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.

Looks like models get to use all their weapons like 40k regular but most units are going to have fewer options.
Also many guns have their own attacks characteristics so a Necron Monolith will always shoot its gauss flayers four times even when critically damaged.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:
I see we can add chapter tactics to the pile of things that require hitting the lottery to actually use.

But how would you forge a narrative without RNG?

you don't RNG is incrediably important because it adds an element of uncertainty to the game. step back a moment and think about the games you remember years down the road. what stands out about them? in almost every case it's a lucky roll at a critical time allowing you to pull victory from the ajws of defeat, or defeat from the jaws of victory etc. no one remembers that time their abaddon slew a guardsman, but that time you actually killed abaddon the despoiler in melee with a guardsman is gonna be a story worth telling.

As someone who is not opposed to the moderate use of RNG, or not so moderate use in the case of Orks (8th ed Orks rules are a disgrace...), I think this is actually a terrible example of RNG. As far as I'm concerned a good example of RNG is the dice getting in the way of your plan, but the game allowing you to use your tactical acumen to overcome the setback and still win. Victory hinging on one lucky roll may be memorable, but hardly fun.

The problem with modern GW in general and possibly (we'll see how it works out soon enough) the deck building mechanics of Apocalypse in particular is that if these mechanics are integrated into the foundation of the game, that one lucky, impossible roll that you remember is not a singular occurrence and instead frequently happens. And if that happens too often, what you eventually remember isn't that lucky guardsman who earned himself a medal, but that your opponent drew well and you didn't and you may as well throw the game on turn 2 because it's too late to recover. Maelstrom missions are a pretty good example of this. I remember two things about these missions. One is the single game where I just ignored the objectives because I was severely behind in points at the end of the first turn and only won because I dedicated all my effort to annihilating the enemy army, which is to say I deliberately played against the game mode my opponent and I agreed on. The other one is that the larger part of the games I played with Maelstrom missions were so skewed that if annihilation was not an option, you didn't even need to play past turn 2 just because one side got lucky and the other did not, and no amount of skill or even luck with the dice would help.

That's not an association I want a game to gain. I do actually want to remember those cool moments where the improbably happens, and not how luck, again, decided how the game went instead of the actions of me or my opponent. Good RNG is there to add an element of surprise to the game, not to dominate and decide it. That's just not something you see in modern 40k anymore, though.

We're playing a game with dice and nobody reasonably expects 40k to turn into chess, but for people who actually want to play a game during the actual game instead of building army lists and then just rolling dice to see what happens, GW's offerings in the last decade have been slim. It's not unreasonable to voice complaints about that, because for all the reputation GW deservedly has, tactical gameplay used to be better represented in the past. At least in the sense of classic wargaming rather than the card games with miniatures we have today.

Not sure just how ‘random’ the cards are when you can potentially draw a third of your deck each turn. Build it right and you should have a decent toolset every time.

It's possibly going to suffer the same problems as command points in 40k. You may get a serious divide between factions with access to both fantastic abilities and the matching units to utilize them along with cheap HQs to maximize card draws, and less fortunate armies that can't ally in necessary stuff.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Unit Size 5. Wounds 2.

So here, we can confidentally say a unit of 5 Primaris can be a single target. Two failed saves, and those 5 are removed.

Now, how that works when dealing with larger formations? It could be a you suggest, and you simply bump up the number of wounds every time you add another grouping of 5. (So 10 Intercessors would need 4 unsaved wounds, and you remove them all. Only 3, both Groups of 5 remain)

Or, it could be that you just add Groups of 5, and remove one group each time the formation suffers the requisite number of wounds. (So 10 Intercessors suffer 3 unsaved wounds. 1 Group of 5 is removed, the other remains with 1 damage marker).

The way you described does strike as more 'fun' - I really need to pour on the firepower to remove Hordes, and that to makes for a good laugh. But, it's not particularly cinematic. So who knows!

The how to video shows that bigger units = more wounds.

 Geifer wrote:


We're playing a game with dice and nobody reasonably expects 40k to turn into chess, but for people who actually want to play a game during the actual game instead of building army lists and then just rolling dice to see what happens, GW's offerings in the last decade have been slim. It's not unreasonable to voice complaints about that, because for all the reputation GW deservedly has, tactical gameplay used to be better represented in the past. At least in the sense of classic wargaming rather than the card games with miniatures we have today.

