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.

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

Abrasive.

One thing I found interesting from the website is the Orkanaught datasheet. Kustom Force Field is a -1 to wound rolls, since AP doesn't seem to be a thing in Apocalypse this would seem to indicated what the now redundent invulnerable saves will become.

The music is just awful, I keep thinking of the big band sequence in the mask.

the_scotsman wrote:

 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.

I find myself eternally lucky that our group has a relatively large number of armies covered, though our Apoc armies do tend to be Imperium + Eldar vs Nids or Chaos with Orks thrown in.

That how to play video is definitely pretty annoying. Mostly because of the music, though.

Don't know if I missed something in the video, but I didn't catch anything about targeting, specifically dumping a pile of shots on the detachment commanders to make the units out of command on the following turn.

Then spread shots around, and one blast marker each means piles of dead units.

With the stipulation that only character warlords earn additional command assets, I'm gonna assume that detachment warlord simply moves to another unit when the current one is killed. That way sniping out the commander does cause a penalty, but doesn't headshot the whole detachment.

The video was also covering the basics, not the minutia so I wouldn't have expected that to be covered.

 xttz wrote:
With the stipulation that only character warlords earn additional command assets, I'm gonna assume that detachment warlord simply moves to another unit when the current one is killed. That way sniping out the commander does cause a penalty, but doesn't headshot the whole detachment.

Or you shoot detachment against detachment, like in Epic. Could even adapt the system they have their - casulties come from the front, morale losses from the back.

 Imateria wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 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.

I find myself eternally lucky that our group has a relatively large number of armies covered, though our Apoc armies do tend to be Imperium + Eldar vs Nids or Chaos with Orks thrown in.

The original point wasn't about Imperium, but Space Marines. If the general trend in discussion (not in this one, but around 40k at the moment) is that mono armies should have something that incentivises their use and balances the inherent power of souping (that being the ability to have your cake and eat it too with many types of forces), why not apply the same here too? In general, anyway. If the Imperial side consists of Space Marines only, why it would be bad to have them have a bit more synergy in their Command Assets when the other side filled with three types of xenos and a Chaos player have their diversity as their advantage? That's the design point of view I'm interested about in here, when one side actually isn't that much of a patchwork quilt but a very cohesive force.

As such, I don't actually believe they get that much of an advantage from that shared basis, as the Assets feel more like additional fun rather than seriously fundamental parts of your core effort in the game. But we'll see.

Tastyfish wrote:

 xttz wrote:
With the stipulation that only character warlords earn additional command assets, I'm gonna assume that detachment warlord simply moves to another unit when the current one is killed. That way sniping out the commander does cause a penalty, but doesn't headshot the whole detachment.

Or you shoot detachment against detachment, like in Epic. Could even adapt the system they have their - casulties come from the front, morale losses from the back.

Well, all the damage descriptions in the video are per unit, so it seems pretty likely that you target individual units.

With that said, I'd bet dollars to donuts that there is some kind of anti-character sniping rule like there is in 40k 8th.

Also, in one of their articles they did mention that a detachment's commander was just the model with the highest Ld (and if that model is also a character, then it is a Warlord), so I would assume that once you kill a detachment's commander, you just pick another model to be the new detachment commander (the model with the next highest Ld).

Not gonna lie though I think this might be better than 8th. At the least it'll be more entertaining .

 Stus67 wrote:
Not gonna lie though I think this might be better than 8th. At the least it'll be more entertaining .

Based on what I've seen so far I'm inclined to agree with you. Low-point Apocalypse here we come!

 Sherrypie wrote:
If the Imperial side consists of Space Marines only, why it would be bad to have them have a bit more synergy in their Command Assets when the other side filled with three types of xenos and a Chaos player have their diversity as their advantage?

Because, unlike soup armies in regular games, having mixed armies in Apocalypse is automatic unless you play space marines. You can't have a pure Tau army because there aren't enough Tau players to form an entire 10-player army with tens of thousands of points on the table. Space marines get to have more power, not because of faction design, but simply because they're the most popular army and the least likely to have to be part of a mixed team. And if you design space marines with this in mind then they become too weak when there aren't enough space marine players to form an all-marines team, which is again something the individual player has no control over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sherrypie wrote:
As such, I don't actually believe they get that much of an advantage from that shared basis, as the Assets feel more like additional fun rather than seriously fundamental parts of your core effort in the game. But we'll see.

Based on what we've seen so far I'd disagree with you. They look powerful so far and GW's history with making 8th edition revolve around the asset CCG reinforces my expectation that assets will be very important. Which of course makes the RNG factor unacceptable.

Hopefully on subject as it mentions other pre-releases. ... but the new repulsor is $100??? How is a single lascannon worth $40??

 godswildcard wrote:

 Stus67 wrote:
Not gonna lie though I think this might be better than 8th. At the least it'll be more entertaining .

Based on what I've seen so far I'm inclined to agree with you. Low-point Apocalypse here we come!

More or less all I am interesting in. Lets get a real look at these rules and see what kind of game I can play.

Voss wrote:
Do the power levels shown so far match 40k power levels or does it look like its independent?

I guess in some ways it doesn't matter, since nothing suggests you can do 10 power fist shenanigans like you can with 40k power levels.

They don't match currently. Apoc Intercessors appear to be 6 power for 5, whereas, 40k ones are 5 power for 5.

