsistent profiles you would say "lololol the same gun is different if a different unit fires it stoopid gw!!!"
But they have gone with inconsistent profiles in some cases.
Only in the case of basic weapons that have different numbers of models using them. A storm Bolter will deal less than 5 storm bolters, 5 bolt pistols vs 10 bolt pistols etc.
It's as bad as WHFB's end times fiasco. Just a stupid way to shoehorn all of the 40K toys (IK, flyers, etc.) into a single game but this topic has been already discussed to death without any of GW's suits becoming any smarter.
Strg Alt wrote: It's as bad as WHFB's end times fiasco. Just a stupid way to shoehorn all of the 40K toys (IK, flyers, etc.) into a single game but this topic has been already discussed to death without any of GW's suits becoming any smarter.
What? lol. You think apoc is as bad as the launch of end times?
Strg Alt wrote: It's as bad as WHFB's end times fiasco. Just a stupid way to shoehorn all of the 40K toys (IK, flyers, etc.) into a single game but this topic has been already discussed to death without any of GW's suits becoming any smarter.
What? lol. You think apoc is as bad as the launch of end times?
Yeah, I saw the unit bases like they were used in good old Epic.
Pretty stupid. If you want to simulate mass warfare you play Epic. You want to play skirmish? Fine, play 40K.
And now GW's suits brainwashed their customers to play Epic but with 40K models. Only people with half a brain will fall for this most foul ploy.
In terms of balance. Apoc is the least balanced version of 40k I have ever played. The cards are overly powerful. Unit costs are atrocious and I mean atrocious. The general format is nice but they also blew it with hitting on d6's - it should be d12's. Deep strike should count as moving OFC. I could go on and on but it's bad.
Xenomancers wrote: In terms of balance. Apoc is the least balanced version of 40k I have ever played. The cards are overly powerful. Unit costs are atrocious and I mean atrocious. The general format is nice but they also blew it with hitting on d6's - it should be d12's. Deep strike should count as moving OFC. I could go on and on but it's bad.
I've been doing some mathhammer breakdowns of the different units from all my various factions, and I've been finding the exact opposite. The durability vs damage for the cost of most units is on a pretty even sliding scale. A few exceptions, but far fewer than 40k.
Xenomancers wrote: In terms of balance. Apoc is the least balanced version of 40k I have ever played. The cards are overly powerful. Unit costs are atrocious and I mean atrocious. The general format is nice but they also blew it with hitting on d6's - it should be d12's. Deep strike should count as moving OFC. I could go on and on but it's bad.
Your 40k players must be really nice to you.
This mostly sound like "Well I lost a few times, so the game is bad"
Xenomancers wrote: In terms of balance. Apoc is the least balanced version of 40k I have ever played. The cards are overly powerful. Unit costs are atrocious and I mean atrocious. The general format is nice but they also blew it with hitting on d6's - it should be d12's. Deep strike should count as moving OFC. I could go on and on but it's bad.
Odd, I don't want to invalidate your experiences, but mine have been quite the opposite. The unit costs and stat paradigms seem pretty clearly based on a formula that is applied evenly with some rounding here and there. I actually would feel pretty comfortable taking X points of random units up against X points of another faction and feel like I'm going to have a reasonably close game. But admittedly, I could have some blind spots in terms of factions I'm seeing.
Strg Alt wrote: It's as bad as WHFB's end times fiasco. Just a stupid way to shoehorn all of the 40K toys (IK, flyers, etc.) into a single game but this topic has been already discussed to death without any of GW's suits becoming any smarter.
What? lol. You think apoc is as bad as the launch of end times?
Yeah, I saw the unit bases like they were used in good old Epic.
Pretty stupid. If you want to simulate mass warfare you play Epic. You want to play skirmish? Fine, play 40K.
And now GW's suits brainwashed their customers to play Epic but with 40K models. Only people with half a brain will fall for this most foul ploy.
You are free to have whatever opinion you want. But you are way off.
Pretty stupid. If you want to simulate mass warfare you play Epic. You want to play skirmish? Fine, play 40K.
Epic hasn't been supported by GW for 20+ years now. The last release was in 1997.
I'm sure there's still community support for it, but you can't seriously recommend that to a new player instead of the new release that seems to be generally well liked.
Glancing through the rules when I can (looking to buy the book asap) and I’m impressed with what they did. They’re clearly inspired by Epic, plus they match some of my own ideas for how 40k could work before the 8th edition was released. Not bad, not bad at all.
Now it’s time for me to work on building an AoS version.
Pretty stupid. If you want to simulate mass warfare you play Epic. You want to play skirmish? Fine, play 40K.
Epic hasn't been supported by GW for 20+ years now. The last release was in 1997.
I'm sure there's still community support for it, but you can't seriously recommend that to a new player instead of the new release that seems to be generally well liked.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. At least one thing is certain:
Trying to play Epic with 40K models costs an arm and a leg. It seems most of the geeks of today are filthy rich to endeavor such a thought.
Another matter is table size. You will have to rent a hall to have enough space for all the models in company strength. Yeah, have fun.
Pretty stupid. If you want to simulate mass warfare you play Epic. You want to play skirmish? Fine, play 40K.
Epic hasn't been supported by GW for 20+ years now. The last release was in 1997.
I'm sure there's still community support for it, but you can't seriously recommend that to a new player instead of the new release that seems to be generally well liked.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. At least one thing is certain:
Trying to play Epic with 40K models costs an arm and a leg. It seems most of the geeks of today are filthy rich to endeavor such a thought.
Another matter is table size. You will have to rent a hall to have enough space for all the models in company strength. Yeah, have fun.
....you do know that nothing stops you from playing apoc at 100PL, right? And that the table size for that game would be...exactly the same size as a standard 40k game? and exactly the same models? Except for the fact that the formula they used to balance the units and the greatly reduced requirements for your models to be legally WYSIWYG makes it actually require fewer models and less monetary investment than a standard game of 40k?
The rules look good, but I worry games would be over fairly quickly?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nowt wrong with that of course. I just prefer 2-3 hour games.
I've played a couple 100pl games. Both lasted about 2hrs. Compared to standard 40k games with the same lists, however, the games went a much longer number of turns (both went out to turn 5 and ended because of scoring with each player having over a quarter of their army left alive).
I don't think I've ever played a game of 40k 8th and had it go to turn 5 without a player getting either tabled or very nearly tabled. The games I've played that have gone long are usually mututally destructive affairs with players being left with units that are either slow and out of postiion or non-deadly units like transports. And that's never the competitive games, which are always decided by turn 3 at the very latest.
The rules look good, but I worry games would be over fairly quickly?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nowt wrong with that of course. I just prefer 2-3 hour games.
I don't see any reason why games would be over too quickly in terms of how many turns the game takes. Alpha strikes have been significantly nerfed and overall firepower seems lower than in 40k. The only reason you'd have a quick game is because the rules allow you to execute your actions much faster and you spend less time slogging through endless rolls and re-rolls and modifiers and re-rolls and more modifiers.
Nurglitch wrote: I figure moving stuff in trays rather than one model at a time would speed things up, at least.
It goes beyond that as well. My first test game of apoc I took a couple of 30-man boyz units without trays, and because of the unit coherency, movement and terrain rules, moving the blobs around was far faster than in base 40k.
let's say I have an ork unit I want to move to attack an enemy situated in a terrain feature in base 40k.
I move my ork boyz 5" taking care not to move the front row too far because it's important for my charge roll later. I declare the charge, then stop while we resolve overwatch attacks. I roll saves, removing models individually for the fails. I then roll my charge roll and move the entire blob again, placing each model individually on the terrain to get the maximum number in coherency because I attack by the model.
I declare they will attack. I move the entire blob individually AGAIN, moving each model to get more models in on the pile in. I maneuver the individual models in the terrain piece.
We resolve the fighting, removing individual models as we fail saves. I move the entire blob AGAIN for the consolidation.
Now, how do I do that in apoc?
I declare an assault order. I move the unit once, 10" with no dice rolling. If any model touches the agreed upon boundary of the terrain piece, I make all my close combat attacks against any units within the terrain piece.
There is no overwatch, separate charge move, individual model removal, pile-in, or consolidate.
The terrain rules are another HUGE help with time. You embark into terrain like you would a transport: it doesn't matter at all where in the terrain piece the models are actually located, and the terrain piece is then used in lieu of any of the models inside to determine who can see who and who can fight who.
That's a big improvement in terms of time spent carefully placing models trying to make sure they can still draw LOS and don't fall out of the windows. You can just place your models in either as quick-and-dirty or as narratively pleasing way as you like, somewhere in the building, and not have to worry about the micro-impact of where you put them, on which floor, how far can they move, etc.
Have gotten 5 games in so far, all at 100PL. Has been a lot of fun. I see MASSIVE potential. For a version 1.0, it's damn good.
Some issues are:
Data sheets need some work, but not much. There are some oddities..
# of attacks is confusing sometimes
The nomenclature could have been better, use "Deepstrike phase" instead of "Reinforcements phase", use "Strength Against Lights" and "Strength Against Heavies" instead of SAP/SAT, for example.
A couple more order choices would be cool, like "take a knee" so that friendlies can shoot through you (which requires a rule that you can't shoot through friendlies). Maybe a "low crawl" that allows a half move but gives you Obscured and -1 to shooting and fighting.
Sometimes you actually WANT 2 small blast markers instead of a large, it would be nice to have that option - better for killing large mob units..
So I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for this question, but I'm confused about # of attacks. For example a unit of 9 Grotesques - they have 6 attacks with Flesh Gauntlets, and then I give them either a Liquifier or Cleaver PER MODEL. So if I have 8 with Cleavers and then 1 with a Liquifier, that means I get a total of 6 attacks with Gauntlets, 16 attacks with cleavers, and 1 attack with liquifier (assuming no B2B contact). Is that correct?
Same thing with Windriders - If i have a unit of 3 and they all have Twin Shuriken Catapults, does that mean I then get 6 attacks total? Or would I get a total of 2?
jamshaman wrote: Have gotten 5 games in so far, all at 100PL. Has been a lot of fun. I see MASSIVE potential. For a version 1.0, it's damn good.