I heartily suggest looking at Adeptus Titanicus, then, because that game is a glorious return for GW on the front of tactically interesting games with no obvious win-moves before the game begins

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Geifer wrote:


We're playing a game with dice and nobody reasonably expects 40k to turn into chess, but for people who actually want to play a game during the actual game instead of building army lists and then just rolling dice to see what happens, GW's offerings in the last decade have been slim. It's not unreasonable to voice complaints about that, because for all the reputation GW deservedly has, tactical gameplay used to be better represented in the past. At least in the sense of classic wargaming rather than the card games with miniatures we have today.

I heartily suggest looking at Adeptus Titanicus, then, because that game is a glorious return for GW on the front of tactically interesting games with no obvious win-moves before the game begins

Good to hear. I actually snuck a couple of peeks at the Adeptus Titanicus game happening on the neighboring table last weekend. May have to get a demo game for the full experience.

Just uploaded to Youtube, in case people haven't found it on the site yet:

Man I wish I had a collection of Epic models to try out these rules with, if one of y'all do this will you please provide a link to a video/blog post about it?

BrianDavion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:
I see we can add chapter tactics to the pile of things that require hitting the lottery to actually use.

But how would you forge a narrative without RNG?

you don't RNG is incrediably important because it adds an element of uncertainty to the game. step back a moment and think about the games you remember years down the road. what stands out about them? in almost every case it's a lucky roll at a critical time allowing you to pull victory from the ajws of defeat, or defeat from the jaws of victory etc. no one remembers that time their abaddon slew a guardsman, but that time you actually killed abaddon the despoiler in melee with a guardsman is gonna be a story worth telling.

Disagree strongly. If the most memorable games you play are only memorable because of fluke dice luck doing something unlikely then TBH that sounds like zero fun. Memories should be about player choices, not just dice randomly rolling at the ends of the bell curve.

Also, its stupid from a fluff point of view that my army needs to RNG to see if they can use all of their abilities. For every game where the dice do something "cool" there will be at least one frustrating game where CCG draws decide that your best troops don't work.

the_scotsman wrote:
....Huh. So until an entire unit is totally destroyed it just sticks around at full strength? interesting. I guess the LD is the drawback here.

Sort of - if they take more than half wounds they are critically injured and get reduced stats.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
....Huh. So until an entire unit is totally destroyed it just sticks around at full strength? interesting. I guess the LD is the drawback here.

Sort of - if they take more than half wounds they are critically injured and get reduced stats.

Partial damage is also less important in a game where damage doesn't count until both sides have attacked.

They don't mention taking off the blast markers after you roll saves, but I assume that was just an oversight. Maybe there's a step at the end of the turn when you remove them all, since you also need them for the morale roll, which is weird because it kind of just double-punishes you for getting blast markers. You have to save against your save then you have to save again against your morale.

 Geifer wrote:
It's possibly going to suffer the same problems as command points in 40k. You may get a serious divide between factions with access to both fantastic abilities and the matching units to utilize them along with cheap HQs to maximize card draws, and less fortunate armies that can't ally in necessary stuff.

Wait and see, I think.

- Detachments need to stay in range of their commander
- Detachments are ordered and act as one so if your focus fire detachments get caught off guard by melee you have more units that did not act with full buffs
- Assets still need units the cards reference so spamming a bunch of IG might not be the best play
- It's likely one large blast will wipe a whole unit of IG if 5 Intercessors have 2 wounds and a 6+ save

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Not sure just how ‘random’ the cards are when you can potentially draw a third of your deck each turn. Build it right and you should have a decent toolset every time.

I had a thought about that, watching the new video.

Each side has a deck of 30 cards, which they can choose from around 300.

Now, one-on-one? You can do proper dirty tricks. But, when it’s a multiplayer game, with mixed factions (such as Imperial Crusade vs Seemingly Unlikely Coalition of Everyone Else)? That’s a bit harder. Sure, you’ll want the ‘best’ cards for each player. And that starts limiting what sort of Ming you can put together.

There is of course a glaring flaw here, at least from what we’ve seen so far. Adeptus Astartes are a popular and varied Faction. So a collective effort comprised of different Chapters are probably going to have and easier time deciding what to keep and what to ditch, due to unbroken Unit Type synergy.

Why would you consider it a flaw if a tighter army comprised of a singular faction benefits more effortlessly from its command than a hodge podge of different things, Doc?

