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 do share Yak's concerns over this new ruleset.

The other thing that bothers me is the way casualties are handled. The last two versions of Apoc had a big problem with having to remove whole sections of your army if your opponent went first, leading to a "Why did I even bother?" side to things as you just set stuff up onto to take it off at the end of the turn. The casualty removal from NuPoc (no? Too on the nose?) gets rid of the issues of IGOUGO but the abstraction still sees you removing entire units in one go, after seemingly very little back and forth with firepower.

I see people saying that they can't wait to try it with lower point games, but I fear that these games would be over very quickly and come down to nothing more than how many blast markers you can Alpha Strike, leading to super-short games where you spend more time setting up your miniatures than anything else as they are removed by the handful once the game starts.

drbored wrote:
A. it cannibalizes from sales that would normally go to larger and larger 40k or Apoc armies, and selling three leman russ tanks is going to make them more money than selling a pack of 3 epic sized leman russ tanks.

I've seen people say this before, but I'm yet to see anything to show it is as being true.

Same.

Much as Epicolypse has tickled my fancy? I’m not particularly sure it’s tickled it enough for me to put together a suitably sized army.

Now granted, that’s not the system’s primary aim, selling huge armies from scratch. Rather, it’s a way to let peeps play massive battles in a realistic timescale. And from there, encourage additional sales.

Epic doesn’t cannibalise 40k sales, anymore than because I’ve got 3 Warlords, 2 Reavers, 4 Warhounds, 4 Knight Lancers and 12 Questoris Knights for Adeptus Titanicus means they’ve missed out on selling me, well, the same, but in 40k scale.

Give me a cheap and efficient way to collect an enormous army and I will throw money at it. And that is what Epic is for. Because while I baulk at spending £600 on a 40k Army I’ll only occasionally field in full? £600 on Epic (including my Titans etc)? When I can arrange weekly games?

Since our gaming group plays nothing but 2v2 and 3v3 games we are all incredibly excited to play Apoc as even playing 1000 points each would equal a 2000 point 1v1 game and it has been said it works fine at that level.

I am smiling at all of the people moaning about "why" GW made it 28mm scale instead of Epic......of course I was around when Epic came out and no one was interested "Primarily" because they had to buy a different scale army.....

We all know that these same people would moan about how dumb GW was to release a game system at Epic scale.........always a no win situation with fans.

changemod wrote:
Honestly that’s kinda why I feel this version of Apocalypse is a waste of time: It’s just 28mm epic. If I wanted to play epic I’d either dig up old and third party epic materials or wait to see if they make a new version of epic in Titanicus scale.

If I want to play “slapdash mess of far too many 28mm models shoved onto all the game shop’s tables shoved together”, which in my experience stores and clubs tend to do about once a year or so, then I’d rather do so with a system like old apocalypse: A bodged together barely functional patch for regular 40k, because there’s zero point learning a whole different system for such a niche and rarely applied form of play.

Umm so rather than actually have workable rules for big battles you want to use inferior rules that don't convey sense of big battle and just have big mess decided by first turn roll? That's weird.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

changemod wrote:
Except minis that large aren’t really ideal for huge scale gameplay. Even if you do push all the tables in the store together, you end up with long narrow battlefield syndrome. Fighting over an unnaturally elongated strip of land because of you made it a sensible shape you wouldn’t be able to reach the centre of the table.

In truth, making 28mm scale epic (a self sufficient game) rather than traditional Apocalpse (a niche playstyle expected to not see much use) is basically a marketing attempt. A hope that some people will buy more minis so that they have a big enough army for apocalypse.

Yes model size is still issue. Light years ahead of big mess of 40k with 10k+ points per side though. You are suggesting deliberately taking inferior product because there isn't better one available. That's odd. I prefer always best you can have with limitations at hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
A new epic is more likely than 9th. With the release of codices for 8th, it's immensely unlikely you'll see a rules set that differs from those books for 3-4 years (if even then). Writing a codex is time consuming and GW isn't going to introduce 9th edition and change the core books of the game.

Just won't happen. So while they could change some core concepts, the codices would still be used in 9th....thus you won't find much transfer from Apocalypse to 9th (or 8.5 or whatever they end up doing in the next year or two).

They've both done the thing where they keep codexes around between editions and done extremely short lifespans for rulesets. Neither really prevents 9th edition.

Think point is these aren't likely going to be stealth beta test for 9th ed as these are big enough it would require rewriting codexes dumping previous ones at once, something GW has done so far only twice in 40k. More likely this is more like 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th so that codexes stay. Which removes huge game changing changes.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

drbored wrote:
I see a lot of people that want epic back. There's a few problems with that.