Some issues are:
Data sheets need some work, but not much. There are some oddities..
# of attacks is confusing sometimes
The nomenclature could have been better, use "Deepstrike phase" instead of "Reinforcements phase", use "Strength Against Lights" and "Strength Against Heavies" instead of SAP/SAT, for example.
A couple more order choices would be cool, like "take a knee" so that friendlies can shoot through you (which requires a rule that you can't shoot through friendlies). Maybe a "low crawl" that allows a half move but gives you Obscured and -1 to shooting and fighting.
Sometimes you actually WANT 2 small blast markers instead of a large, it would be nice to have that option - better for killing large mob units..
So I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for this question, but I'm confused about # of attacks. For example a unit of 9 Grotesques - they have 6 attacks with Flesh Gauntlets, and then I give them either a Liquifier or Cleaver PER MODEL. So if I have 8 with Cleavers and then 1 with a Liquifier, that means I get a total of 6 attacks with Gauntlets, 16 attacks with cleavers, and 1 attack with liquifier (assuming no B2B contact). Is that correct?
Same thing with Windriders - If i have a unit of 3 and they all have Twin Shuriken Catapults, does that mean I then get 6 attacks total? Or would I get a total of 2?
Thanks in advance.
Any weapon with a fixed number of attacks grants a number of attacks equal to that number times the number of weapons you have. So if your tank has 2 heavy bolters, obviously it gets 2 shots. Same deal with your 8 cleavers - they grant 16 attacks. And your 3 Twin Shuriken Catapults - 6 attacks.
weapons based on User attacks only scale with the users attack stat, and I have yet to come across any User weapons you can take multiple of, though they could theoretically exist I suppose.
So I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for this question, but I'm confused about # of attacks. For example a unit of 9 Grotesques - they have 6 attacks with Flesh Gauntlets, and then I give them either a Liquifier or Cleaver PER MODEL. So if I have 8 with Cleavers and then 1 with a Liquifier, that means I get a total of 6 attacks with Gauntlets, 16 attacks with cleavers, and 1 attack with liquifier (assuming no B2B contact). Is that correct?
Assuming no BSB you get 1 attack at 8" auto-hitting with the Liquifier. In melee you get 6 Attacks (unit gets 6 attacks at 9 models) with the Flesh Gauntlets and 16 (8 equipped models at 2 attacks each) with the Cleavers. Note that you attack with all equipped weapons and can split the targets of the weapons. (Flesh Gauntlets against unit A and Cleavers against unit B)
So I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for this question, but I'm confused about # of attacks. For example a unit of 9 Grotesques - they have 6 attacks with Flesh Gauntlets, and then I give them either a Liquifier or Cleaver PER MODEL. So if I have 8 with Cleavers and then 1 with a Liquifier, that means I get a total of 6 attacks with Gauntlets, 16 attacks with cleavers, and 1 attack with liquifier (assuming no B2B contact). Is that correct?
Assuming no BSB you get 1 attack at 8" auto-hitting with the Liquifier. In melee you get 6 Attacks (unit gets 6 attacks at 9 models) with the Flesh Gauntlets and 16 (8 equipped models at 2 attacks each) with the Cleavers. Note that you attack with all equipped weapons and can split the targets of the weapons. (Flesh Gauntlets against unit A and Cleavers against unit B)
You don't need to split them on a weapon by weapon basis, you can on an attack by attack basis, even if the weapon is A:User.
Apoc Field Manual, Page 32 wrote:If a weapon has an Attacks characteristic greater than 1, you can direct all of the attacks at the same target, or split them between different enemy units.
Since a weapon with A:User has an attack characteristic "equal to the unit's current Attacks characteristic", it means a A:User weapon on a unit with an attack characteristic of 3 has A:3 and can split those 3 attacks as they desire.
So I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for this question, but I'm confused about # of attacks. For example a unit of 9 Grotesques - they have 6 attacks with Flesh Gauntlets, and then I give them either a Liquifier or Cleaver PER MODEL. So if I have 8 with Cleavers and then 1 with a Liquifier, that means I get a total of 6 attacks with Gauntlets, 16 attacks with cleavers, and 1 attack with liquifier (assuming no B2B contact). Is that correct?
Assuming no BSB you get 1 attack at 8" auto-hitting with the Liquifier. In melee you get 6 Attacks (unit gets 6 attacks at 9 models) with the Flesh Gauntlets and 16 (8 equipped models at 2 attacks each) with the Cleavers. Note that you attack with all equipped weapons and can split the targets of the weapons. (Flesh Gauntlets against unit A and Cleavers against unit B)
You don't need to split them on a weapon by weapon basis, you can on an attack by attack basis, even if the weapon is A:User.
Apoc Field Manual, Page 32 wrote:If a weapon has an Attacks characteristic greater than 1, you can direct all of the attacks at the same target, or split them between different enemy units.
Since a weapon with A:User has an attack characteristic "equal to the unit's current Attacks characteristic", it means a A:User weapon on a unit with an attack characteristic of 3 has A:3 and can split those 3 attacks as they desire.
Incorrect. You can point each profile at a different target. You cannot divide up the shots from a single profile to different targets.
So I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for this question, but I'm confused about # of attacks. For example a unit of 9 Grotesques - they have 6 attacks with Flesh Gauntlets, and then I give them either a Liquifier or Cleaver PER MODEL. So if I have 8 with Cleavers and then 1 with a Liquifier, that means I get a total of 6 attacks with Gauntlets, 16 attacks with cleavers, and 1 attack with liquifier (assuming no B2B contact). Is that correct?
Assuming no BSB you get 1 attack at 8" auto-hitting with the Liquifier. In melee you get 6 Attacks (unit gets 6 attacks at 9 models) with the Flesh Gauntlets and 16 (8 equipped models at 2 attacks each) with the Cleavers. Note that you attack with all equipped weapons and can split the targets of the weapons. (Flesh Gauntlets against unit A and Cleavers against unit B)
You don't need to split them on a weapon by weapon basis, you can on an attack by attack basis, even if the weapon is A:User.
Apoc Field Manual, Page 32 wrote:If a weapon has an Attacks characteristic greater than 1, you can direct all of the attacks at the same target, or split them between different enemy units.
Since a weapon with A:User has an attack characteristic "equal to the unit's current Attacks characteristic", it means a A:User weapon on a unit with an attack characteristic of 3 has A:3 and can split those 3 attacks as they desire.
Incorrect. You can point each profile at a different target. You cannot divide up the shots from a single profile to different targets.
It seems I've gotten some wires crossed. For shooting that is the case, each weapon must target a single unit, but for melee attacks you can split attacks for each weapon. That was my mistake!
Pretty stupid. If you want to simulate mass warfare you play Epic. You want to play skirmish? Fine, play 40K.
Epic hasn't been supported by GW for 20+ years now. The last release was in 1997.
I'm sure there's still community support for it, but you can't seriously recommend that to a new player instead of the new release that seems to be generally well liked.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. At least one thing is certain:
Trying to play Epic with 40K models costs an arm and a leg. It seems most of the geeks of today are filthy rich to endeavor such a thought.
Another matter is table size. You will have to rent a hall to have enough space for all the models in company strength. Yeah, have fun.
....you do know that nothing stops you from playing apoc at 100PL, right? And that the table size for that game would be...exactly the same size as a standard 40k game? and exactly the same models? Except for the fact that the formula they used to balance the units and the greatly reduced requirements for your models to be legally WYSIWYG makes it actually require fewer models and less monetary investment than a standard game of 40k?
Fewer models? . Now I am sure that you don't know what you are talking about. Apocalypse has always been about taking your entire 40K collection to the table, placing them down for hours and seeing them evaporate in one or two turns.
Maybe in the past, but not now. In addition to working for huge games and medium games it's a superior ruleset for "normal" 2000 point games. Hell, replace detachment activations with unit by unit activations and it would probably also be better for 500-1000 point games.
Ratius wrote: BCB has made a rules error!
*klaxon sound blaring*
No rules error, just talking about different scenarios!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Maybe in the past, but not now. In addition to working for huge games and medium games it's a superior ruleset for "normal" 2000 point games. Hell, replace detachment activations with unit by unit activations and it would probably also be better for 500-1000 point games.
I really would like to see how unit by unit activation works. If you treat each unit as it's own detachment you'd even remove the problem you have with things like "double shoot" cards affecting multiple units.
Peregrine wrote: Maybe in the past, but not now. In addition to working for huge games and medium games it's a superior ruleset for "normal" 2000 point games. Hell, replace detachment activations with unit by unit activations and it would probably also be better for 500-1000 point games.
I really would like to see how unit by unit activation works. If you treat each unit as it's own detachment you'd even remove the problem you have with things like "double shoot" cards affecting multiple units.
It would need more brainstorming. There's a problem with Commanders in "treat each unit like a detachment".
The brainstorming would be worthwhile. Apocalypse is an enormously better ruleset than 40k.
Peregrine wrote: Maybe in the past, but not now. In addition to working for huge games and medium games it's a superior ruleset for "normal" 2000 point games. Hell, replace detachment activations with unit by unit activations and it would probably also be better for 500-1000 point games.
I really would like to see how unit by unit activation works. If you treat each unit as it's own detachment you'd even remove the problem you have with things like "double shoot" cards affecting multiple units.
It would need more brainstorming. There's a problem with Commanders in "treat each unit like a detachment".
The brainstorming would be worthwhile. Apocalypse is an enormously better ruleset than 40k.
How so? It just means every unit is it's own commander. Only issue is that every CHARACTER can become a WARLORD, but that can be fixed by making only HQs WARLORDS.
I move my ork boyz 5" taking care not to move the front row too far because it's important for my charge roll later. I declare the charge, then stop while we resolve overwatch attacks. I roll saves, removing models individually for the fails. I then roll my charge roll and move the entire blob again, placing each model individually on the terrain to get the maximum number in coherency because I attack by the model.
I declare they will attack. I move the entire blob individually AGAIN, moving each model to get more models in on the pile in. I maneuver the individual models in the terrain piece.
We resolve the fighting, removing individual models as we fail saves. I move the entire blob AGAIN for the consolidation.
Now, how do I do that in apoc?
I declare an assault order. I move the unit once, 10" with no dice rolling. If any model touches the agreed upon boundary of the terrain piece, I make all my close combat attacks against any units within the terrain piece.
There is no overwatch, separate charge move, individual model removal, pile-in, or consolidate.
This! For the love of all that is unholy, I so much hate that stupid fraction-of-an-inch manoeuvring in the charge and fight phases in regular 40k. If I weren't stuck at home with my newborn daughter, I'd be rounding up my gaming pals and locking them up until they all start using the apoc ruleset for every game of 40k.
The brainstorming would be worthwhile. Apocalypse is an enormously better ruleset than 40k.
How so? It just means every unit is it's own commander. Only issue is that every CHARACTER can become a WARLORD, but that can be fixed by making only HQs WARLORDS.
I might be convoluting many effects for Commanders that are actually for Characters. I can just re-read the cards and such later to see. If that's the case, I rescind my comments.
The brainstorming would be worthwhile. Apocalypse is an enormously better ruleset than 40k.
How so? It just means every unit is it's own commander. Only issue is that every CHARACTER can become a WARLORD, but that can be fixed by making only HQs WARLORDS.
I might be convoluting many effects for Commanders that are actually for Characters. I can just re-read the cards and such later to see. If that's the case, I rescind my comments.
No worries, it's a thing a lot of people get mixed up.
There are three "types" of Commander.
Every detachment has a Commander. This can be any unit you wish. Whenever a unit that is a Commander dies, another unit in that detachment becomes that detachments Commander. You select which unit is the Commander of a detachment after both players have deployed, and furthermore this must be the unit with the highest Leadership Characteristic in the detachment (you pick which unit in the event of a tie).
After declaring Commanders, if the Commander of a detachment is a CHARACTER, it is now also a WARLORD. WARLORD units grant various benefits, the main one being that they generate a Command Asset for your army in each Orders phase. If a WARLORD is slain, unless otherwise specified, the unit you choose to replace them as a Commander does not become a WARLORD, regardless of whether they are a CHARACTER or not.
Finally, after all Commanders have been nominated, each player must select one Commander to be the army's Warmaster. If you have any WARLORD units in your army, your Warmaster must be one of them (in this case the Leadership Characteristic is not important). Warmasters are the same as WARLORD units in almost every regard, except a few rules apply to Warmasters specifically rather than WARLORD units.
Where a Command Asset affects a whole detachment or units within a detachment, it normally states "A detachment lead by a X Commander", which if we treated each unit as a detachment would allow for Command Assets to be used on single units.
Activating unit by unit probably works fine, with the caveat of some weird edge scenarios popping up here and there, but I kinda like the fact that units can be outright routed by fire if they stray too far away from their commanding sections. It could be worthwhile to preserve some of that in the u-by-u system.
Sherrypie wrote: Activating unit by unit probably works fine, with the caveat of some weird edge scenarios popping up here and there, but I kinda like the fact that units can be outright routed by fire if they stray too far away from their commanding sections. It could be worthwhile to preserve some of that in the u-by-u system.
The biggest issue becomes the cards. Many cards effect detachments or units. When the detachment is no longer being issued the order things get wonky when the card effects the whole detachment.
Sherrypie wrote: Activating unit by unit probably works fine, with the caveat of some weird edge scenarios popping up here and there, but I kinda like the fact that units can be outright routed by fire if they stray too far away from their commanding sections. It could be worthwhile to preserve some of that in the u-by-u system.
The biggest issue becomes the cards. Many cards effect detachments or units. When the detachment is no longer being issued the order things get wonky when the card effects the whole detachment.
I disagree. If you're treating each unit as it's own detachment, you'll issue orders to each unit. Cards that affect a whole detachment will still do so, it's just that the unit is the only unit in the detachment.
BaconCatBug wrote: I really would like to see how unit by unit activation works.
Not well, I'd expect. Apocalypse seems to be designed and balanced around treating multiple units as models in a "unit". One infantry squad has a low probability of success but it's also cheap, so take 3-5 of them, treat them as a single unit, and focus them against a single target to make sure it dies. This works great with activating an entire detachment at a time and it keeps the back-and-forth of activations from getting out of control. With unit-by-unit activation you'd still probably see similar groupings of units, except now you have to spend more time resolving the much longer sequence of activations.
The only reason I mention unit-by-unit activation is that in very low point games you start to lack sufficient units for detachment-by-detachment activation to give a meaningful number of exchanges and it gets too close to IGOUGO. But at that point armies are small, unit counts are low, and even activating single units doesn't push the execution time too high.
Where a Command Asset affects a whole detachment or units within a detachment, it normally states "A detachment lead by a X Commander", which if we treated each unit as a detachment would allow for Command Assets to be used on single units.
This is what I was thinking of. And yes, it just goes away when you consider each unit to be its own commander. Problem solved.
Xenomancers wrote: In terms of balance. Apoc is the least balanced version of 40k I have ever played. The cards are overly powerful. Unit costs are atrocious and I mean atrocious. The general format is nice but they also blew it with hitting on d6's - it should be d12's. Deep strike should count as moving OFC. I could go on and on but it's bad.
I've been doing some mathhammer breakdowns of the different units from all my various factions, and I've been finding the exact opposite. The durability vs damage for the cost of most units is on a pretty even sliding scale. A few exceptions, but far fewer than 40k.
Have you seen greyknights? Have you compared a phantom titan to a reverent titan? How about adept astartes - ranging from insanely OP to terribad. A standard LR is 13 PL compared to an executioner is 23 for like marginally better offense and weaker defense? You are straight up wrong. You got duped for 100 bucks to by cardboard cutouts and cards. The cards totally ruin it too. Bad balance I am used to. Random cards that swing the game drastically? Get the heck outta here.
Xenomancers wrote: In terms of balance. Apoc is the least balanced version of 40k I have ever played. The cards are overly powerful. Unit costs are atrocious and I mean atrocious. The general format is nice but they also blew it with hitting on d6's - it should be d12's. Deep strike should count as moving OFC. I could go on and on but it's bad.
I've been doing some mathhammer breakdowns of the different units from all my various factions, and I've been finding the exact opposite. The durability vs damage for the cost of most units is on a pretty even sliding scale. A few exceptions, but far fewer than 40k.
Have you seen greyknights? Have you compared a phantom titan to a reverent titan? How about adept astartes - ranging from insanely OP to terribad. A standard LR is 13 PL compared to an executioner is 23 for like marginally better offense and weaker defense? You are straight up wrong. You got duped for 100 bucks to by cardboard cutouts and cards. The cards totally ruin it too. Bad balance I am used to. Random cards that swing the game drastically? Get the heck outta here.
Have you actually tried the game? Because these "Random cards that swing the game drastically" are not as big a problem as you claim they are.
Xenomancers wrote: In terms of balance. Apoc is the least balanced version of 40k I have ever played. The cards are overly powerful. Unit costs are atrocious and I mean atrocious. The general format is nice but they also blew it with hitting on d6's - it should be d12's. Deep strike should count as moving OFC. I could go on and on but it's bad.
I've been doing some mathhammer breakdowns of the different units from all my various factions, and I've been finding the exact opposite. The durability vs damage for the cost of most units is on a pretty even sliding scale. A few exceptions, but far fewer than 40k.
Have you seen greyknights? Have you compared a phantom titan to a reverent titan? How about adept astartes - ranging from insanely OP to terribad. A standard LR is 13 PL compared to an executioner is 23 for like marginally better offense and weaker defense? You are straight up wrong. You got duped for 100 bucks to by cardboard cutouts and cards. The cards totally ruin it too. Bad balance I am used to. Random cards that swing the game drastically? Get the heck outta here.
Have you actually tried the game? Because these "Random cards that swing the game drastically" are not as big a problem as you claim they are.
They are literally half of your armies power. The best cards are like. This unit dies easily. This unit becomes nearly indestructible. This detachment shoots twice. Some cards are - reroll a dice. I've played it several times. I think most the admiration comes from the new gameplay aspects - those are good but could have been a lot better. The balance is worse than usual and cards are way worse than stratagems. Stratagems typically affect only 1 unit. Lots of cards affect entire detachments.
Sherrypie wrote: Activating unit by unit probably works fine, with the caveat of some weird edge scenarios popping up here and there, but I kinda like the fact that units can be outright routed by fire if they stray too far away from their commanding sections. It could be worthwhile to preserve some of that in the u-by-u system.
The biggest issue becomes the cards. Many cards effect detachments or units. When the detachment is no longer being issued the order things get wonky when the card effects the whole detachment.
I disagree. If you're treating each unit as it's own detachment, you'll issue orders to each unit. Cards that affect a whole detachment will still do so, it's just that the unit is the only unit in the detachment.
I am just saying the impact of a card that effects a unit and a card that effects a detachment have greater or lesser effect in general based on the potential scale of the number of units it can impact. What is currently a potential balance effect disappears when unit and detachment are indistinguishable. Maybe I am wrong and it's just not an issue. But it is a factor to consider and test for.
Xenomancers wrote: In terms of balance. Apoc is the least balanced version of 40k I have ever played. The cards are overly powerful. Unit costs are atrocious and I mean atrocious. The general format is nice but they also blew it with hitting on d6's - it should be d12's. Deep strike should count as moving OFC. I could go on and on but it's bad.
I've been doing some mathhammer breakdowns of the different units from all my various factions, and I've been finding the exact opposite. The durability vs damage for the cost of most units is on a pretty even sliding scale. A few exceptions, but far fewer than 40k.
Have you seen greyknights? Have you compared a phantom titan to a reverent titan? How about adept astartes - ranging from insanely OP to terribad. A standard LR is 13 PL compared to an executioner is 23 for like marginally better offense and weaker defense? You are straight up wrong. You got duped for 100 bucks to by cardboard cutouts and cards. The cards totally ruin it too. Bad balance I am used to. Random cards that swing the game drastically? Get the heck outta here.
Have you actually tried the game? Because these "Random cards that swing the game drastically" are not as big a problem as you claim they are.
