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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Lance845 wrote:

jamshaman wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However a few things:

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dysartes wrote:

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

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

There are rules oddities that have been noted by some.

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

Questor Traitoris units have trouble with their keywords.

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

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

I have not tried yet.

I see 2 "problems".

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jamshaman wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

jamshaman wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe? The requirements are already so low.

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

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

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

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

 Lance845 wrote:

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

Maybe? The requirements are already so low.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At min sized 10 model units its 15pl.

Cheap.

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

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

 Lance845 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrol, nid prime. Neurothrope, 2 warrior broods

Fa primary, red terror 2 raveners.

Each detachment was geared for its specific job.

Deep strike strike team, gun battery, melee wall.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spoletta wrote:

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

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

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

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

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

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

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

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

At 150PL per side, I had the following:

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

So my card draw was 5 total.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turn 5 we both drew 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My experience looking at the game as it played out was:

1) Bigger (units) is better
2) Deep strike/infiltrate is amazing
3) transports in general are super worthwhile for actually keeping detachments (and by extension card draw) alive and kicking.

That doesn't lead me at least to envision a meta where I'm spending 30PL on Company Commanders to try and draw up the whole deck just to get the exact set of 10 cards I want top of turn 1.

 Lance845 wrote:

2) there is both a heavy mechanical incentive to build tight detachments with as few units as possible (MSD ?) with synergy amongst the units and a unified purpose on the battlefield but also to build up the individual units as big as possible because they get more attacks and wounds and will stick around a lot longer.

I get the low PL problem, but man that description makes me excited to play Apoc.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

2) there is both a heavy mechanical incentive to build tight detachments with as few units as possible (MSD ?) with synergy amongst the units and a unified purpose on the battlefield but also to build up the individual units as big as possible because they get more attacks and wounds and will stick around a lot longer.

I get the low PL problem, but man that description makes me excited to play Apoc.

I did find that the primary "Feels bad" moments of standard 40k were pretty much absent. My biggest complaints would be the fact that Psykers are so vital for your having a good deck, but they universally have the Character Problem (see below) and that you sometimes just don't get the cards for the powers you put in. My two weirdboyz got to cast two powers all game (Admittedly both were pretty effective, but still)

The biggest thing is that there is just no way for your light characters to not bite it super fast relative to the rest of your army. I STACKED my deck with protection cards because I was running mostly footslogging orks that I knew would be eating tons of fire, and still most characters just bit the dust unless they weren't accomplishing much anyway.

Some of that was luck (Kaptin Badrukk for example got his wagon blown up, disembarked to a building and got randomly bopped by a single small blast from a direct damage card) but it also just seems like with nearly everyone at 1W, and the "big blast is almost assuredly going to do a wound" thing, characters feel super wimpy.

At some level, I'm ok with that, at least it's a bit of a relief after the herohammer of 8th edition and seeing 100pt captains smash knights in one go, but it does feel like a classic GW move swinging the pendulum super hard in the opposite direction.

A -2 to hit base instead of -1 would have put them in a pretty good spot. Or at the very least give them an additional -1, so that they can also benefit from cover and become -2.

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

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

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

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

Except both of those lists are within the bounds of the sort of limitations I am talking about of limiting people to say a max of 5-7detachments or a maximum draw of 10 cards per turn or such so that it doesn't matter if someone wants to cheese it out with a 20 card draw list they arn't gaining from it.

I get that the defensive strategums seem more powerful than the offensive ones but that still says someone being able to recycle the deck enough to be able to play them 4 turns out of 6 (20 cards per turn isn't going to be good for balance.

Another point for people worried about taking a ton of min size detachments to generate card draw is that some of the missions in Apoc will heavily punish that kind of skew. The night march mission specifically, you'll run out of places to deploy all your tiny detachments (each gets their own deployment zone on a board edge) and the rest will have to deploy in reserve, where they won't be generating cards. Likewise, I'm pretty sure the Exterminatus mission forces you to re-organize your army into 2 detatchments of roughly equal PL, so you can't do any detatchment shenanigans there either.

The missions seem to penalize various types of skew and encourage bringing a well-rounded force if you're going to randomly determine which mission you play.

Characters don't seem to do much for their points beyond generate cards, and are pretty easy to kill. Seems, okay? I don't have the rules, just kind of following to get an idea of how things shake out.