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.

Posted By Osbad on 10/22/2007 2:50 AM

"Weeeell, for me, getting a reputation as a jerk would be reason enough for me not to."

Totally agree.

Although its still pretty pisspoor ruleswriting if you have to rely on your players not actually using the rules you have written in order to have an unbroken game!

You were expecting something different from GW?

It looks like Apocalypse requires as much pre game organisation as a normal 3,000 point 40k game using the Forgeworld super-heavy tank rules. No great surprise (or loss) really. As a rulebook that tells you that you don’t need to follow the rules the book's a little bit of a non product anyway. Large battles should always be themed otherwise you’re missing out on an opportunity.

I'm a little disappointed by the lack of a proper 'make your own' Datasheet as I was planning to make a Squat one; I probably still will Photoshop is my friend.

I'm also disappointed with their take on Rapiers too (counts as twin multi laser) I'm in the process of re-crewing mine anyway; I'm not sure how to do it now.

HBMC: well, you've shown that you can break Apocolypse. I mean, yeah, there's no real reason (ruleswise) to make the choices you made, but there's also no real reason not to always pick the fat kid when playing duck, duck, goose. I think setting out to play Apocolypse with intent of trying to ruin everybody's game experience, and succeeding, might not entirely reflect the game's flaws, it just might not be the right thing for you.

From what you wrote, your opponent also had a messed up DZ. I would hope that if they had a normal sized DZ, the Ambush strategem, and three turns to move from the board edges, things might have turned out differently. Other than that, well, Flank March was pretty clearly the most powerful strategem, I'd imagine house rules will creep up for that in a hurry.

all apocalypse has done is let me and my mates play our games quicker and more open but im am lovin the art work in the book it is awsome well worth it

We had Ambush (thanks to the Seer Council) and a Disruptor Beacon. The Ambush did very little, and the Beacon was destroyed before their stuff came on.

As it happens we won that game, as the Eldar skimmers raced and claimed objectives (and the charged-up Pulse Lasers from the Cloud Strike Squadron cleared tanks away from our objectives), but it sure didn't feel like a victory.

The next game we're doing is going to be heavily themed, with lists done (probably by me) well in advance with a solid narrative and story in mind that services the objective for the game. We're also doing a 50/50 + no-man's-land split for DZ's, and requiring that atleast 50% of your force starts on the table - encouraging competative bidding with setup times.

Flank March will not be used.

BYE

Sounds like a solid set of house rules. I think flank march is made less necessary by the narrow no man's land, but it's still neat to think of of reserves arriving from a flank. Does anybody have ideas of how to restrict it's abuse without making it's use impossible?

Flank March in and of itself is not the problem, same as Strategic Reserve not being a problem by itself, or the way deployment zones are set, or the bidding process. It's a combination of these things (take Flank March, bid 30 mins, start no forces on the table, hold units 'till turn 3 thereby wasting the first three turns of your opponent's, crash into his flanks with your entire army) that cause the problems.

The way to ensure that this doesn't happen is to require that a certain % of your force has to start on the table (say 50%). This achieves a few things:

1. Flank March will only ever be half your force, not your whole force.
2. With half your army on the table, you don't want to be annihilated on the first turn, meaning you are more likely to bid competativley to ensure getting the first turn.
3. With a minimu of 50% on the table, chances are some armies (especially shooty armies) will deploy more than 50% as to have an advantage until the rest of the army shows up.

BYE

I think some of the rules are a little odd, but it just takes some simple adaptions. Like I think the scatter dice for no mans land is ok, but it should always go through the center of the board so on a normal shaped table both sides get the same amt of space. If you're using a L or T kind of setup, you should do it more like just a straight across kind of thing.

For bidding for setups and all that.. I understand the reason for the time limit in order to keep the game going.. but I think it should be more like you roll for first setup. pick half your army and set em up. Roll for first turn. 2nd turn you get half your reserves, 3rd turn you get the rest. You can even do less than half on the 2nd turn if you want, as long as everything left comes in on the 3rd.

I'm gonna be running a big game in a couple weeks, so I'm gonna propose we do the set up and reserves more like that

I am fairly certain you are required to being in 50% of your reserves 2nd turn, and the remaining the 3rd. I don't think you can hold them all till the 3rd turn. Still that is a rather rough way of forcing a "first turn" after seeing your opponants wiggle around for a bit. I agree that requiring 50% to be on the table to start is probably a good rule.

The one day I don't bring in my apoc book to work, and I have something that requires looking up.

I am also fairly certain that you must bring in 50% of reserves on turn two, then the rest on turn 3. Not exactly a huge difference, but it's there.

I think one of the big problems with your game is also a problem with the main game. Falcons are next to all powerful, and are even more amplified in Apoc. They are almost impossible to bring down, and can scoot fast across the board to tank shock inf off of objectives. I had the most las cannons I have ever fielded in a game on a 3000pt marine list, and I still couldn't stop his falcons. I brought one down, but a last turn grab of one of my objectives cost me the game, and there was nothing I could do about it (as 7 lascannons, 2 plasma guns and a missle launcher couldn't immobilize the falcon that jumped out of cover, flew 24" and contested one of my objectives.) I really need one vulcan mega bolter for each falcon on the table for a chance at it.....

Flank march used in that way would still be nasty with orks or berzerkers,.. but I think it is a lot easier to handle than certain eldar lists.

Nope, he is correct. 2nd turn you "may" bring on half of your reserves. 3 rd turn you must. The other night while we were playing I thought I read must.

The disrupter asset is a good thing to use against people that like to flank you a lot.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 10/22/2007 2:01 PM

The way to ensure that this doesn't happen is to require that a certain % of your force has to start on the table (say 50%). This achieves a few things:

1. Flank March will only ever be half your force, not your whole force.
2. With half your army on the table, you don't want to be annihilated on the first turn, meaning you are more likely to bid competativley to ensure getting the first turn.
3. With a minimu of 50% on the table, chances are some armies (especially shooty armies) will deploy more than 50% as to have an advantage until the rest of the army shows up.

These are all fairly reasonable and should result in a more balanced game for all involved.

Myself, I'm probably never going to play a game of Apocalypse again, for reasons related to simple logistics. I don't have the network of friends (or, indeed, any) nor the copious gaming space or time to get anything out of it.

Another reasonable solution is to make it mandatory 50% of the reserves come in turn 2, then the rest on 3.

Played my first Apoc game. Wow, they combined Flank March with the one that lets you come on in turn one... Ork speed freaks and Khorne Berzerkers coming on the back edge and assaulting on the first turn... Needless to say we lost (though we did put up a good fight). We'll see how the games continue to go, but I'm thinking we may just outright ban Flank March for our Apoc games, its just too good for CC armies.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Huh? I had no problem with Flank March. To me, it is just another way to make you think about how you are going to play.

I'm not sure about how you play at your locations, but most 40K games around here come down to lining the table edge and shooting with everything and assaulting when/if needed. With FM, you have to think about what you are going to do. Do you leave your big guns lined up in the back with the risk of a squad of termies coming up behind you and run the risk of going "BOOM"? Or do you get some distance from the edge so you can take the nessasary actions.

Can FM be abuse, yes. But, to me, it makes you think about what you are going to do with your army.

IMHO

And someone should really be taking the disrupter asset to protect that back area you don't want people to flank. It's only a 4+, but just the threat will make your opponent rethink his strategy.

IIRC, flank march is used with reserves (don't have the book in front of me atm). Reserves come on in turn two or three.

Posted By Toreador on 10/24/2007 1:51 PM
And someone should really be taking the disrupter asset to protect that back area you don't want people to flank. It's only a 4+, but just the threat will make your opponent rethink his strategy.

You shouldn't have to take a Disrupter in every game because Flank March is so powerful, otherwise everyone's army will consist of Flank March, Disrupter Beacon, and maybe one other (assuming 3 people per side games).

But anyway, Flank March isn't the problem. Flank March is only powerful because of the combination of the weird way DZ's are chosen, the way you bid for first turn, and how Strategic Reserves lets you keep your entire army off the table.

BYE

Also, quit setting up stuff on the edges that will get them charged right away from a flank march. You should have a huge area, put your prize units farther from the table edges. ANother thing to consider are mine fields and ambush. In a game I played, ambush really messed up the flank marchers, and if you put down mine fields along your table edges where you'd expect a flank march to come from, they'll have to rethink of where they're going to march in from or just suck it up and take the hits. Or you can can just lay the mines behind your lines somewhere. Apocalypse isn't walk across the board and shoot, stuff is gonna come at you from all directions

I haven't had a game yet so take my post for what it's worth (nothing) but I think HBMC just hit the nail on the head. The fact that the first thing everyone will have to do is counter FM makes it a bit overpowered. This is mostly due to the fact that players can abuse it by way of their other options.

Artillery and such should always be lined up along the rear edge of the board. To think that a force would place a minefield in their own deployment zone, to think that artillery units will have to line up anywhere but as far from the center of the board as possible, or to have snipers waiting in their own backfield to engage targets comming from behind is more than a little strange. It's also fairly unrealistic to assume that a force would simply show up at an arbitrary location and wait for their opponents to come at them from all sides. Sure we could assume that the defenders are surrounded or something but if we're trying to play that theme then the defenders shouldn't have to worry about a deployment zone at all. They should just set up wherever they want and await the attackers. At the very least players that bid a ridiculus number then deploy no units should have to admit that they are breaking the game... and that their pee pee is small.