They are literally half of your armies power. The best cards are like. This unit dies easily. This unit becomes nearly indestructible. This detachment shoots twice. Some cards are - reroll a dice. I've played it several times. I think most the admiration comes from the new gameplay aspects - those are good but could have been a lot better. The balance is worse than usual and cards are way worse than stratagems. Stratagems typically affect only 1 unit. Lots of cards affect entire detachments.
They are very literally not half your armies power. No card has ever done even half the work my hormagaunt/swarmlord/tyrant guard/venomthrope detachment has. The way you list build to make a detachment into a cohesive fighting force means significantly more than how you build your deck. The stratagems of regular 40k are a joke. The balance is better than 8th by a mile.
Xenomancers wrote: They are literally half of your armies power. The best cards are like. This unit dies easily. This unit becomes nearly indestructible. This detachment shoots twice. Some cards are - reroll a dice. I've played it several times. I think most the admiration comes from the new gameplay aspects - those are good but could have been a lot better. The balance is worse than usual and cards are way worse than stratagems. Stratagems typically affect only 1 unit. Lots of cards affect entire detachments.
So I've played several games also, both fun silly lists and "Obliterator Bombs with DKOK Drawing your entire deck every turn" lists. Yes, the command assets do nice things, but then so do stratagems in 40k powered by Loyal 32. The cards that affect entire detachments are good, yes. But your opponent also has access to Command Assets. The more powerful ones are usually limited to 3 units or to a specific sub-faction.
I ran a mass of 3x20 Berserkers one game. One got wiped out and one was half dead before they got into combat. I activated the World Eater card to make the two remaining units slap 20 attacks each down and... they pinged off some Custard Creams and did very little and got wiped out in return. Hardly the most game breaking thing ever.
Xenomancers wrote: In terms of balance. Apoc is the least balanced version of 40k I have ever played. The cards are overly powerful. Unit costs are atrocious and I mean atrocious. The general format is nice but they also blew it with hitting on d6's - it should be d12's. Deep strike should count as moving OFC. I could go on and on but it's bad.
I've been doing some mathhammer breakdowns of the different units from all my various factions, and I've been finding the exact opposite. The durability vs damage for the cost of most units is on a pretty even sliding scale. A few exceptions, but far fewer than 40k.
Have you seen greyknights? Have you compared a phantom titan to a reverent titan? How about adept astartes - ranging from insanely OP to terribad. A standard LR is 13 PL compared to an executioner is 23 for like marginally better offense and weaker defense? You are straight up wrong. You got duped for 100 bucks to by cardboard cutouts and cards. The cards totally ruin it too. Bad balance I am used to. Random cards that swing the game drastically? Get the heck outta here.
Have I seen Grey Knights - Yes. They seem much better in apoc than they do in standard 40k? I haven't played with or against them, but throwing some of their stuff into my mathhammer tables nothing seems particularly nutty bad about them. Glancing over their stuff, it seems like their Terminators have slightly better melee than standard astartes termies, slightly worse shooting (only in the optional upgrades though, which are not as good as the Assault Cannon or cyclone missile launcher). Purifiers are slightly different Sternguard with less range and better weapon upgrades. Interceptors are more glass cannony Inceptors. They also all get Psyker basically for free, which is cool. Nemesis Dreadknight is a bit of a weird unit, but comparing it with a teleporter to Lightning Claw assault Terminators it looks pretty great. More damage, slightly more durability, just can't crank its squad size up to double and get four wounds. The NDKs and the StormTalon Gunship seem like they could be a little overpowered just in terms of damage you get vs durability. I would rather see the NDK at a 5+ save rather than a 4+ save, or make the teleporter more expensive. It seems like with both GK and GSC deep strike gets given out a little more freely because if everything gets it, only half can use it.
Revenant is a bit of a glass cannon for the points comparatively, probably because it's got the 32" move with Fly off an Advance, and the Revenant is comparatively unlikely to get into combat with whatever he wants turn 1 unless he goes full megasword and just Assaults turn 1. Dire Pulsars on the Phantom seem to be the only pointless weapon option, they just do half the damage for twice the range, and I shudder to imagine the table you have to be on to make that a viable choice. Everything else, you've got a sliding scale between the most glass cannon option of the sonic lance revenant to the most tanky D-bombard phantom. Considering that their movement values mean they get to use both their melee profiles and shooting profiles on turn 1 with an Advance order while still hitting on 2s, they seem pretty on par with Knights as well.
EDIT: You mean the repulsor executioner. and I guess in your book, a "modest increase in firepower" means "Nearly triple the total damage." The repulsor executioner also has Fly, which is a huge deal for vehicles whose damage drops down to zero the second someone deep strikes and tags them before they shoot. The executioner gains 30% more damage and loses 60% durability compared to the Land Raider, which is most likely it paying for Fly. It also loses 4 transport slots FWIW.
BaconCatBug wrote: If you treat each unit as it's own detachment you'd even remove the problem you have with things like "double shoot" cards affecting multiple units.
So now that I'm reading more, what would you do with things like Autarchs which have an ability that hits a detachment.
BaconCatBug wrote: If you treat each unit as it's own detachment you'd even remove the problem you have with things like "double shoot" cards affecting multiple units.
So now that I'm reading more, what would you do with things like Autarchs which have an ability that hits a detachment.
I mean the simplest thing is that he gets to issue "this unit’s Detachment" the orders, which would mean just himself.
BaconCatBug wrote: If you treat each unit as it's own detachment you'd even remove the problem you have with things like "double shoot" cards affecting multiple units.
So now that I'm reading more, what would you do with things like Autarchs which have an ability that hits a detachment.
I mean the simplest thing is that he gets to issue "this unit’s Detachment" the orders, which would mean just himself.
Yeah, but that makes him pretty much useless. Just like units and abilities that allow you to generate command cards are useless if you remove command cards as a mechanic.
Removing a mechanic makes units that interact with that mechanic not useful. More at 11.
Honestly, the games I've played at 100PL we each had 3-4 detachments, so the alternating activation system worked just fine. I can see it breaking down around like 50PL or so...but like...don't play Apoc at the 1000pt value level?
If you want an alternating-activation game at the 500-1000pt level, I think Kill Team with Elites and Commanders expansions would probably work a lot better.
BaconCatBug wrote: If you treat each unit as it's own detachment you'd even remove the problem you have with things like "double shoot" cards affecting multiple units.
So now that I'm reading more, what would you do with things like Autarchs which have an ability that hits a detachment.
I mean the simplest thing is that he gets to issue "this unit’s Detachment" the orders, which would mean just himself.
Yeah, but that makes him pretty much useless. Just like units and abilities that allow you to generate command cards are useless if you remove command cards as a mechanic.
Removing a mechanic makes units that interact with that mechanic not useful. More at 11.
Honestly, the games I've played at 100PL we each had 3-4 detachments, so the alternating activation system worked just fine. I can see it breaking down around like 50PL or so...but like...don't play Apoc at the 1000pt value level?
If you want an alternating-activation game at the 500-1000pt level, I think Kill Team with Elites and Commanders expansions would probably work a lot better.
Agree. My tau list managed to squeeze in 5 detachments at 150 PL. It's really not that bad.
You COULD make a version of apoc that functioned on unit activation but it would require a sweep through every unit/card/mechanic to hunt for interactions that no longer work properly and redoing them.
Oh I agree, making it unit by unit would require a re-write, which defeats the whole point.
100PL is very much the lower limit on what can be feasibly played with the Apoc rules. The issue now is how to play games larger than kill team but smaller than 100PL, because Man-Emperor knows 40k isn't a solution.
BaconCatBug wrote: Oh I agree, making it unit by unit would require a re-write, which defeats the whole point.
100PL is very much the lower limit on what can be feasibly played with the Apoc rules. The issue now is how to play games larger than kill team but smaller than 100PL, because Man-Emperor knows 40k isn't a solution.
To be fair 100 isn't a solid stone foundation either. I played 90 PL nids vs sw and it worked just as well. I don't think you can get much lower before it breaks down. I don't know what the hard limit is. But I do think roughly 100-150 is the sweet spot with some wiggle room.
Do you mind sharing the formula you used on the shooting and melee average, and durability?
Sure. Rather than an average, the number I use is more like "total melee potential" since it factors in both SAT and SAP. So, for the Revenant Titan, that would be:
Durability: The total number of blasts required to reasonably ensure death. Any -1 to hit type effects I fold into this number even though technically it just takes 1/6 more effort to get the blasts in the first place. The odds of a Revenant Titan failing a save vs a large blast is .666*.833 due to Distortion Fields.
10 wounds/.555 damage per large blast = 18, which would be a durability rating of 36, but the final wound will be a morale test that only succeeds on a 1, which for my formula I have been rounding up. So that gives a durability of 34 for the Revenant titan - you only actually need to get 28 blasts on it to reasonably destroy it, but due to Distortion fields you need to put as much firepower as would be needed to put 34 blasts on something else without -1 to hit.
The math for the Revenant Titan is easier because it goes down to large blasts, but when I encounter a fractional number of blasts required I do look at the odds of failing a save vs a small blast as well.
Disappointed so far. I get why the choices were made (chatting to an ex GW design studio chap that was involved), but they still strike me as wrong.
To whit the decisions around how to make units different and then how it makes cards overly important (to my eyes). I dislike for example that my basilisk and Leman Russ are as tough as each other while it actually matters if I have a heavy stubber or not.Would have been very easy on a D12/D6 system to differentiate the two and really why am I worried about such auxiliary systems in a large scale battle.
Sadly back to Epic if I want to scratch the big battle itch.
My copy arrived yesterday. I’ve been reading through it and I really like the look of it. Seems very simple to play but involved enough to make it interesting.
Lance845 wrote: I think imperium in particular has a bloat of.options that really could have used some consolidation tyranid style.
My warriors dont have devourers, deathspitters, spine fists, etc...
They just have ranged bio weapon. It gives the unit its place. Sm and ig still have too many options fighting for design space. Trim it back.
Completely.
Apparently the diversity in minor choices was a design decision influenced by a desire to incorporate peoples model decisions.
But honestly, I don't give a monkeys that my IG squad have almost a dozen heavy weapon options - why couldn't they have either made it something like a AP6+/AT7+ or at most a strong AP or AT choice.
