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.

I was chatting with my roommate last night about the things we hate about Apoc. We came up with the following complaints about it:

- Blatant imbalance. I do not enjoy spending such a long time in the list building/setting up phase for the game to already feel won or lost by the end of the first or second turn. I mean, maybe some people want a game where they set ALL their plastic army men down, make exploding noises, and start removing them. I really want something more tactical than that.

- Unrealistic armies: I appreciate the reasons for removing the force org chart. A lot of armies can't fit a FOC at 5000 or 10000 points. I still don't think that this should be 'carte blanche' for the Eldar player to have an army comprised entirely of Nightspinner formations and Aspect Warrior, maybe with a titan or two thrown in for 'flavor'. Where are the rank and file? What about an IG player bringing nothing but those IA tank turret emplacements? Who would consider playing against 50 of those spread out 'fun'?

The obvious fix would be to stop playing apoc. The thing is, I like the idea. I just don't think that the 'no holds barred' philosophy scales well when you can just take an entire army of Titans while the other players take a more "realistic" army. I've been working on some list of constraints to make these games last longer than 2 turns and feel more fulfilling than just a contest of who can bring the most Titans and keep them in reserve longer. Here's what I have so far, and I would like to have input on them:

- 40% of army point total must be troops. Now, this sounded restrictive at first, but I was thinking about a 5000 point game. 40% is 2000 points. Can you honestly not take your fill of all your other good stuff in 3000 points?

- Check objectives on a turn by turn basis. This corresponds with my next two points, and makes things a little bit more interesting than just "wipe the other person out".

- Disallow wipeouts. You can wipe the other person out, obviously, but it's not a win automatically.

- Divide reserved army portions into quarters, roll for each quarter as standard 40k goes. This keeps one from simply taking an army of Titans, reserving them, and bidding a longer time limit than the other guy, knowing exactly when they'll come into play.

- Put a limitation on number of Superheavy/Gargantuan/Formations in the players army. Not sure what a good limitation is, but I kind of like how 1 Superheavy/1 Gargantuan/ 2 Formations per 10000 points looks on paper. This is something I'd have to playtest though. I could relax on the number of Formations without too much argument.


This is what I have so far. What does everyone think? Am I a fun nazi, or am I on to something?

daedalus wrote: I still don't think that this should be 'carte blanche' for the Eldar player to have an army comprised entirely of Nightspinner formations and Aspect Warrior, maybe with a titan or two thrown in for 'flavor'. Where are the rank and file?

I don't have much to say about apocalypse, as it's ridiculously stupid, but Aspect Warriors are the rank and file of Eldar armies. Guardians are militia.

Hmm, well, I've played several big battles, 4000 pts or so, and we used multiple force allocation charts instead. You had to fill one before you could start another. We used this mainly to have two seperate allies together, but the idea is the same. That seemed to work pretty well!

So 2000pts of Troops/ How abt that guy who ahs 2 ten man Termangant squads and nothing else?

1 Legnedary unit per 1000pts? How about that guy who has a £1000 manta and a few Tiger Sharks and Orcas to boot, or 3 Reavers which are about £450 with weapons. a Few Battle Companies, of which only one can have the perks of the formation, and their Thunderhawks have to sit at home.

Disallowing wipeouts-How can they win if they have nothing left? All you have to do is check if you control an objective and just declare you do nothing untill the end of the game.

1 Legnedary unit per 1000pts? How about that guy who has a £1000 manta and a few Tiger Sharks and Orcas to boot, or 3 Reavers which are about £450 with weapons. a Few Battle Companies, of which only one can have the perks of the formation, and their Thunderhawks have to sit at home.

Disallowing wipeouts-How can they win if they have nothing left? All you have to do is check if you control an objective and just declare you do nothing untill the end of the game.

I agree somewhat with this. The 10000 point per legendary seems a bit harsh. Maybe half that, reason being, most of the legendary's are fairly expensive in of themselves, meaning that people are going to have to be careful when taking them. My FLGS holds an apoc once every other month or so, and each has their own special rules, ie, no vehicles,(tyranids have waaaayy too much fun) or just making up house rules.

I understand the brokenness of apoc, but if why would you be willing to spend a whole day playing against TFG?

I do agree with the force org idea but I think you shouldn't have to fill out all the slots. Ex: lets say the space wolves don't wanna use all those fast attack because frankly (with the exception of the cavalry) they suck. However the limits on formations and legendary are unreasonable the number of points should be deterant enough.

daedalus wrote:Am I a fun nazi, or am I on to something?

