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'm going to make a 28mm CraftWorld for my Apocalypse army, well just a section of it because the whole thing would be much too large to fit on a table.

I'm going to make the Eye of Terror!

I'm going to make the Galaxy the Tyrannids came from!!!!111

Whats broken? 2nd Edition eldar....now thats broken.

To me, Broken is a matter of perspective.

Generally, something tends to be declared so when a player has come up against an unanticipated tactic facilitated by the selection of certain units. Rather than give respect to their opponent for pulling off a cunning tactic, certain gamers seemingly incapable of accepting that they will at some point be beaten, declare said combination, tactic etc 'Broken' or 'Cheesey'

I agree. Broken is a matter of perspective. Surely nothing is broken though, because if you are having problems beating unit X, then take an army that contains unit X against it. Yes, this may mean getting a new army, but no unit is invincible. I would say that we can only class a unit as broken if it is truly unbeatable, and this is simply not the case.

On the other hand, the alleged 'brokenness' of a unit may lead to it being massively underpriced in terms of points, but this is not the same.

InyokaMadoda wrote:I agree. Broken is a matter of perspective. Surely nothing is broken though, because if you are having problems beating unit X, then take an army that contains unit X against it.

If that's the only solution, then unit X is indeed broken.

I disagree. In my view people often say something is broken because they haven't thought of a way of dealing with it. But something is only truly broken if there isn't a way of dealing with it. (For example, 4e Eldar grav tanks with holofield.)

Pariah Press wrote:

InyokaMadoda wrote:I agree. Broken is a matter of perspective. Surely nothing is broken though, because if you are having problems beating unit X, then take an army that contains unit X against it.

If that's the only solution, then unit X is indeed broken.

Ah... I see that what I wrote didn't exactly convey what I meant. What I meant was that if you can't find a way around it, put the same unit against it and work out how/why it won. That may then help you write a better list for yourself with your chosen army. I don't think there are any units that can ONLY be beaten by themselves.

That's what comes from trying to send a message whilst watching tv....

I think "broken" generally means game breakingly powerful. If winning the game requires either not fighting against unit X or having a unit X yourself, and that's not what the designers intended, than that unit is "broken." The game of Warhammer 40,000 was never designed so that some armies would never be able to defeat other armies; if a unit can't be defeated by any reasonable means (that means "he might roll 9 sixes in a row, followed by me rolling 4 ones!" is not factored into it) without changing the army you play (orks, IG, etc), than that unit is broken, unless you change the definition of "broken" to mean something that no one else defines it as.

Kilkrazy wrote:What he means is if the other team comes with four Baneblades, there is nothing in the rules to stop you using eight Manta super-skimmers. Then someone else can use 16 titans, and the fourth team can use 32 Kroot Warspheres, and so on.

That's not a good thing.

I'm with Shummy on this one, although I will say it might be time to reign in his group and get them to understand what Apoc is about. There seems to be a lack of trust there, with his friends only wanting to bring the most powerful forces when, I suspect, Shummy wants to play a proper Apoc game, not a large-scale tournament game. You can't play Apoc competativley because it isn't balanced. It will always just boil down to whoever has the largest... uhh... *cough* model collection (and therefore the largest wallet). I've got 8 Super-Heavy tanks, 30 Leman Russes, and an arty corp of 4 Basilisks, 3 Manticores, 2 Griffons and a Bombard. I could bring them to every game I played, along with 6 Land Raiders full of Terminators, and all sorts of other nonsense... but where'd be the fun in that? I've got a friend with 12 Falcons and 2 Revenant Titans. He could bring them to every game, but he doesn't. Again, what's the point?

Every Apoc game I've played (since after the first), I've gone out of my way to design the game as a massive story-based scenario. Forces fit the forces that should be there and it's not just a case of bringing the best units you can. It falls apart when both sides don't do the same thing (that only happened once), but when people stick to the idea of what Apoc is and stop trying to build killer lists because they suddenly don't have an FOC to worry about, then it becomes fun. Best game of Apoc I've had was two where we the side I was on was doomed - a PDF force with a Priest in every single squad backed up by Alaitoc Rangers trying to hold off a Nurgle armoured push with allied Traitor Chapter Terminators and legions of Nurgle Bikers. We were outpointed and had not a chance in the world, but I didn't care. Another was about stopping a massive Daemon Prince from being resummoned, and I made the rules for the Daemon Prince to something akin to a Wraithlord combined with a Bloodthirster X10. I knew there was no way to beat it, but I sent my Daemonhunter Inquisitor Lord into HTH with it anyway as it felt like the dramatic thing to do. Sure, I could have just brought a legion of tanks and shelled the enemy off the table - but where's the fun in that?

But going back to Shummy's point - you shouldn't have to build anything for Apoc. As much as I sound like Jervis saying something like this, Apoc is about playing for fun, not competing with people in 40K's biggest dick-waving contest.

BYE

I think one has to look at Apocalypse a great deal differently than one does standard 40k. It is not "balanced" in the "take whatever you think will let you win" sense. Our group tried that twice and it was not so good.
After those two abortions of a game, we started more carefully planning the games, usually setting up points limits per team, as well as a points limit for super heavies. We even went so far as to make them by invitation only. That really made it less of a "My fiance/sugar mamma bought me 3 Forgeworld tyrannid monstrosities! And the other three players on my teams are playing nothing but Baneblades!" and more just ""My fiance/sugar mamma bought me 3 Forgeworld tyrannid monstrosities!" Now that I type that out, it doesn't sound so different...

Perhaps it was more the fact that after a few games people started planning for issues like "My opponant has nothing but AV14 tanks" and the like. Between the planning and the metagaming though, it has become quite a fun time.

Outside the group we play a lot of one on one Apoc type games, and those are a lot of fun as well, though we generally play more of "Wheeee! 5000 points of Sisters vs 5000 points of BA! YAY!" than really trying to bring ubar stuff.

Kilkrazy wrote:I disagree. In my view people often say something is broken because they haven't thought of a way of dealing with it. But something is only truly broken if there isn't a way of dealing with it. (For example, 4e Eldar grav tanks with holofield.)

I disagree x2! Nothing can't be dealt with provided your dice rolling is flawless.

Wehrkind wrote:Perhaps it was more the fact that after a few games people started planning for issues like "My opponant has nothing but AV14 tanks" and the like.

That's how my apocalypse games usually went.

My opponent brings a baneblade a bunch of russes, and I bring a stompa and a bunch of small, fast, tankhunting units. It's pretty lame. If we play apocalypse again, we'll probably set something up to keep the game interesting.

Wehrkind wrote:I think one has to look at Apocalypse a great deal differently than one does standard 40k. It is not "balanced" in the "take whatever you think will let you win" sense. Our group tried that twice and it was not so good.
After those two abortions of a game, we started more carefully planning the games, usually setting up points limits per team, as well as a points limit for super heavies.

Between the planning and the metagaming though, it has become quite a fun time.

Yeah, I can see what you're talking about there.

When we play Apoc, we generally play equal points and Stratagems per side, with individual armies being more-or-less equal points, roughly 2500 pts per player. Some people bring big stuff, others bring masses, and it all works out.

Last game, I was IG Ordnance support to my partner's massed Guard horde. We had no superheavies on our side, they brought a BioTitan and a Pylon. We had much fun playing to a Draw.

And yeah, the imetagaming strategy / trash talk is what makes Apoc more fun.