A. it cannibalizes from sales that would normally go to larger and larger 40k or Apoc armies, and selling three leman russ tanks is going to make them more money than selling a pack of 3 epic sized leman russ tanks.

B. epic coming out requires Titanicus to do well. Very well. Titanicus has had... one release after the initial flood of models? They also haven't had a single release for it that's outside of the Horus Heresy theme, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

And even if epic does come out, it's going to become another Blood Bowl or Necromunda, where releases are few and far between.

I'd rather see them make a strong game of Apocalypse and then improve on 40k.

And it gets money from people who wouldn't buy 40k models. You see that's the mistake GW keeps making assuming everybody wants same thing(40k). They don't. Plenty people want OTHER stuff. GW would get far more money from me with epic than they would get from 40k ever. And even more money by having, grasp shock horror, both.

As for B sigh lead times, lead times, lead times. And actually they have had more than one release after initial 3 months. But they were unlikely to get green light for tons of models in short order right away and instead solid trickle at first. Then when it sold like hot cakes they likely got more budget BUT keep in mind anything green lighted after AT was on sale is still MONTHS ahead at best. That's called lead times.

The other thing that bothers me is the way casualties are handled. The last two versions of Apoc had a big problem with having to remove whole sections of your army if your opponent went first, leading to a "Why did I even bother?" side to things as you just set stuff up onto to take it off at the end of the turn. The casualty removal from NuPoc (no? Too on the nose?) gets rid of the issues of IGOUGO but the abstraction still sees you removing entire units in one go, after seemingly very little back and forth with firepower.

I see people saying that they can't wait to try it with lower point games, but I fear that these games would be over very quickly and come down to nothing more than how many blast markers you can Alpha Strike, leading to super-short games where you spend more time setting up your miniatures than anything else as they are removed by the handful once the game starts.

This is definitely a possibility, but I believe the hope is being able to play with a better ruleset than 40k. Perhaps at lower points simply moving detachment activation to unit activation may do the trick, but it'll have to be seen.

This probably was not mentioned before, but you cannot field more than one supreme command detachment in army, and your warmaster (?) has to be from that detachment.
This was from the video.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
A new epic is more likely than 9th. With the release of codices for 8th, it's immensely unlikely you'll see a rules set that differs from those books for 3-4 years (if even then). Writing a codex is time consuming and GW isn't going to introduce 9th edition and change the core books of the game.

Just won't happen. So while they could change some core concepts, the codices would still be used in 9th....thus you won't find much transfer from Apocalypse to 9th (or 8.5 or whatever they end up doing in the next year or two).

Well, if they don't, I simlpy hope Apoc scales down well, because I'd much prefer the superior ruleset.

They are releasing datasheets for all the units on Apoc's release though. So they already wrote what would basically be a new edition's worth of Index.

The only thing I worry about at this point is that Apocalypse points costs likely won't ever be updated, so any imbalances will be here forever, and that's the main reason it can't stick as a wholesale replacement for regular 40k. Or does anyone expect any long term support beyond adding datasheets when brand new units are released for 40k?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The only thing I worry about at this point is that Apocalypse points costs likely won't ever be updated, so any imbalances will be here forever, and that's the main reason it can't stick as a wholesale replacement for regular 40k.

With the unit rules being free downloads it's arguably easier than ever for GW to amend them as needed. While I don't think they should balance Apoc to the same degree as 40k, it would be nice to see a FAQ / errata to fix any obvious outliers after the first month or two, then tweak things on an annual basis to keep things fresh. Hell, with free unit rules online they could potentially even adjust stats & special rules rather than just power levels.

Presumably as new 40k models & codexes are released (like the upcoming Renegade Knights) they will also receive free Apoc rules too.

Does anyone else think that, units out of command radius get a hard punishment? Even a small Blast marker will destroy instantly a unit, so it only takes a succesful hit and wound roll, and a target unit does not even get an armour save.. :/

 Spreelock wrote:
Does anyone else think that, units out of command radius get a hard punishment? Even a small Blast marker will destroy instantly a unit, so it only takes a succesful hit and wound roll, and a target unit does not even get an armour save.. :/

The way I understand is that this only happens if a unit is out of command radius for a full turn. They have to receive the 'out of command' marker in the orders phase, and get the action phase to rectify that. As the check is also done at the start of the damage phase before any damage is applied, so there's no chance of an opponent carefully 'picking off' units to put you outside command range. It's quite hard to lose units to this unless you really neglect your unit positioning.

If you happen to end up out of command in the action or damage phase, you have the following turn to avoid it as that unit won't have a marker.

