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.

It sounds like it could be really fun with a proper set of restrictions attached to it.

Apocalypse can be fun.

Unfortunately usually however you have to ditch most of the actual Apocalypse rules. A lot of them are either absolutely absurd (oh, one player gets to simply remove a section of the table from play...) require too much record keeping, or are simply far too situational (e.g. rules allowing recycled units to come on after every scheduled break in gameplay.

GW really doubled down on the ridiculousness with the 6E Apocalypse update :(

 Vaktathi wrote:
Apocalypse can be fun.

Unfortunately usually however you have to ditch most of the actual Apocalypse rules. A lot of them are either absolutely absurd (oh, one player gets to simply remove a section of the table from play...) require too much record keeping, or are simply far too situational (e.g. rules allowing recycled units to come on after every scheduled break in gameplay.

GW really doubled down on the ridiculousness with the 6E Apocalypse update :(

The rule about removing a part of the table from play actually sounds like it could be kind of cool.

 the_kraken wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Apocalypse can be fun.

Unfortunately usually however you have to ditch most of the actual Apocalypse rules. A lot of them are either absolutely absurd (oh, one player gets to simply remove a section of the table from play...) require too much record keeping, or are simply far too situational (e.g. rules allowing recycled units to come on after every scheduled break in gameplay.

GW really doubled down on the ridiculousness with the 6E Apocalypse update :(

The rule about removing a part of the table from play actually sounds like it could be kind of cool.

And you would say what if your entire army errr collection happened to inhabit said square? Yeah...

 Crablezworth wrote:

 the_kraken wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Apocalypse can be fun.

Unfortunately usually however you have to ditch most of the actual Apocalypse rules. A lot of them are either absolutely absurd (oh, one player gets to simply remove a section of the table from play...) require too much record keeping, or are simply far too situational (e.g. rules allowing recycled units to come on after every scheduled break in gameplay.

GW really doubled down on the ridiculousness with the 6E Apocalypse update :(

The rule about removing a part of the table from play actually sounds like it could be kind of cool.

And you would say what if your entire army errr collection happened to inhabit said square? Yeah...

Probably not, haha. I can see how it would suck, I just think it could lead to some fun scenarios as well.

Yeah, I mean, a lot of the stuff sounds fun, but doesn't actually play out very well in practice, especially if done the way it is written in the book.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, I mean, a lot of the stuff sounds fun, but doesn't actually play out very well in practice, especially if done the way it is written in the book.

That's a bummer.

Back in the 5th, we did an apoc game at this one dude's place. Our three opponents chose a trait that literally made us deploy in complete silence and we weren't allowed to communicate. It's the rules equivalent of an obnoxious friend with no concept of boundaries. Anyone can drop the f word, in this case fun, but it wasn't fun. The logistics alone of just getting the game off the ground meant unlike 40k we probably only played apoc 3-4 times, we would later settle on what we called "big 40k". We kept the reserve system but heavily limited what was allowed, no formations or super heavies and a nan list on a lot of the silly assets.

Anytime we had included super heavies in apoc they were either boring or an incredibly huge fun sponge. Things like shadows words seeing half a mm of a tank and evaporating it or titans going nuclear, it just wasn't that awesome, it certainly looked awesome but it was michael bay 4 D K.



GW could index all the different stuff to a point level and drastically improve 7th ed in the drop of a hat. I personally have no interest in super heavies, fortifications or formations under 2000pts. Whether battle forged or unbound, you'd still be free to spam as much as you want. I'm still more a fan of one source cad (old foc) and people only being able to really spam in the troop section. The codex's will never be perfectly balanced but at least you're not adding to the bloat.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Things like shadows words seeing half a mm of a tank and evaporating it or titans going nuclear, it just wasn't that awesome, it certainly looked awesome but it was michael bay 4 D K.

This is the funniest thing I've read all day.