Some units match 40k exactly (Ork Morkanaut) while others have been tweaked slightly (Necron Monolith is down from 19 to 17).

@Peregrine, you're probably right in that marines are less often mixed up than other (especially non-imperial) forces. I still like the idea in principle, in that cohesion brings command synergies where diversity brings flexibility. A nice tradeoff, designwise, if neither effect is obscenely pronounced.

On the RNG factor, I'd still say that it's reasonably mild given you get to first build a deck (thus mitigating the chance of any duds), which isn't that large, and then draw multiple cards every turn. It's not hard to draw the entire deck during a larger game or simply houserule the RNG away by allowing the players to choose what cards they get every turn while still being limited by the number they can draw if it feels better for the group.

I can see the cards being an issue mainly if one tries to scale the rules down for smaller points, but I'd still want to see the whole set before declaring anything too strongly.

I know it's early to tell, but if this ruleset is good enough, will we see more Apoc games played over 8th edition? Apart from the dodgy music, the video has showed off a pretty interesting base rule set.

In the how to play video there's an AdMech card shown which lets you pick a specific asset from your deck then re-shuffle the rest of the pack. I'll be surprised if they're the only faction who can bypass the usual draw mechanics like that.

Peregrin's thesis is certainly true in most cases (I'm sure there are local gaming areas where Orks, just for example, are the most commonly played race but Space Marines account for 60% of sales) it's not really something you can design around though. it's also, of course, an open question if 60% of 40k players play space marines as their primary army that they'd bring to an apoclypse game. I suspect in practice you'll not often see pure space marine armies. guard knights and any number of various imperial armies are VERY popular after all. in fact I suspect the most common apoc games are going to be Imperium vs Imperium.

So, is this correct; when making shooting attacks, you multiply the attack characteristic by the models in a unit, but when resolving damage taken, you dont multiply the wounds? :/

As a huge fan of the Apocalypse, i'm really looking forward to this, the Power levels, command assets, orders..

So far, only the damage phase seems a bit odd.

Are you getting that from the video? The text articles don't give enough information to decide, but given that the profile shown is for bolt rifles, plural, I would suggest you're not correct. One stand makes one shooting attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The "In the box2 section of the new website https://warhammer40000.com/apocalypse/ shows a couple of datasheets. The only one we can see in full is the Morkanaut, but you can just make out that the Harlequin Troupe has three stat lines listed; one for five models, one for 10 and one for 12 (which is an unusual number. Presumably it'll be clearer in context, perhaps that's how characters are added to units.

Ah, ok. That would make sense. Yeah I watched the video many times, trying to figure out the new mechanics.

Spreelock, no. The individual models don't really count as such, so a block of five guys might shoot out with one die for an example. The scale of the game has shifted to unit level, which makes the system playable at such large numbers of models.

 Spreelock wrote:
So, is this correct; when making shooting attacks, you multiply the attack characteristic by the models in a unit, but when resolving damage taken, you dont multiply the wounds? :/

No. A unit has a set number of attacks, in some (most? all?) cases changing with the number of models in the unit. Check the video at around 2:40 to see the datasheet for Necron Warriors. Then, you'll get a number of attacks depending on the weapon, with some weapons specifying 'user' as the number of attacks.
So, 10 Necron warriors will roll 2 dice when shooting their gauss flayers, 20 warriors will roll 4 dice.

Once the unit of 10 has received 1 damage marker (= half its wounds characteristic), it will only roll 1 die. The unit of 20 will be down to 2 dice once it's received 2 damage markers.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Are you getting that from the video? The text articles don't give enough information to decide, but given that the profile shown is for bolt rifles, plural, I would suggest you're not correct. One stand makes one shooting attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The "In the box2 section of the new website https://warhammer40000.com/apocalypse/ shows a couple of datasheets. The only one we can see in full is the Morkanaut, but you can just make out that the Harlequin Troupe has three stat lines listed; one for five models, one for 10 and one for 12 (which is an unusual number. Presumably it'll be clearer in context, perhaps that's how characters are added to units.

The Harlequin Troupe maxes out at 12 in 40K (presumably because there's 6 in a box), from what we've seen so far min and max sizes for squads are matching those in 40K.

 godswildcard wrote:

 Stus67 wrote:
Not gonna lie though I think this might be better than 8th. At the least it'll be more entertaining .

Based on what I've seen so far I'm inclined to agree with you. Low-point Apocalypse here we come!

Interesting.
Whatever a low-point Apoc game will be!

Voss wrote:
Don't know if I missed something in the video, but I didn't catch anything about targeting, specifically dumping a pile of shots on the detachment commanders to make the units out of command on the following turn.

Then spread shots around, and one blast marker each means piles of dead units.

This is conjecture, but in Age of Sigmar, your highest-leadership model automatically becomes "your general" whenever the general you've chosen for your army is killed. This is because the equivalent of 40k's Stratagems (at least most of the ones I've read) require you to use them on a unit within a certain distance from your general.

I would guess that detachments in apoc will work a similar way: Your Warlord will be the model with the highest LD, chosen by you in case of a tie, or any Character if you so choose, and if it is a Character it will confer benefits to your command pool thingy (the number of cards you draw). But if they die, another model in the detachment will just become the warlord until the detachment is destroyed.

So far I am cautious on Apoc except for feeling that this should be the only way to play 30k games.

Forge World, y'all better be burning the midnight oil to get your baby back into the spotlight.