Likewise why do I care about the storm bolter on a tank? Or for that matter choosing from a range of sponsons.
And contrasted to that wealth of choice (which is quickly decided through mathhammer for advantage or simply doesn't matter to others) units that should feel different have identical stat lines, just different guns. That's rubbish.
Lance845 wrote: I think imperium in particular has a bloat of.options that really could have used some consolidation tyranid style.
My warriors dont have devourers, deathspitters, spine fists, etc...
They just have ranged bio weapon. It gives the unit its place. Sm and ig still have too many options fighting for design space. Trim it back.
Completely.
Apparently the diversity in minor choices was a design decision influenced by a desire to incorporate peoples model decisions.
But honestly, I don't give a monkeys that my IG squad have almost a dozen heavy weapon options - why couldn't they have either made it something like a AP6+/AT7+ or at most a strong AP or AT choice.
Likewise why do I care about the storm bolter on a tank? Or for that matter choosing from a range of sponsons.
And contrasted to that wealth of choice (which is quickly decided through mathhammer for advantage or simply doesn't matter to others) units that should feel different have identical stat lines, just different guns. That's rubbish.
IG have five heavy weapon options. Mortars have the standard efficiency loss for a Barrage weapon, and are still a quite useful option IMO given how much talk there has been of tiny characters hiding out of LOS.
Your other choice is basically between Lascannon and Missile Launcher, with both autocannon and heavy bolter losing 1/6 of efficiency.
Special weapon" tier weapons disappeared across the board, only showing up in the abstract sense (such as how the Hotshot Lasguns wielded by Scions have better SAT than other Hotshot Lasguns wielded by other units, or how some units have "Special weapons" as a weapon.) They disappeared in nids just like they disappeared in Guard.
Heavy weapons stuck around - see how Nids have Deathspitters/ Devourers/HVC/Stranglethorn/etc weapon options, and Barbed Stranglers/Venom Cannons stuck around on warriors.
Also...wait a second...Termagants DO have Spinefists, Fleshborers, and Devourers to choose from. They're just gone on Warriors where they're not the main armament and where you have fewer models present using them.
the_scotsman wrote: Special weapon" tier weapons disappeared across the board, only showing up in the abstract sense (such as how the Hotshot Lasguns wielded by Scions have better SAT than other Hotshot Lasguns wielded by other units, or how some units have "Special weapons" as a weapon.) They disappeared in nids just like they disappeared in Guard.
This would be fine except that there's no consistency in how they are represented. IG veterans have only a lasgun equivalent weapon (which for some reason has its own name) and nothing to represent their traditional 3x special weapons (the same as a SWS). An IK gets a different stat line for choosing between a melta gun and a heavy stubber, but an IG infantry squad has to pretend that their melta gun is represented by their SAT 10+ lasguns. But a LRBT has rules to represent the difference between taking a storm bolter vs. a heavy stubber vs. neither, despite this choice being much less significant than whether you arm an infantry squad with a melta gun or a sniper rifle.
They are not JUST gone on warriors. The nid dex is gutted for options (good i say!). Raveners dont have a choice of melee or ranged. Warriors dont have a choice for melee or ranged except for biocannons. Tyrants have very similar consolidation. Fexes have similar consolidation.
Just because some things kept some options doesnt mean most things didnt loose most options. Imperium needs that.
Lance845 wrote: They are not JUST gone on warriors. The nid dex is gutted for options (good i say!). Raveners dont have a choice of melee or ranged. Warriors dont have a choice for melee or ranged except for biocannons. Tyrants have very similar consolidation. Fexes have similar consolidation.
Just because some things kept some options doesnt mean most things didnt loose most options. Imperium needs that.
I'm not sure where you're getting that idea.
Carnifexes options in base 40k (from battlescribe):
Jaws and Tail options gone
Acid and Glands options gone
Screamer, OOE, and Spiney Boi still exist.
So, in all you lose 6 options. but you retain 8 options. That's not so hugely different from the Leman Russ, which really only has the pintle as the pointless choice. It loses the dozer blade, track guards, augur array, all the stuff on par with the fiddly options the Carnifex loses.
Imperial units retain only Heavy Weapon level options and above, except for the pointless pintle mounts which I do agree make no sense pretty much anywhere they appear. All melee options, special weapon swaps outside of squad-level, and a lot of other gearswaps (e.g. Terminators in non-codex chapters losing the ability tot ake melee gear, Deathwatch Veteran options, etc) are also gone. And, for the most part, these options are not terribly balanced against each other.
From the marine heavy weapon list, the only gun not worth looking at is the heavy bolter. Grav Cannons, MMs, Missiles are all statistically identical, with the former paying for specialization with range. Lascannons pay for specialization with a single point of wounding power, Plasma cannons pay for 1/6 increased damage with 1/6 chance to damage yourself. That's a pretty good spread. Honestly, the worst codex for weapon list balance I've seen so far is Custodes: Literally every option they have is a non-option. One choice is always best.
The fex has a choice between 2 guns with a purpose or more expensive 2 bio canons with a purpose. And an optional additional ranged weapon in the form of bioplasma.
The leman rus has every option fighting for design space in the single slot of main weapon.
Again, fex, more anti tank or more anti personel with upgraded versions of each.
Lr, how many varitions on a single big gun? How many are made redundant by the other choices?
The cannons on the Carnifex arguably offer far less use than any of the options on the Leman Russ, because they cannot be paired with any other longrange weaponry, turning the carnifex into something that's simply inferior to other anti tank gunbeast units the nids have. The only guns that have a purpose are the Devourers and Deathspitters, offering a risk/reward proposal for the shorter range and higher damage of the devourers.
Spines are a useless option. There is absolutely no way you want a shooty 'fex that only has jaws anywhere near 6" away from enemy units, and they serve no purpose on a melee fex who should always be taking assault options and should never shoot. Never worth a PL.
Senses are auto-include on any gun fex. There's no reason to not pick them if you have guns, no reason to pick them if you have melee weapons.
Thorns are maybe useful on a melee fex? Kinda doubt it. You'll probably have 3-4 in a group and since there's no purpose in having more than one thorns (They don't stack) your opponent will just shoot the thorn one after they shoot whatever synapse critter you have with them.
I see three useful carnifex builds.2x each type of gun you can have 2 of with senses, and all melee with nothing else (maybe thorns).
Contrast with Russ builds.
The only things you cannot ever justify having are: Battlecannon, Bolter sponsons, executioner.
Demolisher and Punisher give you a high risk high reward build that offers the most damage output vs heavy and light respectively. You can pair the Demolisher with Lascannons and MM sponsons and the Punisher with either just a HB or with Storm Bolter+triple heavy flamers for the most damage output. Triple flamers+Punisher is actually a pretty good build for a basic russ as it mitigates its poor ballistic skill.
Eradicator+hull HB gives you the long range anti-infantry cheap build. Exterminator with Plasma and HB is the most generalist russ. Vanquisher+Lascannon gives long range anti-tank.
Even the heavy stubber deals enough damage to justify 1PL on any russ that'll be hitting on 2s with an aim.
3, arguably 4 out of something like 15 options that actually never have a purpose. Versus like 66% of the options for the carnifex.
The idea that there's 'bloat' in the imperial options while the tyranid options are somehow good is amazing to me. So many of the nid options are total non-choices. Why would you take anything but deathspitters on a Tyrannocyte which gets to Deep Strike into range? A tyrannofex with anything but the Rupture Cannon? Even hive guard where the loss of efficiency is typical for stuff with good SAT it's like...man, they made Shock Cannons a whole lot worse than Impalers, which are actually an amazing commander hunting tool.
Tyranids are great when it comes to "units having a purpose". but not so great when it comes to "options having a purpose."
This is not a comparison of the fex and it's uses vs the rus and it's uses. This is a comparison of the usefulness of the individual options on the platform.
The fex comes equiped with melee weapons, jaws, and a heavy venom cannon.
It can swap it's melee for 2 different non cannon guns.
24" A:2 5+ 8+ or 18" A:3 6+ 9+
Each option has reasons to consider it. Extra melee or longer range, less shots better to wound or shorter range more shots 1 worse to wound.
The cannon can be swapped for more gun or more melee or it's opposite in cannon form. The cannons get the longest range and the best to wound for their intended target of all the fex options.
The spine banks is a extra gun. It doesn't interfere with the other. Every option is a viable option because they all fulfill a distinct role or have enough different but good that they are a trade off worth considering.
Now the rus. Lets JUST look at the main guns.
Battle Cannon Heavy 72" 1 6+ 6+ - Demolisher Cannon Heavy 24" 2 6+ 6+ Destroyer Eradicator Nova Cannon Heavy 36" 2 5+ 9+ - Executioner Plasma Cannon Heavy 36" 1 7+ 7+ Supercharge Exterminator Autocannon Heavy 48" 2 6+ 8+ - Punisher Gatling Cannon Heavy 24" 6 7+ 10+ - Vanquisher Battle Cannon Heavy 72" 2 10+ 4+ -
ALL of these weapons occupy the exact same weapon slot.
They don't all have interesting choices. Why the hell would you ever take the Plasma cannon? It's half the range of the basic battle canon with a worse to wound and the same number of shots and you COULD make it as good as the BC IF you risk taking a wound.
See? That option shouldn't exist. It's competing for design space in a spot where it has nowhere to have a use. You could argue the same thing for some of the other options. One of those will be the best anti tank. One will be the best anti personal. You get a good middle ground option. You get the best long range option. Thats 4. What are the rest for?
Snip ...
Why the hell would you ever take the Plasma cannon? It's half the range of the basic battle canon with a worse to wound and the same number of shots and you COULD make it as good as the BC IF you risk taking a wound.
Snip ...
The answer is, because the model is equipped with it.
One of the design goals for apoc is to allow players to take whatever they have and play with it. And if it happens to be a LR with Plasma, so be it.
And yes there are players who do not care about number crunching, but select models for look, background or whatever reason besides statistical optimisation.
Anyway 2 shots (grinding) on a 6+ or 2 shots on a 4+ over what ? 3 turns. 6 Shots. It only makes a difference when you roll a 6. That is in 1/12 of the cases. So it happens statistically half a time if the life expectancy of your tank is 3 turns or once if it survives 6 turns and always shoots twice.