It promotes nothing, it just gives you another approach. I'm playing unbound to make some armies enjoyable. This is not about min-maxing, it's about bringing Vypers to the tabletop.

how is not not about minimaxing. your taking 9 separate vypers, which you couldn't take doing multi CAD. That is minimaxing. Also even if vypers are crap and some armies done in unbound are, you would have to write a whole separate book about what is ok and what is not ok when doing an unbound list. Is 4 or 5 tyrants in unbound not ok, when it is legal under battleforged? how about taking just centurions without the scouts in a GK list ?
And no one is going to buy multiples of stuff to make an unbound list, if he isn't 100% sure he will be able to use it.

The reality is that Battle Forged does not prevent cheese and hasn't done that for a long time now, all it does is create more inequalities whereby some armies get to feth the system and others not.

And unbound somehow prevents that? if army x has more viable options to spam then army Y, then if you remove the tax from both armies army X will only get even better then army Y.

At least unbound is fair.

It is fair the same way w40k is fair. Everyone has the freedom to play eldar.

Makumba wrote:

It is fair the same way w40k is fair. Everyone has the freedom to play eldar.

True, very very true. Le sigh.

I play Apocalypse and it has been a huge fun every single time, using Super Heavies every time, and the disasters as well.

Not to say that I was too happy when that square of the table ate my Revenant Titan, but it was still fun anyway.

Super Heavies make Apoc a lot faster and a lot more fun, I don't see how people come to hate them, unless maybe they don't bring any.

morgoth wrote:
I play Apocalypse and it has been a huge fun every single time, using Super Heavies every time, and the disasters as well.

Not to say that I was too happy when that square of the table ate my Revenant Titan, but it was still fun anyway.

Super Heavies make Apoc a lot faster and a lot more fun, I don't see how people come to hate them, unless maybe they don't bring any.

Fun is subjective. Some want a strategic tabletop war game, other a series of explosions.

 Crablezworth wrote:

morgoth wrote:
I play Apocalypse and it has been a huge fun every single time, using Super Heavies every time, and the disasters as well.

Not to say that I was too happy when that square of the table ate my Revenant Titan, but it was still fun anyway.

Super Heavies make Apoc a lot faster and a lot more fun, I don't see how people come to hate them, unless maybe they don't bring any.

Fun is subjective. Some want a strategic tabletop war game, other a series of explosions.

And your analysis of Apoc is subjective.

It can be strategic, you just have to play it right.

For example, parking lot vs parking lot 12" apart without anything that can block LoS from a Reaver is not playing it right - at least if you want strategic.

I know a lot of people have trouble making Apoc anything more than a bar brawl, that doesn't mean the game is responsible for that.

If you want a great Apoc game, start with 8' x 6', 10.000 points a side, at least two "big" line blockers minimum 12" x 12" x 24" tall, then proceed to cover 25% of the table in more terrain, I would be surprised if you're not having any strategical moments after that.

This is not v6 by the way, it's not just Strength D owns anymore.

Scale brought nothing to the table by bringing everything to the table.

 Crablezworth wrote:

morgoth wrote:
I play Apocalypse and it has been a huge fun every single time, using Super Heavies every time, and the disasters as well.

Not to say that I was too happy when that square of the table ate my Revenant Titan, but it was still fun anyway.

Super Heavies make Apoc a lot faster and a lot more fun, I don't see how people come to hate them, unless maybe they don't bring any.

Fun is subjective. Some want a strategic tabletop war game, other a series of explosions.

I dunno, in our last Apoc game I found that the Baneblade across the table just slowed everything down because too many guns, giant blast weapons, etc, and taking so long to kill meant that there actually end up being more things on the table for longer (if you're focusing all your firepower on killing the big, dangerous things anyway).

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, I mean, a lot of the stuff sounds fun, but doesn't actually play out very well in practice, especially if done the way it is written in the book.

You just summed up how the vast majority of the player base feels about the entire 7E rulebook...

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

I dunno, in our last Apoc game I found that the Baneblade across the table just slowed everything down because too many guns, giant blast weapons, etc, and taking so long to kill meant that there actually end up being more things on the table for longer (if you're focusing all your firepower on killing the big, dangerous things anyway).

