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.

so, Tommorrow, I am playing a large, non-apoc game. 8k vs 8k.
Are the tactics any different?
Im salamanders, my allies are CSM and Eldar, im facing against guard, ork and ork.
My list looks a little something like this

Should i just go about this like a normal game?
Also, the terrain is pretty heavy

Based on your list I'd say you just threw in every model you own and your list options are nonexistent (if you do have more models available your list is terrible, it needs a lot more focus), so you really don't have much of a choice here. You pretty much have to play it as a normal game and hope for the best.

The larger a game gets, the less tactical it becomes. Basically it's going to be 8k of points crammed into two deployment zones and the two sides are just going to slog it out. Whoever was luckier/brought the best lists will beat up the other side faster, and then walk on to any objectives at the end of the game.

Line models up tactically. Turn 1-6 get that dakka on and objective capping. Win.

I vehemently disagree. The larger a game gets, the more your tactics are paramount, because luck is less of a factor.

Ever had your terminators fail 5 of 6 saves? Ever had three leadership 10 squads fail morale and leg it turn 1? Well in smaller games, this can be your undoing. In a larger game, there's more opportunity for good luck to balance out bad, etc etc.

By that same token, in a smaller game, say you try a flanking maneuver with the only unit in your army designed for it, a unit of bikes. .....and they fail utterly, and your master plan falls apart. In a large game you might have 30 bikes plus a storm raven and two deep striking terminator squads come down that flank - unless your opponent, as part of their own strategy, is able to react to counter that then you'll roll him.

So assign your units to their duties, carry out your plan, and know that the odds are on your side if you can outwit your opponent!

Spellbound wrote:
In a large game you might have 30 bikes plus a storm raven and two deep striking terminator squads come down that flank - unless your opponent, as part of their own strategy, is able to react to counter that then you'll roll him.

Except that in a huge game the table is packed with models, and there's no room for your delicate flanking maneuver. All you can really do is gunline your long-range units and rush your close-range units directly forward as fast as possible. Meanwhile the overwhelming firepower on the table effortlessly wipes away entire units and the game turns into a battle of attrition with the winner being the lucky player who happens to have a scoring unit survive somehow.

It sounds like you're playing on too small a board.

Large games in excess of 3k should be played on larger tables, where there's room to move and actual space between units.

That's the most common excuse I hear for people not liking big games, is that there's no room to maneuver. Easy answer: larger board. Or you can require x number of units be put in reserves, or something like that.

This is also the excuse I hear for complaints about the apoc asset "flank march", where it was overpowered because the enemy would walk on and kill everything. On a larger board you can deploy further in, making it harder to be reached.

Spellbound wrote:
Easy answer: larger board.

World hunger? Easy answer: More food.

Are tables that much of a rare commodity? Most game stores have more than one with which to push together.

Spellbound wrote:
Are tables that much of a rare commodity? Most game stores have more than one with which to push together.

Well, the real problem is that if you add another table everyone considers it an excuse to play a bigger game. Every Apocalypse game I've ever attended (and most of the ones I've seen pictures of) has been way too crowded, to the point that movement beyond "straight forward and assault" becomes impossible and strategy is reduced to focusing fire from your giant blob of guns.

I've had my share of those, and of ones where additional tables were attached along the short board edge, making it super long and narrow, where because of the ranges of weapons, players basically fought the person across from them in essentially 1-off games to see who won.

Two regular 4x6 tables, attached along the 6' sides, means the furthest anyone has to reach is 3' to reach the center line. A table this size comfortably fields up to about 12-15k provided there's some superheavies involved (roughly 2k points worth of them), otherwise head down to the 10-12k range. With adequate space between objectives, units will not only have to be deployed in a balance of up front and deeper backfield, but the game will have plenty of opportunity for lots of separate, thematic mini battles to appear here and there across the board that can swing one way or another and require players to start thinking of where they need to divert forces and direct firepower. Also keeps units from sitting around with nothing to do.

The apoc rulebook also recommends choosing several larger pieces of terrain rather than tons and tons of regular terrain - the seemingly empty space will get replaced by models and look much less empty. It also makes baneblades and the like shine, as they can really show how deadly they are (and serve as a great personal objective players often try to achieve before really going for objectives to win, since otherwise it can blow them off of them!)

I have some pictures in my gallery of good apocalypse games I've played in the past. Some are a little crowded and some felt just right.

see the thing is this doesn't look like an 8k game, the strat igies starting at about 1k to 1.5k (unless gimmick list) are the same strats that you use at 15k. it's just the firing lines are bigger and the number of special rules are more.

The only time this changes is when you are talking about 500k on a cramped bored where it is really just a bunch of 1v1s with a few random earth shaker and titan shots going to other tables.

Example, GK termi strike force at 2k is a ton of grey knight termies, at 8K is 150 termies with some storm eagles, and contemptor dreads.

That's my point, the tactics are the same but less dependent on luck. The bigger the board the better you need to get around, hence flank march, strategic redeployment and plenty of extra points to take those super fliers and risky deep strike units you couldn't use normally in smaller games. Maybe your deep strike assault list doesn't work in standard 40k because they take a lot of fire and you can only have 3 squads. Now your big dramatic deep strike assault can be 100 marines and after losing 60 to heinous fire the rest can start tearing things up.

Just play it like a normal game its not much different.
More stuff will die faster in the first few turns but thats about it.

Try to make sure you have a larger table than what you would use for say a 2k game, especially if its heavy on terrain.

As with any game, you just want to make sure you have a mission that makes sense. If you normally run with 3 objectives at 2000 points, try ~7 objectives at 8000 points.
Also, if you can get a good sized table (we used to use 5' x 12' for that size of game) it really helps. Having an extra foot of depth really helps.

-Matt