Remember this is statistically which means it will not happen every game and in other games multiple times. You're probably one of the players who never roll a 6 when firing a Plasma Cannon in the 5 games of apoc they play and I'm the one who always rolls 6es when shooting a Plasma and 7es when shooting a battle cannon.
I would not rip off a weapon for a 1/12 chance to make a difference for 6 shots in a game.
Snip ...
Why the hell would you ever take the Plasma cannon? It's half the range of the basic battle canon with a worse to wound and the same number of shots and you COULD make it as good as the BC IF you risk taking a wound.
Snip ...
The answer is, because the model is equipped with it.
One of the design goals for apoc is to allow players to take whatever they have and play with it. And if it happens to be a LR with Plasma, so be it.
And yes there are players who do not care about number crunching, but select models for look, background or whatever reason besides statistical optimisation.
Anyway 2 shots (grinding) on a 6+ or 2 shots on a 4+ over what ? 3 turns. 6 Shots. It only makes a difference when you roll a 6. That is in 1/12 of the cases. So it happens statistically half a time if the life expectancy of your tank is 3 turns or once if it survives 6 turns and always shoots twice.
Remember this is statistically which means it will not happen every game and in other games multiple times. You're probably one of the players who never roll a 6 when firing a Plasma Cannon in the 5 games of apoc they play and I'm the one who always rolls 6es when shooting a Plasma and 7es when shooting a battle cannon.
I would not rip off a weapon for a 1/12 chance to make a difference for 6 shots in a game.
Well, sure. The big problem with the plasma and the BC is that they have only 1 shot (grinding advance doubles to 2) vs 2 shots (grinding advance doubles to 4) on all the long-range guns. All the other longrange guns offer roughly double the firepower, so rather than rip a gun off I would just tell your opponent you're doing a "counts-as" unless you really truly do not care.
To me, a weapon has a purpose if it allows the model to fulfil a different role, and if that weapon is not worse at that role than another weapon the model can also take. And if you go down the line..
Demolisher Cannon. This gun does the most damage against vehicles of all the guns, but operates in the 24" range band AND increases the cost of the tank, which means your tank effectively becomes less durable. Helpfully, there also exists an anti-tank sponson weapon with the same range band which pairs nicely to the gun, so I would say this gun has a role.
Punisher Cannon. Same deal, same range band, but for infantry. Offers the most anti-infantry damage. And hey, look, there's also a set of short-range anti infantry hull and sponson guns you can pair with it if you want to create "the most damaging glass cannon russ possible vs infantry" build. Cool, so that has a role.
Eradicator Nova Cannon. Best anti-infantry of the longrange low cost guns. Also has the exact range band of a heavy bolter, plasma cannon, and a heavy stubber, which means you can build a 36" range anti-infantry russ sliding it up and down the damage vs durability scale depending on how many extra PL you want to add to it.
Exterminator Autocannon. Slightly less efficient at damaging infantry, slightly better at damaging tanks, and look, it goes into the 48" range band! It's the perfect cheap, generalist, longrange russ paired with a hull lascannon and nothing else.
Vanquisher battle cannon. Same as an exterminator, but anti-tank instead of anti-infantry.
So you've got two spendy, high damage, close range builds, both viable, one midrange spendy anti-infantry build, and two cheap, longrange builds that either tilt towards antitank or antiinfantry.
5/7 guns have a purpose that makes sense objectively. The Carnifex has a lower percentage of weapons that make sense to use, 3/5, and even lower if you're looking at all the possible combinations of the 2 arm weapons.
I'm sorry, the Cannons do not make any sense - even the venom cannon, despite appearing to be an antitank option it does the EXACT same damage against tanks that the Deathspitters do because the deathspitters get 2 shots. The only thing it gains is range, and you cannot give the carnifex a second 36" range weapon. The only reason to consider it is if you know you're only going to be trying to shoot him at tanks and you think there's going to be tanks in that 24-36" range band when you're already within 24" of something else to use your second set of deathspitters. And that's the exact argument you could make for the Battlecannon vs the other anti-infantry cannons - you're OK with dealing less damage because you're pretty sure enemies will be between 36" and 72" range.
.. Snip
Well, sure. The big problem with the plasma and the BC is that they have only 1 shot (grinding advance doubles to 2) vs 2 shots (grinding advance doubles to 4) on all the long-range guns. All the other longrange guns offer roughly double the firepower, so rather than rip a gun off I would just tell your opponent you're doing a "counts-as" unless you really truly do not care.
To me, a weapon has a purpose if it allows the model to fulfil a different role, and if that weapon is not worse at that role than another weapon the model can also take. And if you go down the line..
Snip...
I'm not arguing the point of weapons and rolls or of the "lesser performance" of the Plasma. I wholeheartedly agree.
I'm not talking about buying new models, I wouldn't built a LR with Plasma.
But I'm finding it - in lack of a better word - unnecessary "bad style" to use of a "count-as" throwing over board the WYSIWYG to get a low (to be true any) increase in probability (let's face it, if you have a single LR with Plasma, it will be a freak occurrence that having it count-as a Demolisher would have changed the outcome of the battle).
There are good weapons and bad weapons and you make use of what you've got. Of course you can change what you've got and restore WYSIWYG and get back to be "in style" by replacing the weapon on the model, but IMHO it's not worth it. Except if your fielding 5+ of them
.. Snip
Well, sure. The big problem with the plasma and the BC is that they have only 1 shot (grinding advance doubles to 2) vs 2 shots (grinding advance doubles to 4) on all the long-range guns. All the other longrange guns offer roughly double the firepower, so rather than rip a gun off I would just tell your opponent you're doing a "counts-as" unless you really truly do not care.
To me, a weapon has a purpose if it allows the model to fulfil a different role, and if that weapon is not worse at that role than another weapon the model can also take. And if you go down the line..
Snip...
I'm not arguing the point of weapons and rolls or of the "lesser performance" of the Plasma. I wholeheartedly agree.
I'm not talking about buying new models, I wouldn't built a LR with Plasma.
But I'm finding it - in lack of a better word - unnecessary "bad style" to use of a "count-as" throwing over board the WYSIWYG to get a low (to be true any) increase in probability (let's face it, if you have a single LR with Plasma, it will be a freak occurrence that having it count-as a Demolisher would have changed the outcome of the battle).
There are good weapons and bad weapons and you make use of what you've got. Of course you can change what you've got and restore WYSIWYG and get back to be "in style" by replacing the weapon on the model, but IMHO it's not worth it. Except if your fielding 5+ of them
Yep. If the extra 0.58 damage per shot vs Infantry and 0.24 you get vs Tanks with an Executioner versus an Exterminator Autocannon doesn't bug you, then it doesn't bug you.
I just personally don't know what things like an "Exterminator Autocannon" or "Eradicator Nova Cannon" are SUPPOSED to look like, so if someone told me their russ had one of those and instead they had build an "Executioner Plasma Cannon" I...would definitely be none the wiser, and I certainly would not care. Same with "Battle Cannon" vs "Vanquisher Battle Cannon." like, who knows. As you said, the odds of it making a difference...pretty freakin' small in an apoc game.
Looking at it from a game perspective, I don't really see why they couldn't have given the Battle Cannon and Executioner a role by just making them have 2 shots. The Plasma Cannon would be a slightly high risk/high reward option with the supercharge rule, and the Battle Cannon could be 5+/10+ 2 shots to be the mirror of the 10+/5+ vanquisher.
I must say though it is a refreshing situation to be in with a GW game where you have a weapon list with 7 options on it, and two of them are about 40% less efficient than the other 5, which are all relatively well balanced and have different roles. Could not tell you the last time I had that situation with a GW game.
Played our first game the other week and enjoyed it
Mate had just picked up a painted Reaver Titan so was playing that and Khorne stuff (600ps)
I had 300pts of Knights and Sisters of Battle
Friend had 300pts of mostly Blood Angel infantry.
Good fun - biggest thing of note was how resiliant everything was even discouting outliers like on the first turn we put 6 large and 1 small blasts on one of his Knights and he made ALL of his 5+ saves!!!
We ignored the Reaver until last turn and won 7pts to 5pts.
The game does need command cards etc for Factions like the Titans that don't get them at the moment.
Recently did a 9v9 Apocalypse game.
People were fairly happy with how quickly rounds were going once people got used to the new rules.
Haven't hared any complaints other than some armies lose a bit of flavor.
Gallery of the game.
https://imgur.com/gallery/D0cdvNv
BaconCatBug wrote: So it's been a month with no word from GW about fixes or changes. Is Apoc going to be another dead in the water product from GW?
If it is I might try and organise a Baconfied Edition if it's already been abandoned.
I feel like Kill Team went a pretty decent length of time without a faq as well didn't it? Necromunda went months and multiple book releases without one. So hopefully we just see this faq dropped alongside other faqs for the new marine codex and stuff.
The answer is, because the model is equipped with it.
One of the design goals for apoc is to allow players to take whatever they have and play with it. And if it happens to be a LR with Plasma, so be it.
At this scale I would be happy with Leman Russ and generic stats, say - 36 inches 2xAP6+/1xAT5+, 76 inches 1xAP6+/2xAT6+, or whatever a averaged sort of performance for a Leman Russ is. Any model of russ, these are the stats, who cares if there is a small difference between autocannons and a battlecannon for example.
Lance845 wrote: Yeah. Right now i suspect with all the releases of new units we are waiting to get faq/updates to include the new datasheets as well.
Possible, though at this point I believe we're only missing the new Primarhino and cowboy dreadnought. I'm more inclined to believe it's just the sheer quantity of units out there. For every obvious mistake ala kastelan/ironstrider attacks, there's probably 2-3 "functional mistakes" like IG Veterans' attacks stat that still work by RAW they're just different from the intended value.
Lance845 wrote: Yeah. Right now i suspect with all the releases of new units we are waiting to get faq/updates to include the new datasheets as well.