I have no idea what kind of Apoc you play. On turn 1 @ 10.000 points there were at least 2.000 points in casualties, two superheavies and one gargantuan removed, turn 2 were at least two more superheavies and another 2000 points...

I mean a baneblade can't handle that much, especially in rear armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Toofast wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, I mean, a lot of the stuff sounds fun, but doesn't actually play out very well in practice, especially if done the way it is written in the book.

You just summed up how the vast majority of the player base feels about the entire 7E rulebook...

Wow, you got to interview the vast majority of the player base ? Man that's incredible.

I see morgoth is making friends as usual.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

morgoth wrote:
I play Apocalypse and it has been a huge fun every single time, using Super Heavies every time, and the disasters as well.

Not to say that I was too happy when that square of the table ate my Revenant Titan, but it was still fun anyway.

Super Heavies make Apoc a lot faster and a lot more fun, I don't see how people come to hate them, unless maybe they don't bring any.

Fun is subjective. Some want a strategic tabletop war game, other a series of explosions.

I dunno, in our last Apoc game I found that the Baneblade across the table just slowed everything down because too many guns, giant blast weapons, etc, and taking so long to kill meant that there actually end up being more things on the table for longer (if you're focusing all your firepower on killing the big, dangerous things anyway).

The second we played with all the silly it stopped being fun, when we reeled it back to just codex stuff with the occasional fw unit but no super heavies or formations it was much more enjoyable. There was room now to play our less than optimal units, you know, the ones we built and painted before we really knew the ins and outs of our codex's. Hell, without all the silly stuff firing off d-weapons those less than competitive or hyper optimal units even had the odd occasion to really shine.

 Toofast wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, I mean, a lot of the stuff sounds fun, but doesn't actually play out very well in practice, especially if done the way it is written in the book.

You just summed up how the vast majority of the player base feels about the entire 7E rulebook...

Agreed.

I tried to play Apocalypse once. 3,000 points per side.

Didn't even bother playing turn one, as I took a look at how crammed the table was, thought about having to move all that stuff and fight with it with only 2 players (it's just me and my mom that play Warhammer 40k in the house, and I have issues with going out to play at a store with strangers), and was like, "Nope."

I like big battles in video games, but not tabletop games apparently.

That was back in like 5th edition, by the way.

I'll stick with my 750 point games that I can finish in a day. (My mom and I play very slowly, because she's got memory issues and I'm terrible with remembering specific phrasing, so we have to look up lots of rules to see the order things are done in, whether one thing affects another and such as we play.)

zilka86 wrote:
Unbound is just gw way of players supper abuse tjr game . also what makex me mad is there's only one good way to build armies. sm bikers only eldar wave serpent spam ig vetarmy tau max riptides and missile said ther really no flavor tp armies ther all same

Dude, you must be really boring to play with.

 Vaktathi wrote:
With the game at its current state, there is nothing Unbound can really bring that's going to be objectively more unbalanced than what's possible with "Battle Forged" armies.

Whatever additional spam or overpowered horrors Unbound can bring, "Battle Forged' armies can very often spam them *almost* as well, and get hugely powerful special rules and abilities for doing so that far outclass whatever you might get out of an Unbound army.

Yeah their are some broken formations and detachments. Unbound is still way more gak. 5 knights is bound though so you do have a point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like I say all the time. If you want to play unbound I'm taking 25 land speeders with typhoon missiles as individual units. Youll get very tired of taking 50 rockets to the face every turn as I back up 12 inches away from you. You'll see it's not much fun.

Raven Cowl wrote:
Unbound also let's you *ahem* forge the narrative. If you say wanted to run a game with a squad of Pathfinders trying to escape enemy Ork territory, or stealth teams scouting an objective etc. Unbound lets you do just those kind of games.

The funny thing is, if you wanted to run that sort of scenario with friends, you could/would have long before GDubs decided to give people the "legitimate" super cheese option. I hate the idea of unbound, even though people I know wouldn't abuse it anyway.