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.

cody.d. wrote:
Is that different to regular 40K in any way? A lot of units suck, some are good. Some factions are worse than others.

Apoc seems to be on a magnitude greater though. It honestly seems like they had a different person work on converting each faction from regular 40K over to Apoc and none of them coordinated with each other and no one reviewed the final product. There too many instances of what are functionally similar weapons or units with wildy varying stats.

Take the Leman Russ weapons for example.

There's seemingly no rhyme or reason to these stats. They feel so random and don't reflect their counterparts in regular 40K. I'm still trying to figure out what the point of the Twin Lascannon is when the Vanquisher Battle Cannon is just a flat upgrade compared to it.

 LunarSol wrote:
What's the expected PL this is played at?

Do we know anything about what the detachment requirements look like?

Some of the detachments are shown in the video, starting around 1:55.

 Kirasu wrote:


Yet the Khan got his bike back and they don't make that model! Infact all the index only space marine characters on bikes are back in apoc. However, all the index only chaos space marine characters on bikes are gone. Consistency yet again at it's finest.

You can get a Sorcerer and a Chaos Lord on a bike, it's included as an option on their datasheets.

Voss wrote:

Grave33 wrote:
Can anyone figure out why custodes at max size get more expensive then the equivalent amount of smaller squads?

That's true for a lot of units (but not all). I don't really understand it myself, because a lot of the units don't actually benefit from being bigger- they advance in a linear fashion (every five models gets X shots & wounds, 2X shots &wounds or whatever). So a big unit can survive more, but ends up with penalties from critical damage, while 2 small units have to be damaged separately and losing one doesn't penalize the other.



@Aldran- keep in mind there will be more small arms than heavy weapons. Often a unit has 1 heavy (or special) and 4 small arms, so the comparable wound roll is covering weight of fire. So a guard infantry squad has _8_ lasguns producing 2 attacks at 8+/10+ and _1_ heavy bolter at 7+/9+. That's where the disparity comes from. Same with marines 9 bolters and 1 HB end up in favor of the bolters, because really, they should.

Units in apoc benefit more from being bigger than going MSU.

Take tyranid warriors for example.
If you deploy a min 3 model squad, it will degrade after 1 wound and be removed at the next wound.
If you deploy the max squad, there will be no degradation until the third wound, and will keep all the bases on the table (useful for objectives and screening) until you remove the last sixth wound. I will also keep all my heavy weapons until the last wound and half my light weapons until the last wound.

Termagants are 10 for 20 for 4 and 30 for 7. That is normal, because at 30 they unlock a new rule (reroll wounds of 1), and since you don't remove models in apoc, they keep that rule until the last termagant is alive.

Add to this that focus firing in apoc is many times a bad idea compared to 40K.

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:

cody.d. wrote:
Is that different to regular 40K in any way? A lot of units suck, some are good. Some factions are worse than others.

Apoc seems to be on a magnitude greater though. It honestly seems like they had a different person work on converting each faction from regular 40K over to Apoc and none of them coordinated with each other and no one reviewed the final product. There too many instances of what are functionally similar weapons or units with wildy varying stats.

Take the Leman Russ weapons for example.

Spoiler:

There's seemingly no rhyme or reason to these stats. They feel so random and don't reflect their counterparts in regular 40K. I'm still trying to figure out what the point of the Twin Lascannon is when the Vanquisher Battle Cannon is just a flat upgrade compared to it.

Mind you I'm trying to give apoc the benifit of the doubt atm, as we don't yet know all the rules. But yes, some statlines are odd. Especially when it's a set of possible weapons on one model like an Ork Battlewagon or Guard Leman Russ. The changing of strength vs tougness to SAP and SAT would change how weapons of different capabilities are represented. Throw in the change of wounds, armour and AP. It's all very new. I'm not sure if apoc was ever meant to be taken seriously in the past, all the wacky shenanigans that were possible. But perhaps we still need the dust to settle on this edition of it? See how everything falls into place and compares?

Though if someone wanted to compare equivalents for people that would be pretty cool.

Aldran wrote:
Seriously though. What is up with the bolter profiles?!