I'd say both
Not that 40k is a perfectly balanced game anyways, but I've always felt that Apocalypse and all the other expansions are strictly for fun. It could be a chicken or the egg situation, but its that unbalance that makes it for fun (or its that its for fun that makes it unbalanced). I think if you're playing Apocalypse seriously, you should play bigger 40k games. Apocalypse should be as Miniwargaming does it; get your club to bring as much stuff, set up in teams then duke it out in a huge battle.
BUT!
I completely respect your opinion, Apocalypse would be an awesome tournament format, but you can't do that if its as broken as it is. Ontop of that whats the point of shelling out money for (admittingly) cool formations when they're going to stomped. So some sort of balancing is in order if your coming from that perspective, but once again i have a light hearted perspective on the expansions and the game as a whole...

Daedelus, just for your SA, there are rumors floating about that in 6th Edition the Force Organization "chart" will be replaced by percentages. If this holds true, Apocalypse self-corrects, IMHO.

If this doesn't hold true, some rules Extrenm(54) and I have adopted in the past regarding Apocalypes games are:

For every 3000 Points, each side is limited to the following:
1. One FOC (per 3K pts)
2. Three "Structure Points" of Superheavy per 3K pts, or 6 Gargantuan Creature Wounds (so, one Baneblade, or one Macharius plus a spare structure point for one of those single hit-point Knights that BOLS has rules for)
3. Half of all points must start on the table.
4. Strategems that affect the entire army (Flank March, for example) may only affect 1000 points of units (It needs to be taken twice to affect 2000 points, three times for 3000, and so on), with a limit of one per 3000 points.



Not perfect, but it helps tone down the insanity of large Apoc games. With the above rules, he and I can play a 10,000-point game where each side has:

- Three FOCs (plus an extra 1 HQ, 1 EL, 2 TR, 1 FA, 1 HS)

- Ten Structure points/20 Wounds of Superheavies/Gargantuan Creatures (so I can field a Baneblade Company, and he can throw down Angra'ath and Scabieathrax together)

- 5,000 points of forces on the table, meaning we won't have one person skip half the battle (we've gone back and forth between bidding on times and using 5th Edition's deploy-first-go-first method)

- Strategems that, if powerful, are adequately accounted for in terms of points.

Hope that helps a bit.

Interesting take Corpsman. I favor similar restrictions, with a few differences.

1 of each Special Character per side per 10000 pts (No I don't care how many dollars you have sunk into mephistons, you are not fielding 2 units of five!)

The limited FOC is a bit tight. Any point value below 10000 I would say 40% troops unless there are extenuating circumstances (ok fine, you can field your titan legion people who have ridiculously larges amounts of spare change).

I like to limit the formations and superheavies to the other 60%, unless the two overlap (fine, you can use your massive SM BC).

The "half start on the table" is cool, unless of course, they have a special circumstance (drop pods, deathwing, daemons)

I regularly ban Flank March and Jammers. Jammers, really? and Flank March, I find can be ok if limited to a few units (usual 5 with no more than 50 models (MCs count as 5)).

I also allow repeats on strats at 10000 pts per army (one per 10000).

Balancing apocalypse? Ah now thats just taking the fun away I think personally. Apoclaypse is never fair but is absolutely bloody good fun with the right group of people.

Sure we all have that one guy with afew titans knocking about, but house rules are much better at keeping it from being totally one sided. At the end of the day apoc is for fun, nothing else. Where else would you get moments of Khárn charging into a baneblade, only to explode him and EVERYTHING else within 8 inches? Or the feeling of a combat with over 8 units locked in it, all of which fearless (two were 30 Ork squads) and masses of armour saves?

Apoc is fun, fun means its going to be unbalanced but even then both side can just go crazy. I love the freedom as do all my friends and regulating it with only a set number of ST or garg creatures just detracts from it

I can't stand the idea that there are essentially no rules in Apoc, as some people claim. I mean, the larger scales mean that you may have to be a bit lax on some areas, but that doesn't mean that you should ignore rules on the basis of "It's Apocalypse, figure it out between yourselves." Also, while it's nice that there's no FOC in Apoc, again, I only play if there's some sort of coherency to the armies, probably using the Allies Matrix. For example, Orks with Dark Eldar mercenary allies, I would be fine with, but a guy shows up with a few Hammerheads, Fire Dragons in Wave Serpents, a Hierophant and a Warhound thrown in, I'd call shenadigans, because it's not an excuse to simply take the most powerful things in the game in one army.

Personally I like the idea of Apoc. games! The idea sounds like the most fun and amazing idea. Lets see how much stuff we can put on the board and watch the carnage unfold. But in practice Apoc. doesn't work. Almost every time we play one side is ready to quite by turn 3. How is this fun? It's not fun to me even if I win.

To help this last game we eliminated strength D from the game. I thought we should try this because strength D is an auto pin on vehicles, it auto wounds models, and it ignores cover saves! So you cannot even be tactical and run from cover to cover. I feel like strength D completely and too drastically alters the game. So we ruled a gun with Strength D becomes strength 10 and AP 1 but you get a reduction in cost. 100 pts off a model with strength D if it has a 10 inch plate or has two shots and 50 points off for a one shot large blast gun. Note that this was reduction was per gun. And come game time not one person took a gun with Strength D. Apparently I hit strendth D with the nerf hammer to hard. So next time I'm thinking making it minus one to cover saves as well. What do you guys think?

Apocalypse is bloody awful, at my GW on Sundays around 5 young kids gather round half of a gaming table and shove every model they can grab in their hands and pile them onto the table and scream out commands at the top of their lungs to stop cheating, or some other pointless lie. The game needs restrictions, I absolutely agree with your statements, I have an all infantry army and hate playing massive tank armies, I simply want to play a proper but large game of 40k.

Apocalypse, when played as a 1v1 or 2v2 at 10,000-20,000 points per side, is great fun.

Apocalypse, when played as 8v8 at 2,000 points per player is a horrible experience.

Chaos Lord Gir wrote:
Apoc is fun, fun means its going to be unbalanced but even then both side can just go crazy. I love the freedom as do all my friends and regulating it with only a set number of ST or garg creatures just detracts from it

I share these sentiments exactly, in regards to Apoc.

Personally, I think it's fine the way it is. That being said, Apoc, IMHO, should be played strictly as a "Beers and Pretzels" type of game, in that it should be played without any inhibitions or intentions of winning or losing.

Is it nice to win? "Yes". Does it suck to lose? Also "Yes". But if these questions are important to you when going into an Apoc game, then I believe that Apoc just isn't right for you.

Now, that being said, I'm in agreement that there are balancing issues. For the past couple of years though, I've been fortunate enough to play in community's annual Apoc game, that has sort of mainstreamed themselves a set of guidelines and rules, which I think have helped balance the game. Here're a few examples:

1. Only Troops can score objectives. That rule right there could fix the "Players-Who-Bring-Nothing-But-Titans" situation. I understand that in past editions, this was actually the case, and that the rule for more recent Apoc games has been more or less ignored/omitted (I'm a relatively new player to 40K, in the grand scheme of things, so past editions are very hazy to me). I don't completely agree with the OP's suggestion of allocating a percentage of your points to Troop choices, as this rule will nonetheless at least make them a very necessary aspect of an Apoc game.

2. Score differently. From my understanding, this may have been a rule from previous editions as well, but if it isn't, no worries. The way we've scored our Apoc games is as follows: At the end of every turn, starting with Turn 2, for every uncontested objective that is claimed by a Troop choice, each side will earn 1 point. You then continue to score this way until the end of the game, whenever that may have been decided by both teams. Other modifiers, such as Vital Objective and Legion Relic follow very easily after that.

3. Put caps and restrictions on assets. There are some assets, that when used, can be excessive or over powered. "Replacements" was one of these assets. Considering that in the Apoc games I've played, that there's an average about 1 Super Heavy for every 2 players, it was important for us to set some kind of limitation to this. The cap we decided on was on models/formations that cost a total of 2499 points or less (ie - No Warlord or Emperor Titans respawning). And yes, we did have a couple of these involved in our games.

4. All models must be painted to tabletop standards. While this rule has nothing to do with the outcome of a casual Apoc game, we do this for ourselves because we demand the best out of all of us. Another check mark to the "APOC SHOULDN'T BE ABOUT WINNING/LOSING" box.

Now that all being said, there are some other unbalanced aspects of Apoc that aren't really the fault of players, but more so on GW's way of making the game. Space Marines, as far as I can tell, are given an abundance amount of ways to acquire assets and stratagems that many other armies do not. Does this suck for non-SM players? Yes, but that doesn't make them unbeatable.

Knowing your opposition plays a huge role too. Now like any other 40K game, it's impossible to plan for every contingency. I will also say that the majority of your planning and strategizing isn't during the game itself, but before the game starts, while you're making your list. In fact, I'd say that 90% of the planning is done before any dice are rolled at all, and the other 10% is during the course of the game, when plans need to be adjusted. Some may find that boring, others find it enjoyable, but if you fall in the former of that group, then again, maybe Apoc isn't for you. And that's fine! You don't have to like Apoc for what it is, but the point I'm trying to make is this...

Instead of saying how "un-fun" Apoc is, think of ways to MAKE it fun.

This annual Apoc Megabattle that I play in is comprised of 40-60 people, at 4000 points apiece, in a team vs team game, where the forces of Order fight Disorder. We plan for this game months and months in advance, and each time one team has one and another has lost. Both Order and Disorder have won and lost, but the one thing that remains true is that EVERYONE HAD A DAMN GOOD TIME.

