Switch Theme:

Anyone tried/going to try Apoc rules for 2k points level games?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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




Made in gb
Dominating Dominatrix






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

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND SIX (106) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages. 
   
Made in us
Shrieking Traitor Sentinel Pilot




USA

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

"For the dark gods!" - A traitor guardsmen, probably before being killed. 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






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

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

One things for sure. The terrain rules are better.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/07 02:27:30



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

The Nazis were right. It's better to be a Nazi than a fan.

Thank you for getting me on the side of Milo and the Nazis.

 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






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

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

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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/07 02:51:05


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






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

200 PL?

No more than 4 detachments?

Just curious what peoples opinions are.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

The Nazis were right. It's better to be a Nazi than a fan.

Thank you for getting me on the side of Milo and the Nazis.

 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Lance845 wrote:
No more than 4 detachments?


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

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Shrieking Traitor Sentinel Pilot




USA

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

200 PL?

No more than 4 detachments?

Just curious what peoples opinions are.


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

"For the dark gods!" - A traitor guardsmen, probably before being killed. 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






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


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

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


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

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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/07 05:26:11



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

The Nazis were right. It's better to be a Nazi than a fan.

Thank you for getting me on the side of Milo and the Nazis.

 
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain




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


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


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


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



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

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

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

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



Termagants expended for the Hive Mind: ~2835
 
   
Made in de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

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

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

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

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

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

Former moderator 40kOnline

Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!

Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."

Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss 
   
Made in fi
Dakka Veteran






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

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

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

Heavily converted tall scaled 30k / 40k loyalist Death Guard blog here, C&C welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/717557.page
Now with titans! Legio Favilla walks! 
   
Made in ch
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





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

Imo a slapfight would then be an improvement.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut




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


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


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


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



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

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

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

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




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






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

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

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

Your last point is especially laughable and comical, because not only the 7th ed Valkyrie shown dumber things (like being able to throw the troopers without parachutes out of its hatches, no harm done) - Irbis 
   
Made in us
Shrieking Traitor Sentinel Pilot




USA

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

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

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


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

"For the dark gods!" - A traitor guardsmen, probably before being killed. 
   
Made in de
Rampaging Furioso Blood Angel Dreadnought






Germany

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






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


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

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

8th could be quietly forgotten about like 6th.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/07 09:21:03


Your last point is especially laughable and comical, because not only the 7th ed Valkyrie shown dumber things (like being able to throw the troopers without parachutes out of its hatches, no harm done) - Irbis 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut




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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/08 06:29:57


 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






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


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

The Nazis were right. It's better to be a Nazi than a fan.

Thank you for getting me on the side of Milo and the Nazis.

 
   
Made in de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

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

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

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

Former moderator 40kOnline

Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!

Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."

Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss 
   
Made in us
Shrieking Traitor Sentinel Pilot




USA

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

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

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


Might be for a reason.

"For the dark gods!" - A traitor guardsmen, probably before being killed. 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut




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





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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/08 08:09:53


Ultimately the power of an Inquisitor extends as far as he can make it extend 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




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

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

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

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


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





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

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

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




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

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

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


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

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




Roscommon, Ireland

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

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

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

The objective of the game is to win. The point of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused. 
   
Made in fi
Dakka Veteran






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


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

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

Heavily converted tall scaled 30k / 40k loyalist Death Guard blog here, C&C welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/717557.page
Now with titans! Legio Favilla walks! 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






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


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

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


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

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


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

The Nazis were right. It's better to be a Nazi than a fan.

Thank you for getting me on the side of Milo and the Nazis.

 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




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


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

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


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

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

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

Like "Hmm, do I want MY ARMY to get to move this turn? Gosh it'd be useful for this one unit to double move to claim an objective, am I cool with MY ARMY not shooting?"
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: