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.

Yeah. An example would be the game we played last weekend. It was all the xenos players in our club vs. all the imperial players, 14000 points a side. The game was meant to be "competative" as in, there was no narrative, we all went in intending to win(I was skeptical that this would produce a fun game but went along with it). I took one quick skim over the book, looked at our armies (necrons, nidzilla, KoS) and realised that to have a decent chance against the rumoured 10 strong basilisk battery we were threatened with we'd all have to enter through deep strike or flank marching. As it turned out, the imperials decided against the massed indirect fire. They chose ambush and the deep strike disruption thingie, and tunnels, we all chose flank march. They used the ambush on the wrong turn and we paddled them.
There was much cribbing about how we had played it cheesy against their fluffy armies. I was confused, as I had been informed that we were playing a competative game. Also, between necron teleportation, nid spore drops and KoS sheer speed we had justification enough for it if we wanted. But our opponents wanted a more traditional straight up fight. They looked at what was available and conciously chose not to take the best options because of "fluff". Admirable, but they never told us that that was what they wanted, so we took the broken aspects further than them, and won, and got accused of cheese. Seems silly to me to be honest.

What the whole thing has convinced me of is:
-Apocolypse needs a narrative
-Players should discuss their expectations beforehand to ensure everyone has fun
-It is not in any way balanced or fair.

What I've figured from my experience, and your story backs up, is that apocalypse needs communication - which is mentioned in the book at great length. Lots of planning and agreements on both sides. It gives you the freedom to do all sorts of things, like use that planetary laser terrain piece you built, rules for which don't exist. There's no way to "fairly" bring one of those with home-grown rules and just use it - it requires everyone to talk about it and agree on things.

In your group there was a miscommunication about the style of game people wanted, but to be honest at those points levels there should be no surprises. That's why in my own opinion I'm not too upset about my game - he had 5000 points to work with and chose not to bring any heavy support, and he deployed some of his other heavy support right on the board edge where it was asking to be nailed.

But it's not about "balance", it's about carnage, about no limits, and about doing new things. We've never had vortex grenades or ways to hide our entire army in cover for a turn. Now's our chance!

But you may be right about the narrative. It makes a game nice and fun if a personal objective is achieved even if the game is lost. Team games help with that as well. Telling a guard player "hold this line, no matter the cost." If they do that during the game, even if their side loses they can have a feeling of accomplishment and pride that they did their job. That exact thing happened in the 3rd Armaggeddon war megabattle we had, where best general went to a 14 year old kid who threw wave after wave of guardsmen at a chaos space marine assault, and not a single enemy model made it past that ine in that part of the board.

And that was way before Apocalypse

The best counter to,Careful Planning/Flank March combo is that Disrupter asset. Deploy it near your main concentration of your army and watch as he tries to flank ya.

On a 4,5,6 you get to deploy his units. It is brilliant. Used it on a SW/13th company. He spent most of the game foot slogging wolfen accross the map. His Bloodclaws never even saw combat :O

Voodoo_Chile wrote:The best counter to,Careful Planning/Flank March combo is that Disrupter asset. Deploy it near your main concentration of your army and watch as he tries to flank ya.

On a 4,5,6 you get to deploy his units. It is brilliant. Used it on a SW/13th company. He spent most of the game foot slogging wolfen accross the map. His Bloodclaws never even saw combat :O

Which ... should give you an idea why disruptor needs nerfing even more than Flank March in many cases. I think halving the disrupted distance will be good, make it an area denial tool - protecting a key objective, HQ, etc - rather than a game denial tool. I flank marched 6 eversors and had 2 of them put 12' away completely out of the game. The other 4 melta'd the unliving hell out of the hidden artillery, but still.

- Salvage

These sorts of tactics are great in warmachine or a CCG where you invest less then an hour to play. My broken is better then you broken is fun, like sumo wrestling or a tractor pull.

In a 4 hour game, with hours of prep, it's ridiculous the extent that one or two decisions can have on the overall flow of the game. Talking these things through can make apocolypse a ton of fun. For every 5 minutes you spend talking to your opponent(s) before the game discussing comp, assets, terrain, etc., your enjoyment will nearly double.

Yep, I agree with you. That's why I was skeptical about the way they wanted to play it. I'm working on a narrative battle now on our club's forum to give it another go, despite the fact that I prefer a good 1500 point battle any day.