Heavy Bolter wounds on the same roll as normal Bolters and only has one attack. If rapid fire doubles shots like 40k then Heavy Bolter has LESS shots than a Bolter. Storm Bolters and Hurricane Bolters have the same amount of shots. Reiver Heavy pistol has a better to wound than HEAVY BOLTERS! Why are Bolter Rifles better than Special Issue bolters, and as good as plasma not overcharged?! Why are bolters 7+ acrross the line while lasguns are 8+ especially considering that Bolter Rifles are 5+?!?!?!?!?! The Macro Plasma Incinerator has a 5+ SAP! Why do we have the same weapons with different stats? Terminator Storm Bolters have x2 attack while vehicle SBs have 1 attack.

I fail to understand some of the logic behind these stats. Bolt Rifles have to be a typo right?

Some of this is probably due to unit having 1 weapon of X while multiples of Y. Vehicle has 1 storm bolter. Terminator squad has 5.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
There's seemingly no rhyme or reason to these stats. They feel so random and don't reflect their counterparts in regular 40K. I'm still trying to figure out what the point of the Twin Lascannon is when the Vanquisher Battle Cannon is just a flat upgrade compared to it.

And same isn't true in 40k? In 40k battle cannon is flat out better upgrade over vanquisher cannon.

GW doesn't do balanced games. Whopedoo. Big surprise...not.

I just skimmed through the ork datasheets and planes have a melee attack now. Not familiar with epic, but I thought it was noteworthy....also the mek workshop does not suck as much as in 40k, given this is close to impossible

Waaaghbert wrote:
I just skimmed through the ork datasheets and planes have a melee attack now. Not familiar with epic, but I thought it was noteworthy....also the mek workshop does not suck as much as in 40k, given this is close to impossible

Yup, I'm thinking I may actually need to buy one now. I'm not apposed to a reason to do so.

In the fluff isn't the Leman Russ Annihilator (twin lascannon variant) supposed to be worse than the Leman Russ Vanquisher? I thought it was something they started producing because of not being able to produce more Vanquisher Cannons. In a points game that could be represented by having the Annihilator be worth less than the Vanquisher, but in a Power Level game they might end up being the same, even though one is better.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
In the fluff isn't the Leman Russ Annihilator (twin lascannon variant) supposed to be worse than the Leman Russ Vanquisher? I thought it was something they started producing because of not being able to produce more Vanquisher Cannons. In a points game that could be represented by having the Annihilator be worth less than the Vanquisher, but in a Power Level game they might end up being the same, even though one is better.

It was made due to a shortage of Vanquisher turrets but no mention of it being less effective. Regardless fluff =/= crunch. There's enough room in their rule set to differentiate the two weapons without making one out right inferior.

Marauder destroyer with 8 missile seem fun.

New case is on latest preview, it looks larger and it states it twice the size of the crusade case, but it doesn't look like it stores twice as much. Looks 1/3 larger to my eyes, anyone have nay insite?

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Hmm the Aquilon Terminator's Lastrum Stormbolters wound on a 9+, when Primaris Bolters wound on a 6+.

The more I look at Apoc, the less I want anything to do with it.

I t baffles me how people are reacting to this.
It’s a completely separate set of rules that we haven’t seen fully yet.

Looking at those unit profiles in particular though, the Lastrum Stormbolters are listed as Heavy, while the Primaris Bolters are small arms. This could limit their target choice or have any number of consequences that we haven’t seen yet.

It does seem to be heavily based on a blend of the Epic rule sets, (so generally I’m happy with what I see). Small arms in Epic Armageddon could only be used when in an Assault as a firefight weapon, rather than being able to shoot normally in the shooting phase.

Let’s wait and see

tneva82 wrote:

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
There's seemingly no rhyme or reason to these stats. They feel so random and don't reflect their counterparts in regular 40K. I'm still trying to figure out what the point of the Twin Lascannon is when the Vanquisher Battle Cannon is just a flat upgrade compared to it.

And same isn't true in 40k? In 40k battle cannon is flat out better upgrade over vanquisher cannon.

GW doesn't do balanced games. Whopedoo. Big surprise...not.