This is definitely an interesting set of rules from what they've shown so far.

Don't see the 'randomness' issue with the cards, as you're building the deck and you're drawing so many cards each turn that any 'luck of the draw' issue should be heavily mitigated.

But I'm torn. I have the same feeling here as I did with the Kings of War ruleset. If you're playing with multiple models for a unit but only removing the whole unit when it has accrued enough damage, then why are we playing at a 32mm scale, where its hard to fit a ton of units onto the table and the ranges are still so compacted? Why not just make these the new Epic rules and make a big push to put out epic-sized models?

The answer is of course if because players already have their 32mm 40k armies built up, so its a much lower bar to entry than having to rebuy everything again at a different scale. Plus, just look at conventions: people are always looking to do giant mega-battles with their 40k minis, and having a super-streamlined ruleset to do that, will make those games so much quicker and easier to play.

Yet, I don't think I can escape the feeling that this *should* be the new Epic rules and they *should* be releasing a whole line of new epic-sized models to accompany this. Maybe its because I love the Epic scale, but I also think it just makes this type of game better when you're able to have enough space on the table to have big armies but still maneuver around.

From what I've seen of assets it matters little of what your opponent brought, but what you have available.

Sure, null zone won't work well on IG with a large blast on them, but I'm sure they'll have some big models to worry about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 yakface wrote:

This is definitely an interesting set of rules from what they've shown so far.

Don't see the 'randomness' issue with the cards, as you're building the deck and you're drawing so many cards each turn that any 'luck of the draw' issue should be heavily mitigated.

But I'm torn. I have the same feeling here as I did with the Kings of War ruleset. If you're playing with multiple models for a unit but only removing the whole unit when it has accrued enough damage, then why are we playing at a 32mm scale, where its hard to fit a ton of units onto the table and the ranges are still so compacted? Why not just make these the new Epic rules and make a big push to put out epic-sized models?

The answer is of course if because players already have their 32mm 40k armies built up, so its a much lower bar to entry than having to rebuy everything again at a different scale. Plus, just look at conventions: people are always looking to do giant mega-battles with their 40k minis, and having a super-streamlined ruleset to do that, will make those games so much quicker and easier to play.

Yet, I don't think I can escape the feeling that this *should* be the new Epic rules and they *should* be releasing a whole line of new epic-sized models to accompany this. Maybe its because I love the Epic scale, but I also think it just makes this type of game better when you're able to have enough space on the table to have big armies but still maneuver around.

I like the way it looks. Playing large games like this already happens and this makes it more fun. And it keeps them from having to print off limited numbers of factions to start with and consume more shelf space at stores. It's win-win in my eyes.

If people don't have the sizes then just bring more people!

 Sherrypie wrote:
Why would you consider it a flaw if a tighter army comprised of a singular faction benefits more effortlessly from its command than a hodge podge of different things, Doc?

Population and probability, basically.

Marines are far and away the most popular faction, despite being split into subfactions.

And that is reflected in most gaming groups. Any Imperial Crusade type side would, generally, be disproportionately comprised of Astartes.

Everyone else? Well, likely to wind up on the same side of the board. Necrons, Nids, GSC, Eldar and Tau. Mostly banding together out of necessity.

The Imperial side, with more of a common rule, inherently has an advantage.

 yakface wrote:

Yet, I don't think I can escape the feeling that this *should* be the new Epic rules and they *should* be releasing a whole line of new epic-sized models to accompany this. Maybe its because I love the Epic scale, but I also think it just makes this type of game better when you're able to have enough space on the table to have big armies but still maneuver around.

I fully intend to use Epic minis with it.

 Peregrine wrote:
Also, its stupid from a fluff point of view that my army needs to RNG to see if they can use all of their abilities. For every game where the dice do something "cool" there will be at least one frustrating game where CCG draws decide that your best troops don't work.

I imagine Clausewitz must be rolling in his grave at the idea that troops failing to carry out their basic abilities is somehow unrealistic. From a fluff point of view, if there's no friction it's not war, it's just chess with fancy colored pieces.

Whether that makes for a better or worse game is another thing entirely- but I've played games with much less certainty than 40K's perfect information and IGOUGO structure, and I've rarely felt cheated by RNG. Putting stratagems on cards will hardly turn it into something like, say, AK47 Republic, where a third of your army might not show up because a random events table says they got bribed before the battle. I say wait and see how it actually plays out.