I have played 2 Apoc games. they were campaign enders, so each team hed 8 or 9 players at any one time. Itn was aweful and absolute chaos (small C). Majority of the game waas going like this...

Bear in mind the is music and background noiser so ecveryone is shourting.

" Don't shoot them! I need to shoot them or I can't shoot anything!

Well I can shoot themor them, but the Blendernaut is going to kill them!!

Shut up! I am trying to stomp Draigo out of exiastence!

Die! Die, die,die,die,die,die!

Shut up!

Rurouni Benshin wrote:

Chaos Lord Gir wrote:
A

4. All models must be painted to tabletop standards. While this rule has nothing to do with the outcome of a casual Apoc game, we do this for ourselves because we demand the best out of all of us. Another check mark to the "APOC SHOULDN'T BE ABOUT WINNING/LOSING" box.

No.

This rule seems quite unfair for those who enjoy the game but aren't the best painters, it seems quite snobbish to think less of someone for their painting skills if they enjoy the game though I agree with everything else you've stated.

Apoc is not meant to be balanced. If you're going for balanced, then play a large game using multiple FOC's. Apoc is meant to be a no-holds-barred just for fun kind of thing. Its meant for people who want to bring their entire collection of miniatures to the table, and for people that want to play cool large-scale themed scenarios. And completely agreed with Horst. I hate team apoc games, baring small ones amongst friends.

I think there should be a minimum square footage per points level - it is kind of stupid sticking 20,000 points on a 6' x 4' board so that nothing can actually move

SilverMK2 wrote:I think there should be a minimum square footage per points level - it is kind of stupid sticking 20,000 points on a 6' x 4' board so that nothing can actually move

Oh definitely agreed, but I think its ridiculous sticking 2000 points of anything barring draigowing on that size table as it is. The min. table size should go back to 8x4 or the average size game needs to drop 500+ points

Consider yourselves lucky. I need to play on a 4 by 4 table.

chaos0xomega wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:I think there should be a minimum square footage per points level - it is kind of stupid sticking 20,000 points on a 6' x 4' board so that nothing can actually move

Oh definitely agreed, but I think its ridiculous sticking 2000 points of anything barring draigowing on that size table as it is. The min. table size should go back to 8x4 or the average size game needs to drop 500+ points

I would agree - one of the reasons I like 1,500 point games is that you have enough units to be fun, but can still play on a 6' x 4' table with room to be tactical.

blood reaper wrote:

Rurouni Benshin wrote:

4. All models must be painted to tabletop standards. While this rule has nothing to do with the outcome of a casual Apoc game, we do this for ourselves because we demand the best out of all of us. Another check mark to the "APOC SHOULDN'T BE ABOUT WINNING/LOSING" box.

No.

This rule seems quite unfair for those who enjoy the game but aren't the best painters, it seems quite snobbish to think less of someone for their painting skills if they enjoy the game though I agree with everything else you've stated.

I understand that this rule isn't for everyone. The rules I listed were the standards that my friends and I play by. I know that every player plays the game for their own reasons, and I'm noone to judge otherwise. However, even you have to admit that tabletop quality (3 color minimum) isn't that daunting of a task.

It is for Ork units. Green Skin, and like Yellow or Brown or something for armour and vehicles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Necrons.

Colours
Boltgun metal.

Deadshot wrote:It is for Ork units. Green Skin, and like Yellow or Brown or something for armour and vehicles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Necrons.

Colours
Boltgun metal.

Semantics, my friend. It's not a daunting task if you put your mind to it. But like I said, every person enjoys the game in their own ways. I have friends who play horde like armies, and to them, they find it a welcoming task painting each and every one of their models. One thing in common amongst all of them, (and this applies to all armies, really) is that they've all invested in airbrushes and compressors. For a little under $100, you can save yourself a lot of time in basecoating.

Rurouni Benshin wrote:

blood reaper wrote:

Rurouni Benshin wrote:

4. All models must be painted to tabletop standards. While this rule has nothing to do with the outcome of a casual Apoc game, we do this for ourselves because we demand the best out of all of us. Another check mark to the "APOC SHOULDN'T BE ABOUT WINNING/LOSING" box.

No.

This rule seems quite unfair for those who enjoy the game but aren't the best painters, it seems quite snobbish to think less of someone for their painting skills if they enjoy the game though I agree with everything else you've stated.

I understand that this rule isn't for everyone. The rules I listed were the standards that my friends and I play by. I know that every player plays the game for their own reasons, and I'm noone to judge otherwise. However, even you have to admit that tabletop quality (3 color minimum) isn't that daunting of a task.

My basic infantry models are generally painted black, with grey drybrush and washed colours to give some effects, and I agree that people should put work into their armies, it's one of the reasons I play. I know it sounds simple, but I think it looks really good for my Bloodletters and other Daemons.