Possible, though at this point I believe we're only missing the new Primarhino and cowboy dreadnought. I'm more inclined to believe it's just the sheer quantity of units out there. For every obvious mistake ala kastelan/ironstrider attacks, there's probably 2-3 "functional mistakes" like IG Veterans' attacks stat that still work by RAW they're just different from the intended value.
There's also another infiltrating marine squad coming.
I hope they don't nerf Gman apoc's rules too. Be super bummed.
Lance845 wrote: Yeah. Right now i suspect with all the releases of new units we are waiting to get faq/updates to include the new datasheets as well.
Possible, though at this point I believe we're only missing the new Primarhino and cowboy dreadnought. I'm more inclined to believe it's just the sheer quantity of units out there. For every obvious mistake ala kastelan/ironstrider attacks, there's probably 2-3 "functional mistakes" like IG Veterans' attacks stat that still work by RAW they're just different from the intended value.
There's also another infiltrating marine squad coming.
I hope they don't nerf Gman apoc's rules too. Be super bummed.
We rolled for the Mission and got Meatgrinder. Simplified you fight to the end and score points at the end of each round. 1 point for more controlling objectives and 1 point for killing more units.
When you look at the list the Militarum should always score the objectives, because the Knights have no Bataillon with Troops and the Knights should always score the units, because there are so many bad save & low wounds Militarum units. It happened as expected except in one round when both sides killed the same number of units (2 Armigers and a Knight just lost their last wounds after 3 rounds of fire).
It was the first game for both of us and we finished the game in 3 hours.
The rules are simple and the game has a good flow.
The command assets have some impact, but were not overwhelming. In your first games the number of cards may be overwhelming. Especially for Militarum players as they get tons of cards and if you are not familiar with them have to read them all and decide which to discard and which to keep and when to use. I assume after some games this will not be longer the case.
Some profiles feel weird. I.e. a Leman Russ and a Basilisk have the same resilience - a Sv of 6 and 2 wounds.
The Knights seemed to be too cheap in comparison to a Leman Russ, but the game didn't support this. A single game is not significant so.
Ordinary Infantry dies in droves when you put your mind to it. Interesting enough a single Command asset (of the appropriate type) allows Knights to re-roll wound or attack rolls, Astra Militarum has different CA which allow re-rolls either for attacks or wounds.
Still both kinds of CAs are available in large numbers, but neither Knights, nor Militarum have an easy way to re-roll saves or morale checks.
The order of activations is very often of no importance. That may change with gaming experience or not.
There are not many important decisions to make. This also may change with gaming experience or not.
(Too) Often there is just no reason to manoeuvre, you just stay and shoot. This may change with gaming experience, mission, opponent or not.
All in all from 3 hours gaming time, I assume 2.5 hours were dice rolling, I had hoped for less. Read as more decision who affect the game, less dice rolling.
So while I find it much better than ordinary 40k, I will need some more games to find out whether I like it well enough to play it regularly.
Still really enjoying it myself. Gw does need to do a errata for some things and release datacards for new units though. But meh. Basic game is still way better than 40k.
I’m honestly surprised it hasn’t gotten at least a little more ongoing marketing/community support. Card packs seem like an easy way to monetize the game moving forward. I get the barrier to entry problem though, you’re mostly selling the game to people who already have a lot of models which isn’t exactly a high growth market unlike kill team—I would not be surprised if kill team was accounting for majority of their growth.
Tempted to pick up the rules. I've given up on 40k, but play OPR Grim Future. The rules for Apocalypse seem very appealing, I am aware that the datasheets have a few issues, as do some of the care combos. However the core rules seem very solid, and offer actual tactics and strategies to be adopted, other than Han weight of dice, modifications, and re-rolls.
stonehorse wrote: Tempted to pick up the rules. I've given up on 40k, but play OPR Grim Future. The rules for Apocalypse seem very appealing, I am aware that the datasheets have a few issues, as do some of the care combos. However the core rules seem very solid, and offer actual tactics and strategies to be adopted, other than Han weight of dice, modifications, and re-rolls.
If GW drop support for it, that will be a shame.
And it even seems to work well with 40k scale or Epic/Adeptus Titanticus scale models and likely all in between !
Future War Cultist wrote: They really work, and honestly, I wouldn’t mind trying to downsize them to apply to regular 40k.
I've mostly played at 100 PL which is about the size of a 2000pt game of 40k and it works perfectly fine. Usually 2-3 detachments per side. Have even done it with 50/50 PL vs 100 2v1 and it totally worked. Each player commanded 1 detachment on the allied side.
I had a really fun game as Necrons vs Dark Angels. The setup and going over the rules took a bit, but after the first round, it went a lot faster. It's a lot of flipping through datasheets, so it's definitely worth it to pick up the datacards. 40k needs to adopt a lot of these rules. Maybe GW is afraid that people are saying the rules are better than 40k, and they're purposefully ignoring Apoc because they want people to continue thinking 40k is best?
Regardless, the game is a lot of fun and I hope they support and update it in the future.
wisetiger7 wrote: I had a really fun game as Necrons vs Dark Angels. The setup and going over the rules took a bit, but after the first round, it went a lot faster. It's a lot of flipping through datasheets, so it's definitely worth it to pick up the datacards. 40k needs to adopt a lot of these rules. Maybe GW is afraid that people are saying the rules are better than 40k, and they're purposefully ignoring Apoc because they want people to continue thinking 40k is best?
Regardless, the game is a lot of fun and I hope they support and update it in the future.
I wouldn't be surprised. For all it's lack of quality, 8th edition has sold gangbusters (shows what good marketing and toyetic models can do). Apocalypse is vastly superior but seems to have been kneecapped out the gate.
Interesting article in latest White Dwarf by Robbin Cruddacce going through the designer choices
Many of the issues raised that they wanted to solve and their soloutions
Accessible and Intuitive - simple but tactical
Quicker Gameplay- per unit
Minimal Downtime- altenating actions to avoid one player sitting watching - esp movment
Get to use all your models - nothing dies to end of turn
are often seen as the problems with normal 40k....
But they choose a suboptimal way to do so.
The importance of which detachment to activate first is very often rather low, because it will be able to fight anyway. Also by not removing anything blocking forces are really blocking. In 40k there is not enough movement anyway(IMHO) and this rule doesn't make it better.
The better solution would have been to change the profiles so that a unit can't destroy a unit of equal points cost in one shooting face (except special cases) - which might be already the case. And activate unit wise, not detachment-wise. So before killed the target unit could rally, fight back, or hide before the opponent has the chance to destroy it. And if a unit destroys a decisively cheaper unit in one shooting phase, the owner shouldn't have placed it there - or that was the plan all the time, to draw the fire to an unimportant unit.. And it would give the order of activations additional importance,
It would also be possible to create holes in the enemies front ready to be exploited or to be "filled" in a hurry, In addition units shouldn't be able to split fire. I know some will disagree, but restricting fire to a single target, will only allow those units to kill off a single enemy unit and not whole detachments, giving other units the ability to fight back and not just being destroyed before they can act.
BaconCatBug wrote: Sadly Apocalypse seems to be dead on the vine. GW have refused to fix the errors in the datasheets or provide any form of matched play rules.
It's actually pretty upsetting.
This is where I'm at. Really grumpy at how it was just dumped.
Well I am primarily playing apoc now, rather than 40k, so if gw want my money they better think about getting apoc data sheets for the new releases (I'm looking at you impulsor), otherwise they are doing themselves out of some sales.
Glad to see the new marine units have rules, but disappointed the necron cryptec still can't use the canoptek cloak (fly and increased movement) considering that's the model they include with the necron apocalypse box set!
Hey now, BCB, they also changed the Ork Battle Fortress from costing either 8 or 12 to 20(!) while still not actually giving it a gun it's allowed to replace in its entry. So, you know, progress. I imagine the number of discussions about the mystery gun will be lessened by increasing its cost to 250% of the original, after all.
They did clear up the Kustom Stompa's cost, too (and didn't even double it!), and clarified that a character doesn't have to have the highest Ld to be in charge (important for Orks, who could otherwise never command full squads of boyz).
After playing the new Apocalypse at approximately 2000 points per side (a fairly standard-sized 40k game these days), I'm sold on a mix of D6 and D12 for different types of actions/rolls. I'm also sold on anti-tank weapons working much better against tanks, anti-personnel weapons working much better against personnel, no AP modifiers, no invulnerable saves, no first-turn alpha strikes, alternating activations, less down time, less dice needed, less CP and stratagem combo shenanigans, more strategy when choosing which units to activate and when, and actual damage unknown and not determined until after both sides have completed all of their actions. The new Apocalpyse rules do away with the vast majority of issues I have with 40k and I honestly wish they would become the major basis for a new 9th edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
brumbaer wrote: There is an update of datsheets today and some kind of an er. As short as it it errata is too long a word for it.
Any explanation for the green text in some of the datasheets? See the last datasheets for Rough Riders in the new Astra Militarum file and Cultists of the Abyss in Heretic Astartes' file. Is this for some "Legends" OOP models?
Some decades ago there were Rough Riders.
Tallarn as well as generic models,
Nice Tallarn rough riders. I'm not sure about green being for new/changed, as I've noticed some datasheets with changed points values and weapon entries not in green, as well as some new datasheets in the Space Marines' file that are not green.
Whatever the reason, I'm glad to see that GW is making some effort to clean up the game's rules and datasheets.
The Phantom has besides other weapons 2 D-Bombards That's 4 shots hitting on 2s, Wounding on 3s and doing 4 blast markers for each "hit going through".
The Revenant seems to be fine compared to a Warhound. So it fits in.
The Phantom has besides other weapons 2 D-Bombards That's 4 shots hitting on 2s, Wounding on 3s and doing 4 blast markers for each "hit going through".
The Revenant seems to be fine compared to a Warhound. So it fits in.
For +24powrr you can 'upgrade' that bombard to a dire pulsar with identical stats except it has no destroyer and 2 more shots - why would you ever spend that? If they gave it destroyer it would at least have an equal number of potential blast markers as the bombard. Extra range it irrelevant when your enemy's guns are longer ranged.
The revenant's pulsar is just as bad, the turbo laser destructor is superior - longer range, better sap and sat, AND. It has destroyer. It's shields ignore 1 blast marker a turn while just standing still keeps it shooting at 2+ against the revenant putting tonnes of markers on it.