The Vanquisher to be fair is cheaper and at least does something different from the regular battle cannon even though 90% of the time the battle cannon is better. Its not the balance that’s getting me though, it’s the inconsistency. The Executioner plasma cannon is the exact same as a regular plasma cannon. Why does a conqueror battle cannon have such a different profile compared to a regular battle cannon when it’s essentially the same weapon? Why does a twin auto cannon have the same number of attacks as a single shot anti tank weapon. All that for just the weapon options for a single unit. I don’t even wanna know what the comparison is like when you start comparing different units.

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
In the fluff isn't the Leman Russ Annihilator (twin lascannon variant) supposed to be worse than the Leman Russ Vanquisher? I thought it was something they started producing because of not being able to produce more Vanquisher Cannons. In a points game that could be represented by having the Annihilator be worth less than the Vanquisher, but in a Power Level game they might end up being the same, even though one is better.

It was made due to a shortage of Vanquisher turrets but no mention of it being less effective. Regardless fluff =/= crunch. There's enough room in their rule set to differentiate the two weapons without making one out right inferior.

Yeah, having them be different but not having one be substantially worse would have been better.

tc63 wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Hmm the Aquilon Terminator's Lastrum Stormbolters wound on a 9+, when Primaris Bolters wound on a 6+.

The more I look at Apoc, the less I want anything to do with it.

I t baffles me how people are reacting to this.
It’s a completely separate set of rules that we haven’t seen fully yet.

Looking at those unit profiles in particular though, the Lastrum Stormbolters are listed as Heavy, while the Primaris Bolters are small arms. This could limit their target choice or have any number of consequences that we haven’t seen yet.

It does seem to be heavily based on a blend of the Epic rule sets, (so generally I’m happy with what I see). Small arms in Epic Armageddon could only be used when in an Assault as a firefight weapon, rather than being able to shoot normally in the shooting phase.

Let’s wait and see

One thing I noticed was that an IG Autocannon is Heavy 48" A1 SAP 8+ SAT 8+. Ork Deffgunz are Small Arms 48" Ax4 SAP 7+ SAT 7+. At first glance I thought they made Deffgunz far superior to Autocannons, but thinking about it I'm guessing that for Heavy weapons each weapon gets a roll while for Small Arms you only get one roll for the whole unit.

That's just a guess though.

 Peregrine wrote:

Voss wrote:
This looks like an unfinished draft of army lists which with wildly different standards used for different units, or even the same unit at different sizes.

Sounds about right. It's pretty disappointing to see something with so much potential turn into a half-finished mess just to rush it out by an arbitrary deadline. Or at least I'm hoping that's the explanation, and GW isn't so laughably terrible at math that they didn't realize how bad some of these rules are...

Deep down we all knew it would be like this, didn't we?

@Dakka Flakka Flame,

I should think this is it, yes. Small arms will be an abstraction for the whole unit. So you would only get one load of deff gunz attacks while you’d get one for each autocannon in a heavy weapons squad.

Voss wrote:

This looks like an unfinished draft of army lists with wildly different standards used for different units, or even the same unit at different sizes. This is terrible even for GW.

These need another pass by release day, because this just ain't right.

Spoletta wrote:

So, you never played the game, you don't know the full rules, but from a quick read of a part of them you already decided that you could do a better work at designing them.

I'm going to define this as "Going full dakka".

Oh god yes.

What if Cultists aren't costing extra for the additional 10 (3PL), but rather have a discount on the initial 10? Why? Well looking at the currently known rules some MSU infantry is incredibly vulnerable to morale. A W2 Ld4 Sv10+ unit taking a single blast marker could well be wiped out by it after a morale check. So perhaps they made the minimum-sized unit cost 2PL instead of 3PL (their 40k value) to take that into account?

Necron Warriors on the other hand are much less vulnerable to morale; you need at least 3 blast markers on them to have even a small chance of failing. We also don't know their armywide traits & abilities yet. Reanimation Protocols may well be much more effective on a unit of 20 than a unit of 10.

While I have no doubt there are some errors (I've seen a couple of 2-page datasheets with different PL on each page) some of these stats could be entirely intentional based on actually using the full rules. Rules we haven't seen yet.

^This.