 Spreelock wrote:
Does anyone else think that, units out of command radius get a hard punishment? Even a small Blast marker will destroy instantly a unit, so it only takes a succesful hit and wound roll, and a target unit does not even get an armour save.. :/

Well, it encourages Commanders. But I expect 'Comms Network - pick a unit. This unit is considered to be in command radius, regardless of distance from a commander model' - or the like, to be a common stratagem card. Certain other model types will be immune too, I expect.

Yeah, they probably have to factions such as tyranids some sort of "synapse" bonus. But some factions, such as tau (having their Crisis commander with fusions elsewhere) this can really make the diffrence.

It is perhaps too soon to tell, but it does feel like they want to make this Apocalypse a thing considering how much stuff they are releasing alongside. For me it feels like GW is now trying to have 40k on all fronts. You have Skirmish in Kill Team, Large Skirmish in Regular 40k, and then you are going to have this. It means that people of all collections have something to play with and rewards people who are willing to have small forces or long time collectors.

There is also another thing that comes with Apocalypse: The artists can now create larger kits for certain playstyles, opening up their creative outlet further.

One weird thing to note: The sniper rule doesnt' say they get to target characters, it says they get to add 2 to the roll. I was kind of working off the hunch that Warlords would work like Generals in AOS. You pick a general, if he's a character he gets "warlord trait" style bonus abilities like in 40k, but he also critically is the focal point from which you use your Stratagem-style abilities. You can ONLY use your tactical re-rolls and your whatevers if you're within 12" of the General.

But if your general dies, the "general" status snaps to your next highest LD model on the battlefield (not the warlord trait, but the ability to use CP on Stratagems comes from that model now). I was kind of assuming that's how Warlord-ship would work in apoc, making blasting the leader character off the table not the go-to way to just straight up remove a detachment.

Characters in AOS can also be freely targeted just with a - to hit if they're within 3" of a friendly unit.

If you don't get 40k style character protection, and removing the warlord from a detachment means the detachment just up and ollies out....boy, I know what models are going to be eating 100% all of my army's firepower in apoc games. Hint: it's not anything but Detachment Warlords!

I'm hoping we'll keep getting rules articles this week that cover more detailed things like weapon types & character targeting.

Death Guard and Thousand Sons focus up:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/06/24/apocalypse-faction-focus-death-guard-and-thousand-sonsgw-homepage-post-4/

tneva82 wrote:

changemod wrote:
Honestly that’s kinda why I feel this version of Apocalypse is a waste of time: It’s just 28mm epic. If I wanted to play epic I’d either dig up old and third party epic materials or wait to see if they make a new version of epic in Titanicus scale.

If I want to play “slapdash mess of far too many 28mm models shoved onto all the game shop’s tables shoved together”, which in my experience stores and clubs tend to do about once a year or so, then I’d rather do so with a system like old apocalypse: A bodged together barely functional patch for regular 40k, because there’s zero point learning a whole different system for such a niche and rarely applied form of play.

Umm so rather than actually have workable rules for big battles you want to use inferior rules that don't convey sense of big battle and just have big mess decided by first turn roll? That's weird.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

changemod wrote:
Except minis that large aren’t really ideal for huge scale gameplay. Even if you do push all the tables in the store together, you end up with long narrow battlefield syndrome. Fighting over an unnaturally elongated strip of land because of you made it a sensible shape you wouldn’t be able to reach the centre of the table.

In truth, making 28mm scale epic (a self sufficient game) rather than traditional Apocalpse (a niche playstyle expected to not see much use) is basically a marketing attempt. A hope that some people will buy more minis so that they have a big enough army for apocalypse.

Yes model size is still issue. Light years ahead of big mess of 40k with 10k+ points per side though. You are suggesting deliberately taking inferior product because there isn't better one available. That's odd. I prefer always best you can have with limitations at hand.

28mm epic -is- the inferior product being settled for. The superior product would be 8mm epic for serious play and a patch to regular 40k for Apocalypse because again, the scale is inherently poorly suited for it and it’s played rarely enough that learning a system for it is an unnecessary hassle.

Theoretically you could both have serious epic and 28mm epic, but I don’t really see the point of the redundancy. They don’t sell a 28mm Titanicus ruleset after all.

This also isn't epic at all... beyond window dressings and some common terminology this feels like it's taking all the combo shenanigans, rerolls, RNG to the highest level, auras and general absurd elements of 40k and combining them with nostalgia to get desperate Epic players to drop tons of cash.

If you want to play apoc because it's epic...it's not epic. To think so will only lead to disappointment. Buy apoc because you want a wacky new way to play 40k.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Death Guard and Thousand Sons focus up:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/06/24/apocalypse-faction-focus-death-guard-and-thousand-sonsgw-homepage-post-4/

Inferno Boltguns are worse than Bolt Rifles.... Can someone tell me why does GW hate Rubrics Marines so much ?!