The two examples to limit flank march I've seen used (in groups of regular players) are :

1 - Narrative driven games where the players discuss the scenario before and decide upon assets, and
2 - Each player must use all of the other assets at least once before they use another for a second time. So go ahead and use flank march today but you won't be using it again for a good few games.

In any event I think the real answer is just to discuss what you want out of the game before you start playing it.

At our game store, we have an apocalypse game once a month. We have Flank March banned altogether, except for units whose datasheets allow for it, and only for those units.

We just had our first of 6 "Lucky 13" battles here, and flank march only turned out to be vitally important in one case.

Though to be perfectly honest, that same player who flank marched some 40 khorne berserkers behind their lines could well have marched up from our deployment zone and fared BETTER, preventing an early assault by our space wolf opponent from utterly crushing my daemonic summoned hoarde and the necrons that were trying to hold that flank. It's a crutch as much as it is an advantage.

Boss_Salvage wrote:

Voodoo_Chile wrote:The best counter to,Careful Planning/Flank March combo is that Disrupter asset. Deploy it near your main concentration of your army and watch as he tries to flank ya.

On a 4,5,6 you get to deploy his units. It is brilliant. Used it on a SW/13th company. He spent most of the game foot slogging wolfen accross the map. His Bloodclaws never even saw combat :O

Which ... should give you an idea why disruptor needs nerfing even more than Flank March in many cases. I think halving the disrupted distance will be good, make it an area denial tool - protecting a key objective, HQ, etc - rather than a game denial tool. I flank marched 6 eversors and had 2 of them put 12' away completely out of the game. The other 4 melta'd the unliving hell out of the hidden artillery, but still.

- Salvage

Indeed. Tbh I much prefere the idea of pitch battles in no mans land as opposed to isolated skirmishes. Preplanned battles all the way imho.

The only problem with "massive battles in no man's land" is that people would then complain that apocalypse was just a rushing forward hack and slash fest with no strategy. Coming in behind the enemy, sneaky raids, deepstriking, all these things are what makes it really interesting.

And people BAN flank march? Such a removal of keen strategy!

We banned Flank March after our first game.

20 flying, rending Nurgle Possessed + 40 Berzerkers + Land Raiders full of Chosen + Pred Annihilators arriving in our DZ. Plus a Biker Captain with a Vortex Grenade. My Baneblades got to fire once. The Macharius didn't even get that chance. My Russ Company lost 6 of them number before reaching their second shooting phase - all because of Flank March.

And we can think of even scarier uses for it (Tyranids...). What's worse though is that we couldn't think of a reason not to take it, meaning that you always had to take Disruption Beacon as it was the only way to counter it (and we lined our DZ with Guardsmen in an attempt to block things from coming on - still didn't work).

Damn right we banned it.

BYE

HBMC is making a good point, which leads into my major problem with total deregulation of Flank March:

Properly designed, an army that uses Flank March as a major part of it's strategy Will. Never. Lose!

It's that simple, really.

Complete deregulation, absent good faith by both parties, will lead to the results HBMC described. Yes, sneaky actions and flank manuevers should be a part of the battlefield. Should landraiders full of assault terminators arriving directly behind my battle line (this actually happened to me) really be considered a high minded tactic? Or is it an "I win" button?

In my opinion, the only argument to be had is how Flank March should be restricted, not if. If everybody is a decent guy who isn't out to screw his friends, that's often enough. If not, then a house rule is needed, otherwise games simply aren't fun.

How did he get flying rending nurgle possessed? The new chaos codex came out before Apocalypse and they can't have both. In fact it's rolled randomly.

And no, you don't have to take the beacon. Ambush would have made that 13 possessed, 20 berserkers, and a half a landraider full of chosen.

I personally like the "no repeating assets" ideas that have been tossed around, meaning that the guys that sent 40 berserkers behind your lines will have to think of something else to do next time.

I've also come to realize that most of the GW apocalypse games seem to take place on much bigger boards than 6x4. Most people seem to add tables together lengthwise, meaning they're still only 4 feet across. Anyone NOT setting up right on no-man's land gets charged by flank marchers, and those on no-man's land get charged by what's already there. A board 6-8 feet by 8 feet, or tables put together on the long edges, allows for a VAST middle for people to deploy in where flank marchers will end up having to footslog it a good ways, unless they're in transports.