And i already explained why in many cases big units are much better than MSU in Apoc, so surprise surprise GW for once did the right thing and made bigger units cost more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, i found some errors in the nids datasheets too.

10 gargs have 1 attack
20 gargs have 2 attacks
30 gargs have 6 attacks

It is obvious that they were 2/4/6 by comparing with termagants, i will write a mail to them.

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
There's seemingly no rhyme or reason to these stats. They feel so random and don't reflect their counterparts in regular 40K. I'm still trying to figure out what the point of the Twin Lascannon is when the Vanquisher Battle Cannon is just a flat upgrade compared to it.

And same isn't true in 40k? In 40k battle cannon is flat out better upgrade over vanquisher cannon.

GW doesn't do balanced games. Whopedoo. Big surprise...not.

The Vanquisher to be fair is cheaper and at least does something different from the regular battle cannon even though 90% of the time the battle cannon is better. Its not the balance that’s getting me though, it’s the inconsistency. The Executioner plasma cannon is the exact same as a regular plasma cannon. Why does a conqueror battle cannon have such a different profile compared to a regular battle cannon when it’s essentially the same weapon? Why does a twin auto cannon have the same number of attacks as a single shot anti tank weapon. All that for just the weapon options for a single unit. I don’t even wanna know what the comparison is like when you start comparing different units.

The Executioner is definitely the oddest on the list, I really think it should at least have 2 shots, maybe even 3.

Conqueror battle cannons should be weaker than standard battle cannons, that is their whole shtick- Conquerors have less firepower than the standard Russ, but more mobility. In previous editions the CBC was S7 AP4 small blast Heavy, then S8 AP3 small blast Heavy, vs S8 AP3 large blast Ordnance (a straight upgrade against both infantry and tanks vs even the improved version of the Conqueror). Having 2 shots vs 1 is a bit weird, but then the Conqueror profile is notably weaker- someone will have to do the maths on which is better with both shots taken into account. Obviously there is also the range difference directly carried over from 40k.

As expected, no rules for my Ordinatus.

Sad machine bleeps :(

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
As expected, no rules for my Ordinatus.

Sad machine bleeps :(

Email FW and tell them you'd love to buy an Ordinatus to play Apoc with but it doesn't have any rules yet

As someone that’s never played epic, it’ll take some time for me to get my head around some of the rules – especially how wounding/damage works out. I’m so use to removing a model at a time. It just feels weird seeing something like a multi-melta struggling to wound an infantry unit, when in 40k it basically just removes a model lol.

I’m with most of the people on here though – from the bits I’ve looked over, I do have more questions than answers (which may, or may not get answered with the full ruleset and cards) but I feel like this is meant to be completely separate to 40k in terms of “ability”, whilst we are all kind of instantly just comparing it to the game we know and love (well, mostly ). For example, Shadow Spectres for Craftworlds had a flamer profile for their weapons or a multi-shot option. Now they just have 1 attack and I don’t understand why. Likewise, with all flamer weapons, just a single attack.

The amount of USRs we’re getting in additional to unit special rules is also a little concerning, but, that is more apprehension than anything else currently.

I always imagine Apoc as being the home of all the big big models and a reason to use them, but, if the scale is set to match similar levels to what 40k is currently, then, I just feel like games are going to be over super quick or that it’ll just be like playing a normal game of 40k, just with different rules…. Which then makes me feel, “well why not just play a normal game instead then?”

Time will tell I guess.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, is it me, or is there no difference between Brimstone Horrors, Blue Horrors and Pink Horrors now?

And, why oh why couldn’t then upload the datasheets in a logical order?

IG vets only have 1 attack, when infantry squad has 2. Typo?

Final point, in terms of power level, my 2000-point Tzeentch list went from 107 in 40k, to 121 in Apoc. For Apoc to work, I feel like the amount on the table has to be significantly higher than the current 2k points equivalent expectation. I’d personally expect at least 200PL per person.

Apologies, if its already been mentioned, but the space wolf sheet contains data for a primaris rhino, with twin plasma guns and some sort of orbital uplink weapon.
Looks like I may be going into the loft for my unbuilt rhinos this weekend.