In a shoot off there is no way a revanent is going to have a chance and it costs MORE than the warhound.
There is no point in trying to have a titan battle with Eldar titans which is the whole reason I want to play. They don't have Eldar in adeptus titanicus
The Phantom has besides other weapons 2 D-Bombards That's 4 shots hitting on 2s, Wounding on 3s and doing 4 blast markers for each "hit going through".
The Revenant seems to be fine compared to a Warhound. So it fits in.
For +24powrr you can 'upgrade' that bombard to a dire pulsar with identical stats except it has no destroyer and 2 more shots - why would you ever spend that? If they gave it destroyer it would at least have an equal number of potential blast markers as the bombard. Extra range it irrelevant when your enemy's guns are longer ranged.
The revenant's pulsar is just as bad, the turbo laser destructor is superior - longer range, better sap and sat, AND. It has destroyer. It's shields ignore 1 blast marker a turn while just standing still keeps it shooting at 2+ against the revenant putting tonnes of markers on it.
In a shoot off there is no way a revanent is going to have a chance and it costs MORE than the warhound.
There is no point in trying to have a titan battle with Eldar titans which is the whole reason I want to play. They don't have Eldar in adeptus titanicus
It's cool that you want to play to have a titan fight, but honestly that shouldn't be your only reason to want to play. You should play because it's better rules for normal games of 40k. Just play apoc instead of 40k.
The Phantom has besides other weapons 2 D-Bombards That's 4 shots hitting on 2s, Wounding on 3s and doing 4 blast markers for each "hit going through".
The Revenant seems to be fine compared to a Warhound. So it fits in.
For +24powrr you can 'upgrade' that bombard to a dire pulsar with identical stats except it has no destroyer and 2 more shots - why would you ever spend that? If they gave it destroyer it would at least have an equal number of potential blast markers as the bombard. Extra range it irrelevant when your enemy's guns are longer ranged.
The revenant's pulsar is just as bad, the turbo laser destructor is superior - longer range, better sap and sat, AND. It has destroyer. It's shields ignore 1 blast marker a turn while just standing still keeps it shooting at 2+ against the revenant putting tonnes of markers on it.
In a shoot off there is no way a revanent is going to have a chance and it costs MORE than the warhound.
There is no point in trying to have a titan battle with Eldar titans which is the whole reason I want to play. They don't have Eldar in adeptus titanicus
The Dire Pulsar on the phantom titan does not cost more than the D-bombard, the +24PL cost is only for the Glaive and Starcannon weapon option.
A battle between a Warhound titan with laser destroyers and a Revenant titan with Pulsars does end in the Warhound destroying the Revenant in 6 rounds, while the Revenant only deals 11 damage to the Warhound. As has been pointed out before, the Destroyer keyword on the Laser Destroyer vs the Pulsar is meaningless because the pulsar has twice the number of attacks. If the two titans were to stand still simply shooting at each other, the player of the Revenant would be making a mistake, because it can use Advance moves to move 36" with FLY and still fire with 2+ BS, so it can close in to melee and get its melee attacks as a bit of bonus damage while the Warhound must continue to use Aimed Fire and thus cannot attack in melee.
The main difference however between the Warhound and Revenant which in almost any normal game would see the Revenant win is the fact that every Eldar aura, command cards and psychic powers can be applied to the Revenant, while the Warhound cannot benefit at all. A Revenant next to a Spiritseer rerolls 1s to hit. A revenant in an army with a Farseer can search its deck for any psychic power and benefit from it. A revenant near a Bonesinger can be healed on a 4+.
The Phantom has besides other weapons 2 D-Bombards That's 4 shots hitting on 2s, Wounding on 3s and doing 4 blast markers for each "hit going through".
The Revenant seems to be fine compared to a Warhound. So it fits in.
For +24powrr you can 'upgrade' that bombard to a dire pulsar with identical stats except it has no destroyer and 2 more shots - why would you ever spend that? If they gave it destroyer it would at least have an equal number of potential blast markers as the bombard. Extra range it irrelevant when your enemy's guns are longer ranged.
The revenant's pulsar is just as bad, the turbo laser destructor is superior - longer range, better sap and sat, AND. It has destroyer. It's shields ignore 1 blast marker a turn while just standing still keeps it shooting at 2+ against the revenant putting tonnes of markers on it.
In a shoot off there is no way a revanent is going to have a chance and it costs MORE than the warhound.
There is no point in trying to have a titan battle with Eldar titans which is the whole reason I want to play. They don't have Eldar in adeptus titanicus
The Dire Pulsar on the phantom titan does not cost more than the D-bombard, the +24PL cost is only for the Glaive and Starcannon weapon option.
A battle between a Warhound titan with laser destroyers and a Revenant titan with Pulsars does end in the Warhound destroying the Revenant in 6 rounds, while the Revenant only deals 11 damage to the Warhound. As has been pointed out before, the Destroyer keyword on the Laser Destroyer vs the Pulsar is meaningless because the pulsar has twice the number of attacks. If the two titans were to stand still simply shooting at each other, the player of the Revenant would be making a mistake, because it can use Advance moves to move 36" with FLY and still fire with 2+ BS, so it can close in to melee and get its melee attacks as a bit of bonus damage while the Warhound must continue to use Aimed Fire and thus cannot attack in melee.
The main difference however between the Warhound and Revenant which in almost any normal game would see the Revenant win is the fact that every Eldar aura, command cards and psychic powers can be applied to the Revenant, while the Warhound cannot benefit at all. A Revenant next to a Spiritseer rerolls 1s to hit. A revenant in an army with a Farseer can search its deck for any psychic power and benefit from it. A revenant near a Bonesinger can be healed on a 4+.
My mistake. Either way, it's not as good as the bombard so there's no reason to ever use it. It can't cause the same amount of damage. Range is irrelevant because imperial titans can get longer ranged weaons anyway. You'll always be within range of an enemy weapon so standing further away penalises only you.
I did mention above that I didn't like the Eldar titans havjng to fight in melee as their only viable option. The revenant is 10pl more expensive, but will spend it's time kicking a warhound to death. Thats like a devestator unit's only effective strategy being punching their enemy rather than shooting them.
Adding extra units just makes it even more expensive.
I really hate GWs insistence on taxing a unit for a buff it MIGHT get. It seems only Eldar armies suffer that. It also forces you to take a restricted armyist just to get any decent use out of a unit. Make a spirit seer cost more - it's the thing doing the thing. ..
I think part of the problem is that GW is trying to make imperial titans have it all -better weapons, better resilience.
In epic the speed of Eldar titans meant they could get into rear arcs and shoot. Their holofield gave them a fixed save against anything that wasn't a barrage weapon.
Punching rather than shooting is a bit misleading here, given titanic units can do both in the same activation, thus getting more mileage out of their long move stat. Also, objective grabbing is a thing and tables large.
Sherrypie wrote: Punching rather than shooting is a bit misleading here, given titanic units can do both in the same activation, thus getting more mileage out of their long move stat. Also, objective grabbing is a thing and tables large.
Ive...had this conversation before with this dude. He does not seem to have actually played a game of apocalypse, and generally ignores how a lot of the mechanics work beyond looking at two datasets and deciding they'd stand across from one another and shoot until one is dead. And even then...5 turns to die and dealing 11/12 hp in return is hardly a crushing defeat....
A single titan fighting a single other titan is basically never not going to be a snoozefest, regardless of match up. If you want any hope of either titan dying, you probably want to bring a supporting army alongside the titan. And if you play Eldar and bring absolutely no farseers, spiritseers, bonesingers or warlocks and you never get a psychic power in your hand and go "Hmmmmmmm, fortune on the 10 guardians, or Fortune on the titan? Decisions decisions...." then, sure. The Eldar titans are inefficient.
I'll let you in on a secret though: the imperial superheavies totally pay for buffs they might get. Just the ones who can get buffs, like marine and guard superheavies.
If I pay 70 pl for a unit, I want it to function at that level, not be only useful of I spend even more pl. I'd rather use the rules for a warhound for my revanent, at least then I know it can hold its own without needing to buy Baby sitters.
I've spent plenty of money on these things, it's not a big ask that they don't suck.
What you've all said is basically that what I want to do I can't do with this game. Which is a Shame because I was looking forward to it.
Being able to kick a warhound after shooting it means my revanent had to be 36" away from it at maximum, defacto making its pulsars 36" for me to get the use out of both.
And all that to put on average 2 additional hits on the warhound.
That's a lot of hoops to be competitive with some 14% cheaper than you.
It seems strange to be told I should play apocalypse for Infantry - there are already rules that do that.
Apocalypse is the one place I was looking to actually recreate super heavy smack downs.
The idea you need a single infantry guy running around the feet of titans to make them usable in a titanicus battle is ridiculous.
When I see titans/super-heavies fighting at close range at 28mm scale it always makes me think a bit of this (jump to 0:30) - in terms of the concept I think really it works so much better at 6mm (both in terms of those rulesets and the scale of warfare it is trying to represent).
Same with artillery missiles etc. the concept doesn't really work even at 15mm scale ratios let alone 28mm. Something like a deathstrike missile is hilarious, I think of that episode of the Simpsons where they're trying to blow up the incoming asteroid with a missile and it travels about 50m and lands on Mo's tavern.
Pacific wrote: When I see titans/super-heavies fighting at close range at 28mm scale it always makes me think a bit of this (jump to 0:30) - in terms of the concept I think really it works so much better at 6mm (both in terms of those rulesets and the scale of warfare it is trying to represent).
Same with artillery missiles etc. the concept doesn't really work even at 15mm scale ratios let alone 28mm. Something like a deathstrike missile is hilarious, I think of that episode of the Simpsons where they're trying to blow up the incoming asteroid with a missile and it travels about 50m and lands on Mo's tavern.
“Oh, dear god no!”
But joking aside, I know exactly what you mean. I’ve always thought that the artillery units start to mess up the scale of the game unless you’re prepared to think in very abstract terms.
. Now I am sure that you don't know what you are talking about. Apocalypse has always been about taking your entire 
>mfw all they did was bump Skittari up to 8 
