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.

To whit, the damage being resolved at the end of the turn.

Whilst the apoc game sank like a stone at the club (despite the club buying everything required from funds), the one rule most did like was how damage/death was resolved.

40k players in discussion are aghast at not being able to scientifically trade units and sequentially destroy the enemy. What would be the effect of bringing the apoc rule that damage is resolved (saves made etc.) at the end of the turn into 40k? I feel the level of uncertainty would cripple some players, though it would have a lot more 'cinematic' deaths and saves.
https://www.goonhammer.com/warhammer-40000-apocalypse-review-and-unboxing
For those that don't know the rules.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
To whit, the damage being resolved at the end of the turn.

Whilst the apoc game sank like a stone at the club (despite the club buying everything required from funds), the one rule most did like was how damage/death was resolved.

40k players in discussion are aghast at not being able to scientifically trade units and sequentially destroy the enemy. What would be the effect of bringing the apoc rule that damage is resolved (saves made etc.) at the end of the turn into 40k? I feel the level of uncertainty would cripple some players, though it would have a lot more 'cinematic' deaths and saves.
https://www.goonhammer.com/warhammer-40000-apocalypse-review-and-unboxing
For those that don't know the rules.

It'd be more workable if you only had two AP values, but when you have 4 or 5 in a list then it becomes a lot harder to manage. The player going second will have more units to attack with, assuming you are playing a mission set that is currently balanced, it will become unbalanced because of this. Any abilities that allows a unit to do something when it dies or even after it has died will become worse. Pile In and Consolidate becomes blocked by models that will die at the end of the battle round. You are a million times better equipped than I to say whether it'd be good for 40k overall.

I'd love to see Apocalypse get another pass, implement an AP system to make some weapons better against heavily armored units to at least get to an AoS level of tactics instead of everything just being a blob of wounds with no counters. Most importantly it needs to be more balanced, it was obvious at a glance that nobody bothered to do the efficiency math on units, then there needs to be a solid mission set for the game.

Should have clarified end of the turn would be both players turn. It gets a little odd with CC and stuff, but the overall intent is to resolve deaths after both sides have had a go. So the drops in units happen between each turn (1 to 2, 2 to 3, etc), not during.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Should have clarified end of the turn would be both players turn. It gets a little odd with CC and stuff, but the overall intent is to resolve deaths after both sides have had a go. So the drops in units happen between each turn (1 to 2, 2 to 3, etc), not during.

I got that, what I was referring to was the lack of losses the player going second would face before their first turn.

I honestly think they dropped the ball with the new Apocalypse. First version was good, just upscaled battles with some small changes to help accommodate the scale. The significant changes they made to the second edition are just weird IMO and aren't necessary in Apoc or 40k.

 Valkyrie wrote:
I honestly think they dropped the ball with the new Apocalypse. First version was good, just upscaled battles with some small changes to help accommodate the scale. The significant changes they made to the second edition are just weird IMO and aren't necessary in Apoc or 40k.

I didn't even know there was a new version, unless you are praising the old version that took a weekend to conclude and had reinforcements based and breaks in the game based on 3-hour chunks.

 vict0988 wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Should have clarified end of the turn would be both players turn. It gets a little odd with CC and stuff, but the overall intent is to resolve deaths after both sides have had a go. So the drops in units happen between each turn (1 to 2, 2 to 3, etc), not during.

I got that, what I was referring to was the lack of losses the player going second would face before their first turn.

Ah I see what you mean, as in some ways they would have the first player advantage now as the enemy was so much closer...

I guess you could make damage resolve at the end of each player turn, so in essence what you get is more risk around damage allocation for each player during their turn.

As Vict points out, you'd end up having to track a lot of different statlines for saves waiting to be taken. You'd also end up with a bit of weirdness with transports. Not that they're super popular at the moment, but when facing transports you usually want to pop the transport and then go after the models that stagger out of the wreckage. If the transport doesn't take any damage until the end of the turn, then the units they were transporting are functionally invulnerable until your opponent's turn.