Edit: ignore me, It's the Warhammer world model, I misread the primaris transport section

Some interesting math-hammer regarding the Titan / Hierophant stats a couple pages back. For reference:
Ork Stompa 8W, 6+ Sv, 49PL
Nid Hierophant 8W, 3+ Sv, 95PL
Reaver Titan 24W, 5+ Sv, 100-154PL

Assuming average rolling:
You need 10 large blast markers to kill a Stompa (8.3 wounds inflicted after 6+ save on a D6).
You need 35 large blast markers to kill a Heirophant (inflicting 7.6 wounds after 3+ save on a D6)
You need 37 large blast markers to kill a Reaver (36 after void shield rule, inflicting 23.8 wounds after 5+ save on a D6)

Void shields don't seem particularly effective compared to the older rules for them, and other than the Warhound it seems that they have the same rule across all the different classes of titan.

One little thing of note though is that the rules appear to allow Warlords to have mixed carapace weapons, wonder if this is deliberate or a mistake, as recent 30k\40k rules and Titanicus only allow pairs of weapons.

I also notice that the Vulcan Mega Bolter is listed as a twin Vulcan mega bolter, unlike any of the other carapace weapons, but the twin Vulcans replace a single apocalypse launcher, so you end up with 4 mega-bolters!

I really am excited to get a game or two of this under my belt, despite my biggest bit of Dakka being sans rules (can probably mash some together though. Essentially pick a hull (Baneblade is approximate equivalent), and use the weapon rules for the Warlord Titan's Belicosa Volcano Cannon, on account that's what this is.

Fancy shielding? Yeah I won't worry about that! What's important is that I can blast stuff!

Interested to see how well the 'minimum' size of Epicolypse Games relates to the 'maximum' size of 40k. And by that, I mean in purely practical terms, and I'll leave that delineation to the individual

And man, I am sooooo trying to resist restarting a Knight army to go with it! I'd be the Terror of Firepower!

Spoletta wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Voss wrote:
This looks like an unfinished draft of army lists which with wildly different standards used for different units, or even the same unit at different sizes.

Sounds about right. It's pretty disappointing to see something with so much potential turn into a half-finished mess just to rush it out by an arbitrary deadline. Or at least I'm hoping that's the explanation, and GW isn't so laughably terrible at math that they didn't realize how bad some of these rules are...

So, you never played the game, you don't know the full rules, but from a quick read of a part of them you already decided that you could do a better work at designing them.

I'm going to define this as "Going full dakka".

We know how shooting, wounds, saves and morale work- they aren't complex or a massive departure from how other GW games work. I'm not sure what mysteries you think await. But 60 cultists in MSU form are better than 40 cultists in a block. More firepower, more wounds, less vulnerable to morale. Simultaneously, 6 chaos bikers for 10 rather than 2x3 for 16 is significantly better, simply because the discount is huge,

That there are problems with the points is mathematically obvious, and they err in both directions.

Voss wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Voss wrote:
This looks like an unfinished draft of army lists which with wildly different standards used for different units, or even the same unit at different sizes.

Sounds about right. It's pretty disappointing to see something with so much potential turn into a half-finished mess just to rush it out by an arbitrary deadline. Or at least I'm hoping that's the explanation, and GW isn't so laughably terrible at math that they didn't realize how bad some of these rules are...

So, you never played the game, you don't know the full rules, but from a quick read of a part of them you already decided that you could do a better work at designing them.

I'm going to define this as "Going full dakka".

We know how shooting, wounds, saves and morale work- they aren't complex or a massive departure from how other GW games work. I'm not sure what mysteries you think await. But 60 cultists in MSU form are better than 40 cultists in a block. More firepower, more wounds, less vulnerable to morale. Simultaneously, 6 chaos bikers for 10 rather than 2x3 for 16 is significantly better, simply because the discount is huge,

That there are problems with the points is mathematically obvious, and they err in both directions.

You have been already proven wrong in the previous posts about that.

MSU in apoc is a bad bad idea (mathammer wise). That's why i told you not to jump to conclusions. Apoc is not 40K, you cannot judge apoc with the same meter as 40K and then say "It doesn't work, GW sucks!"