I agree with instituting a house rule that 50% of your force must be deployed on the first turn, otherwise the potential abuses are just too great.

A better counter for Flank March would be Ambush.

On the other hand, if even without flank march, there are many other ways of getting units into the back field (drop pods, deep striking, tunnels) and people should probably do those thing anyways. I've played a couple games, and both times, a ten man squad of marines packing melta weapons/bombs have done a number unsupported vehicles.

The other ways of entering the back field do not allow additional movement (with the exception of tunnels but their location is known) or more importantly assault in the same turn they arrive. A couple of Landraiders packed with termies, genestealer brood, etc. can get pretty far and really lay the hurt.

It doesn't do a player good to be completely unprepared. I agree that players should expect certain things like that. I'll probably always use a disruptin field. But there's a difference between...

"Sir we're engaging enemy units on the forward lines and everything seems to... aaaaah the're popping up from behind!"

and

"Sir, we've arrived at the battlefield for no apparent reason since there's no enemy units anywhere in front of us and ...aaaaaah they're popping up from behind!"

We've been discussing this here and it looks like we've landed on the following house rule:

In the event of no enemy units deployed the battlefield belongs to the opponent. Deployment zones no longer apply and the player(s) may deploy anywhere on the table. Of course, the other team could just put a single Zzapp gun down and call it good, so it may need tweaking but I think it's a start.

So if both sides take Flank March and neither deploys any units on the table...

Wrestling match between players. This is where terrain placement becomes key.

I'm devising an apocalypse event for GT style competitive players and the zero bidding your army into reserves was the first thing that had to go. For a trial rule I am thinking that when you run out of time during deployment, HALF of the remaining units go into reserves, and HALF are destroyed outright. You can put deepstrikers into reserves manually to avoid them counting towards this penalty.

For an event still this close to the release I think that I'll also be limiting the strategic assets available to 8 or so. Fit the rules for those on a single page so its a more digestable chunk of information and everyone has equal access to it. Flank march might make the cut, or might be saved for later. Still deciding.

I want apocalypse to work, especially for the competitive types of players (because playing with fluff nutters is like challenging my grandmother to a 50 yard dash - it's neither fun, interesting, or rewarding). We just run the risk of a single abusable aspect of the book ruining it for everyone.

"because playing with fluff nutters is like challenging my grandmother to a 50 yard dash - it's neither fun, interesting, or rewarding"

For you maybe.. I'd play against a fluffy army over a smack-yo-azz tourney army anyday

I just don't think apocalypse is tourney friendly.. there's just too many chances for people to make totally abusive and/or insane lists and too many things that people that want to win at all costs will employ. You might have better luck just using the normal rules and maybe allowing someone to take a super heavy if they can fit it in the list.. or have it count as 2 heavy choices or something like that. And allow people to use datasheets. Have folks set up normally but keep the reserves and make a rule where at least 50% of the army must set up on turn 1. Keep the force org for maybe saying you need 1 HQ and 2 troops, the rest can be whatever you want? Just try to balance the armies but still give folks the option of fielding a unique force like if a guy wants to have an inquisitor HQ with units of guard and marines backing him up. Anyway.. just try and come up with a few apocalypse goodies that can get added to the regular game without giving people reasons to make armies that just aren't fun to play against

I agree with Necros. Apocalypse definitely isn't a tournament game. I could see it working for a 'Gladiator' tournament where the point is for everyone to bring the most broken list they can, but I don't see Apocalypse being tight enough in a tournament environment.

I think the ideas of 50% minimum initial deployment, as well as 50% of reserves *must* come in on turn 2, are good.

How about houseruling Flank March to only allow deployment from the *side* edges of the table, not from the rear (opponent's) edge? Wouldn't that solve a lot problems with this strategum?

From the Apoc book itself P 23, box at the bottom called "Strategic Reserves":

Turn One: No reserves may be committed.

Turn two: Up to Half (rounding fractions up) of the units the player has in SR may be committed to the battle.

Turn Three: All remaining units the player has in SR must be committed to the battle.

Considering that under the rules for Flank March, it says the "SR under the command of the player that chose this asset may enter play from any and all table edges"...

So really, if you want to use Flank March in turn 2 or 3 go ahead imho.

I think a better house rule would be "SR cannot come on the board if they are deployed within 6/12/18 inches of an oppenent's model" Size depending on the table you're playing of course.

That way, you're using the SR rules as written, but correcting a pretty obvious oversight....I mean, theoretically, you could Tank Shock any infantry if they're close enough to the board edge....hey, that's not a bad idea