I'd like to try that, myself. I'm going to suggest it to our group for the next big event. This also makes Strategic Redeployment a good option. As of right now it's difficult to use it, as if anyone deepstrikes near you or flank marches, it then becomes impossible to even use it to get away as they're already within 12". On a larger, square-shaped board a large flank marching force would appear and be a threat, but people using redeployment would be able to move to react to it. I invision a fluid game with lots of support and carnage, rather than the slaughter stigma that flank march seems to carry with it.

goes the furthest in using unashamedly, broken assets/etc.

I read about 90% of the replies here...

I've played a TON of apocalypse games. All of the assets are perfectly balanced. There was one thing in particular that you did that unbalanced the game. And there was probably something else going on that hppens in far too many apocalypse games.

The appropriate table size for a 5,000 point game is 8' x 6'. You didn't mention the size of table you played on but I have a hunch it was not that big. No offense meant but it seems to be by FAR the number one rule everyone who plays apocalypse seems to forget. I've seen way too many pictures of 40,000 points a side battles on 2 tables pushed together in a game store. It breaks the game down so badly. Easily my biggest pet peeve on apocalypse games i read about on the net. Sorry to harp on that point, you may have had the correct table size after all. If you did have the correct table size, then the blood angel player getting his army decimated by a flank march deployed very badly, and that wouldn't be your fault. Make sure you find out how big of a table you have available, multiply the length and width, then multiply that result by 100. that is the max size game you can play. plus or minus 500 or 600 points. Smaller tables mean flank marching against an opponent that didn't get a first turn strat redeploy or have ambush or disruptor beacon gives you an automatic win.

The other thing that happened that you created was the house rule of 2 assets per person. I can tell you didn't do it maliciously, I'm not accusing you of 'cheating'. When I played my first few apoc games, I didn't really see what would be so bad with buying assets, or giving everyone a bunch etc. But that really breaks the game down. Everyone gets one per army. If your "team" in a multiplayer game picked flank march and careful planning then those assets are very specific to only affecting the actual players models that chose the asset. The only way to gain the combination of flank march and careful planning is by combining specific data sheets with your personal asset choice. Most of those assets are very specific on which of your own units may use them. The data sheets themselves become balancing factors as well. The minimum size of said data sheet may preclude you from using it in a very small game where it would be able to influence the outcome too heavily. If you take the masters of the chapter and a space marine company for example, you have access to at least 6 strategic assets (don't have the apoc book handy) But at this point you are playing what? 4,000 points?

One other minor rule of thumb that you guys didn't adhere to was the maximum suggested size per player. GW doesn't recommend going over 3k points per player. By playing 5k points per side, you've thinned out the number of interesting and different strategic assets that can be legally taken. And its more taxing on each individual player to finish their turns fast and to be accurate. this rule however, is the least important rule of thumb, I played a 2v1 as a 6k point 'villain'. They had more fun than i did, whispering strategy and conferring with each other.

As far as the whole baneblade thing is concerned. Don't ever hesitate to take it in any of your games. Rules are pretty clear, take any model you own. If a guy shows up to a 5k game and can't handle killing a 14 armor tank 3 times, then you can just say "welcome to apocalypse" and expect him to not come so light next time.

You played the game slightly wrong, but he had as many opportunities to take advantage of the situation as you did. It seems that you were just more cunning and strategic in your use of the tools available to you. So it wasn't an "unfair" game, just not a 'true' apocalypse game.

it sounds like there was still some back and forth action before you rolled over on him. i hope you guys both had fun. And don't worry about houseruling any assets just yet. Thanks for posting the abridged bat rep too. I'm always looking for fun new apocalypse tricks to use or defend against...

Thanks for that well thought-out reply! I still think that one per player is a bit broken "the other way" when there's only one player per side, though. Another friend of mine and I truly brought almost every model we own and managed an 18,000 point game with 5 assets per side, and a couple we made up ourselves and had a blast.