Yeah, considering your units always do exactly what you want, and you usually roll tons of dice to even out the probabilities, 40k doesn't seem very random. It would be more realistic to have less control over your troops or have them perform less predictably in most cases. Of course, if you draw random objectives every turn, that kind of throws that out the window.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Why would you consider it a flaw if a tighter army comprised of a singular faction benefits more effortlessly from its command than a hodge podge of different things, Doc?

Because an army in these big games is normally drawn from several players. It's a hodgepodge of random stuff on both sides, but one side magically gets better rules because the organizer arranged it as imperium vs everything else.

catbarf wrote:
Whether that makes for a better or worse game is another thing entirely- but I've played games with much less certainty than 40K's perfect information and IGOUGO structure, and I've rarely felt cheated by RNG. Putting stratagems on cards will hardly turn it into something like, say, AK47 Republic, where a third of your army might not show up because a random events table says they got bribed before the battle. I say wait and see how it actually plays out.

Having also played games with variable control mechanics (Bolt Action and its derivatives, DBA and its derivities, Fistful of Lead and its deritivites, etc.,etc) I think it depends on how the mechanics work. I'd be mostly worried about the weight of fire that can be put out by units in Apoc. If RNG means that I've lost massive chunks out of my force and now can't effectively fight back, it's a problem.

 yakface wrote:

This is definitely an interesting set of rules from what they've shown so far.

Don't see the 'randomness' issue with the cards, as you're building the deck and you're drawing so many cards each turn that any 'luck of the draw' issue should be heavily mitigated.

But I'm torn. I have the same feeling here as I did with the Kings of War ruleset. If you're playing with multiple models for a unit but only removing the whole unit when it has accrued enough damage, then why are we playing at a 32mm scale, where its hard to fit a ton of units onto the table and the ranges are still so compacted? Why not just make these the new Epic rules and make a big push to put out epic-sized models?

The answer is of course if because players already have their 32mm 40k armies built up, so its a much lower bar to entry than having to rebuy everything again at a different scale. Plus, just look at conventions: people are always looking to do giant mega-battles with their 40k minis, and having a super-streamlined ruleset to do that, will make those games so much quicker and easier to play.

Yet, I don't think I can escape the feeling that this *should* be the new Epic rules and they *should* be releasing a whole line of new epic-sized models to accompany this. Maybe its because I love the Epic scale, but I also think it just makes this type of game better when you're able to have enough space on the table to have big armies but still maneuver around.

Sure they *should* be doing Epic this way, but that model range isn't gonna appear overnight. Keep in mind that they're still now working through Adeptus Titanicus releases that were in design & production before they'd sold a single 8mm model. Any additional investment as a result of the higher-than-expected sales last year likely won't be seen until next year. Plus FW will want to flesh out the AT & AI ranges before dipping their toes into Epic itself. I have faith we will see it happen in time, I just don't expect GW to take a big gamble by throwing all their resources towards bringing Epic back in 1 year, when they can gradually build up the range over 4-5. Plus it's much easier to get customers to buy into a large new game project if you've already sold them a bunch of related products like tiny titans, planes and scenery.

In the meantime I'm glad we now have a ruleset like this in 40k. It means my existing giant monsters that haven't seen a tabletop in years can finally roll dice again.

 BrookM wrote:
Just uploaded to Youtube, in case people haven't found it on the site yet:

Hurrah Beccas back

Nicely done video, clear and concise and of course well presented.

I still can’t decide if her exaggerated peppiness is adorable or abrasive…

I find the music they use more jarring than anything else.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
I still can’t decide if her exaggerated peppiness is adorable or abrasive…

Fortunately for everyone, you neither need to decide nor share your opinion with the rest of us.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Why would you consider it a flaw if a tighter army comprised of a singular faction benefits more effortlessly from its command than a hodge podge of different things, Doc?

Because an army in these big games is normally drawn from several players. It's a hodgepodge of random stuff on both sides, but one side magically gets better rules because the organizer arranged it as imperium vs everything else.

Which, as a community organizer, it will be. Every single time. IF there isn't imperial players who have to "turn traitor" to even out the 9 space marine players and 4 people playing any other faction that showed up.

it's almost a universal constant of group 40k event organization.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrookM wrote:
I find the music they use more jarring than anything else.

What, snazzy new orleans jazz is not what you most associate with giant games of 40k?