Well, not a lot of new information on the table in the DG+Tsons preview.

one interesting thing I note from the Eldar preview is that the sniper rule is a +2 to hit against CHARACTER models.

Inductively, one can predict that Warlords in apocalypse will work similarly to Generals in Age of Sigmar:

Either a CHARACTER of your choice or the highest-LD model in an army (or in apoc, a detachment) can be the Warlord. if the Warlord is slain, the status of Warlord automatically passes to the highest-LD model still alive.

CHARACTERS unlike in 40k can be targeted but have a universal special rule called Look Out, Sir which conveys a negative to-hit penalty. In Age of Sigmar, this is -1, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was upped to -2 in Apocalypse owing to the powerful longrange weaponry available.

 Nym wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
Death Guard and Thousand Sons focus up:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/06/24/apocalypse-faction-focus-death-guard-and-thousand-sonsgw-homepage-post-4/

Inferno Boltguns are worse than Bolt Rifles.... Can someone tell me why does GW hate Rubrics Marines so much ?!

To be fair, any army with 2 wounds has a lot going for it.

 Nym wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
Death Guard and Thousand Sons focus up:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/06/24/apocalypse-faction-focus-death-guard-and-thousand-sonsgw-homepage-post-4/

Inferno Boltguns are worse than Bolt Rifles.... Can someone tell me why does GW hate Rubrics Marines so much ?!

Yeah, mows down infantry with ease, haha! It just occurred to me that to take out a unit of 10 Necron warriors (as an example 'cause I know where to find the datasheet preview in the video), you need to score at least three wounding hits.
First wounding hit = small blast
Second wounding hit = small blast becomes large blast, so the save is more difficult (Necron warriors auto-fail). BUT! the unit's still only taking 1 point of damage.
Third wounding hit = another small blast. Now, the unit finally has to take 2 saves.

I'm beginning to wonder whether the apocalyptic scale will actually bring our units greater longevity

 Nym wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
Death Guard and Thousand Sons focus up:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/06/24/apocalypse-faction-focus-death-guard-and-thousand-sonsgw-homepage-post-4/

Inferno Boltguns are worse than Bolt Rifles.... Can someone tell me why does GW hate Rubrics Marines so much ?!

It's becoming apparent to me that GW has too many units and too many rules for their small rules team to handle.

 Nym wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
Death Guard and Thousand Sons focus up:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/06/24/apocalypse-faction-focus-death-guard-and-thousand-sonsgw-homepage-post-4/

Inferno Boltguns are worse than Bolt Rifles.... Can someone tell me why does GW hate Rubrics Marines so much ?!

Odd how GW went and removed the concept of AP from the game for the sole purpose of penalising one specific product they sell. Those crazy guys!

I give it three months.

Seems utterly pointless.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I do share Yak's concerns over this new ruleset.

The other thing that bothers me is the way casualties are handled. The last two versions of Apoc had a big problem with having to remove whole sections of your army if your opponent went first, leading to a "Why did I even bother?" side to things as you just set stuff up onto to take it off at the end of the turn. The casualty removal from NuPoc (no? Too on the nose?) gets rid of the issues of IGOUGO but the abstraction still sees you removing entire units in one go, after seemingly very little back and forth with firepower.

I see people saying that they can't wait to try it with lower point games, but I fear that these games would be over very quickly and come down to nothing more than how many blast markers you can Alpha Strike, leading to super-short games where you spend more time setting up your miniatures than anything else as they are removed by the handful once the game starts.

drbored wrote:
A. it cannibalizes from sales that would normally go to larger and larger 40k or Apoc armies, and selling three leman russ tanks is going to make them more money than selling a pack of 3 epic sized leman russ tanks.

I've seen people say this before, but I'm yet to see anything to show it is as being true.

I don't see this.
How good are alpha strikes completely depends on the lethality of the game.
At the moment what i'm seeing is that apoc is about as lethal as 40K. 10 necron warriors have about the same problems killing themselves in 40k and in apoc. In apoc they need to land 2,85 blast markers to kill themselves, which means 5 turns of firing not in rapid fire (we still don't know what rapid fire does). In 40K to wipe the squad (ignoring morale) you need 4,5 shots per model, so again 5 turns of firing not in rapid fire.
Inceptors kill themselves much better in apoc, but that is because the bolt rifle has been buffed quite a bit.

zerosignal wrote:
I give it three months.

Seems utterly pointless.

It's a totally different rule set, is every rule set for every game that's not core 40k 8th edition pointless?

History kinda says yes, at least as far as subsets of 40K go.

All the data sheets available here:

https://warhammer40000.com/apocalypse/datasheets/