But you make a valid argument, and it makes a lot of sense that way. Unfortunately, we're guilty of the board dilemma. In a crowded store it's hard to pull tables together when other people are waiting for games. We did the best we could and waited for the 8x4 table to be available. I think in general people are scared to go for bigger boards though. Past megagames without strategic assets caused units to be stranded with nearly nothing to do, far too far away from the action and with only a few objectives staged for big showdowns on them. I do remember the Armaggeddon megabattle though, that was pretty much 20x4, with all of the GW store's tables linked together in a giant line. The thing that made it interesting, though, was some 30 gamers with 500-1000 points per being able to come on at any point they wished with whatever they'd brought, meaning there was carnage all over. Flank March to the extreme, with new units arriving constantly, giving it an escalating engagement [Battlefleet Gothic scenario] feel.

My other problem with 1 per player in a 2-player game comes with the data sheets. If you look at them, Space Marines just plain win. Few other armies' data sheets give as much as the space marine ones. With just a Damocles Rhino, Masters of the Chapter and the Battle Company, and then choosing flank march as my 1 player asset, I'm now Carefully Planned Flank Marching onto you, supported by 3 Orbital Bombardments and Hold at all Costs meaning you have to kill it ALL. From what I can see marines are the only ones in which you just flat-out GET the assets, whereas the only other datasheet I can see that even GRANTS assets is the Eldar Windrider host, and both of those assets specifically apply to that formation alone.

Granted no matter how many assets you give each player a marine player can still 4 to 7-up that person with those granted by the datasheets, but it allows them some more leeway to take things like Ambush or others to counter what's coming at them, and then take the ones they REALLY want to use.

Check out the next report I'm about to make, though. That Blood Angels guy wanted a rematch, and we had a much better game!

Ahh an apocalyse rematch... awesome... that means he had enough fun to do it again. Apocalypse is so cool

Space marines have some excellent datasheets. But they come at a cost. masters of the chapter costs an additional 200 points in addition to at least 800 points in characters and a command squad. that command squad can't be shared by the command squad of a battle company. So adding a battle company would bring another 2500ish points. We could probably squeeze that game into an 8' x 4' table.

I only have 2 armies that can go that big. Necrons and Imperial guard. If i knew i was playing against a space marine player, without even knowing what units you owned or liked, I would know through experience that you are going to use tricky deployment assets. It's just what marine players do so they can survive on the big tables. For guard I would probably either take disruptor beacon or not. here's what I'd take at 3k

10 leman russes 1500 points
1 baneblade 500
3 bassies 375
2 hellhounds 250
6-7 las/plas guard infantry units to huddle up on objectives. They will NOT be within 18" of any board edge.

I'd probably take ambush to handle any assault marines coming from the board edges, and any rhinos or drop pods are not a problem for me. I would be very intimidated by an armored spearhead filled with terminators, but it doesn't seem to be that popular of a choice for marines.

I'm not guaranteeing a win against a 3500 point marine apoc army with my list, but i think you'd agree that it won't be "over" on turn 1

For necrons I'd probably take

2 pylons (6 strength D shots on an AA mount at BS4 are absolutely DEVASTATING)
3 monoliths
nightbringer
20 immortals
2 lords with veils
60 warriors

I'd probably bid 30 minutes to deploy here. To see if I should expect you to come from the front or the back. I'll deploy the pylons using their datasheet. If a battle company flanked me and tried to bolter drill me, their bolters would be strength 2, crossing the field generated by the monoliths and the field of the pylons. I'd have 5+ invulnerables on all the warriors, and 3+ WBB rolls until you popped a monolith for those orbital bombardments. The 5 sources of teleportation and the massive close range shooting will totally negate flank marching assault marines. I'd probably take disruptor here, so that i could split you up and pick you apart piecemeal. I may also choose strat redeploy, although i have found that its not too good with the immobile pylons

Again, not saying it is an auto win for me, but i am saying that I won't roll over to a battle company and some ICs.


I do agree with you to an extent about space marine data sheets, they get tons of assets, but other data sheets may not have assets, but they get some crazy other stuff. If you never kill my lead tank in the IG company, then my tanks have their own version of "hold at all costs" And the necron datasheets, although few, are obnoxiously powerful.

Don't get me started on Ork data sheets, they are pretty weak. I guess that balances out how good orks are in general.

If you guys plan to play on that same 4 x 8 table, scale your game down to 3500. Stick to one asset and tell me how that feels. If you want to play with more apocalypse stuff happening, get a teammate. It is so much fun to whisper and collaberate. And you have someone to blame if it doesn't work out in the end!