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.

Someone asked earlier and I don't remember an answer. Have you actually played apoc yet Peregrine?

 Lance845 wrote:
Someone asked earlier and I don't remember an answer. Have you actually played apoc yet Peregrine?

Only the old version of Apocalypse (and lots of that). But it's not like these are subtle or hard to understand design issues that have never appeared in other games. You don't have to play the game to look at the dice math, compare it to similar situations in other games, and have pretty strong confidence that the same issue will happen in this one.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Someone asked earlier and I don't remember an answer. Have you actually played apoc yet Peregrine?

Only the old version of Apocalypse (and lots of that). But it's not like these are subtle or hard to understand design issues that have never appeared in other games. You don't have to play the game to look at the dice math, compare it to similar situations in other games, and have pretty strong confidence that the same issue will happen in this one.

There is the things you know you know, the things you know you don't know and the things you don't know you don't know.

No matter how much math you do and how much calculations you make things change once you actually put it in motion and see the elements in action.

My recommendation is you stop theory-hammering and you start playing. Yes. Experience and logic can get you pretty far. But that doesn't mean known unknowns and unknown unknowns won't factor in and change how these elements interact in practice.

With regards to the cards, I've not found it as highly random as people are suggesting. With only a 30 card deck and a good number of mechanical duplicates/highly similar cards, you have good odds of getting what you need/want early on. It's not guaranteed, but neither are psychic powers in 40k and they are still the crux of many strategies.

An example:

I want a 2 card combo of Doom and something that boosts my To Hit for a powerful unit. I've put Seek and Destroy and Guide in my deck, I also have Strategic Brilliance and Runes of Witnessing.

I'm drawing 5 cards so my probability of drawing any one specific card is 5/30 = 1/6. I have 1 free tutor with my Farseer so that means I have a 100% chance of finding either Doom or Guide if I draw the other one and, therefore, I can draw any of five cards to complete the combo (Strategic Brilliance or Runes of Witnessing can be traded for the missing piece). The probability of drawing 1 of any 5 cards on the first turn is 1 - (5/6)^5 = 60%.

That's solid odds of that combo going off, especially as I also have multiple ways of boosting my damage rolls in the deck, so the odds of getting what I need are even higher. On top of that, by turn 2 I am nearly guaranteed to draw that combo of cards. The example is for Eldar, but it should work similarly for other factions (e.g. IG use more drawing power rather than tutors).

these guys do a 100 pl Apoc game. Interesting

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/777430.page

 Lance845 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Someone asked earlier and I don't remember an answer. Have you actually played apoc yet Peregrine?

Only the old version of Apocalypse (and lots of that). But it's not like these are subtle or hard to understand design issues that have never appeared in other games. You don't have to play the game to look at the dice math, compare it to similar situations in other games, and have pretty strong confidence that the same issue will happen in this one.

There is the things you know you know, the things you know you don't know and the things you don't know you don't know.

No matter how much math you do and how much calculations you make things change once you actually put it in motion and see the elements in action.

My recommendation is you stop theory-hammering and you start playing. Yes. Experience and logic can get you pretty far. But that doesn't mean known unknowns and unknown unknowns won't factor in and change how these elements interact in practice.

Again, only if you are one those people that believe scientists need to actually conduct experiments (and even have other scientist replicate your results) rather than completely rely on the theory. I mean it gets pretty annoying when an experiment doesn't follow your hypothesis which had all this elegant math. It is both cheaper and easier just to take the theoretical results as reality because most of the time they are right. Who cares about that small time when they aren't.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Again, only if you are one those people that believe scientists need to actually conduct experiments (and even have other scientist replicate your results) rather than completely rely on the theory. I mean it gets pretty annoying when an experiment doesn't follow your hypothesis which had all this elegant math. It is both cheaper and easier just to take the theoretical results as reality because most of the time they are right. Who cares about that small time when they aren't.

Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Of course we're discussing theory, the game has been out for four days. The only people who have played it enough to offer opinions based on experience instead of theory are GW employees and they aren't participating in the discussion. But I suspect the reason for your disagreement here is not genuine feelings about the merits of theory vs. experience, it's that you don't like my conclusions and are reaching for any possible argument to discredit them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Again, only if you are one those people that believe scientists need to actually conduct experiments (and even have other scientist replicate your results) rather than completely rely on the theory. I mean it gets pretty annoying when an experiment doesn't follow your hypothesis which had all this elegant math. It is both cheaper and easier just to take the theoretical results as reality because most of the time they are right. Who cares about that small time when they aren't.

Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Of course we're discussing theory, the game has been out for four days. The only people who have played it enough to offer opinions based on experience instead of theory are GW employees and they aren't participating in the discussion. But I suspect the reason for your disagreement here is not genuine feelings about the merits of theory vs. experience, it's that you don't like my conclusions and are reaching for any possible argument to discredit them.

I imagine it has more to do with you stating your theories as obvious fact when in fact the game has been out for 4 days and you have played zero times last you chimed in about it.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Again, only if you are one those people that believe scientists need to actually conduct experiments (and even have other scientist replicate your results) rather than completely rely on the theory. I mean it gets pretty annoying when an experiment doesn't follow your hypothesis which had all this elegant math. It is both cheaper and easier just to take the theoretical results as reality because most of the time they are right. Who cares about that small time when they aren't.

Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Of course we're discussing theory, the game has been out for four days. The only people who have played it enough to offer opinions based on experience instead of theory are GW employees and they aren't participating in the discussion. But I suspect the reason for your disagreement here is not genuine feelings about the merits of theory vs. experience, it's that you don't like my conclusions and are reaching for any possible argument to discredit them.

I imagine it has more to do with you stating your theories as obvious fact when in fact the game has been out for 4 days and you have played zero times last you chimed in about it.

This is just true to form Pere, only look at the math, make subjective observations objective, lather, rinse, repeat. They just sit back, input data & make assumptions based on what the spreadsheet solution says.

And who says there are not any GW employees taking part, for all you know there could be one, none or whatever.

GW is positioning Apoc to be the main narrative mode of play(opinion). It allows for(a faster way to play) all the grandiose apocalyptic(get it) battles that are most often represented in the lore. How broken or abusable it is depends more on your opponent than anything else.

Power-gaming/WAACing Apocalypse seems contrary to the entire spirit of the format anyway. That’s just an “I hate having friends” approach.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Power-gaming/WAACing Apocalypse seems contrary to the entire spirit of the format anyway. That’s just an “I hate having friends” approach.

The same could be said about 40k though and look how well that turned out...

Like most games not played heavily in tournaments, or formats not followed in tournaments, Apoc will likely never really be the realm of the powergamer until Adepticon has an Apoc world championship for it where people can win internet fame and fabulous prizes.

Wayniac wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Power-gaming/WAACing Apocalypse seems contrary to the entire spirit of the format anyway. That’s just an “I hate having friends” approach.

The same could be said about 40k though and look how well that turned out...

auticus wrote:Like most games not played heavily in tournaments, or formats not followed in tournaments, Apoc will likely never really be the realm of the powergamer until Adepticon has an Apoc world championship for it where people can win internet fame and fabulous prizes.

Can we... not? I get super sick of coming to Dakka and having people crap all over competitive players. If you don't like a particular playstyle, that's fine, but acting like there's something wrong with other people enjoying something you don't is just unreasonable. I bet if I played any of you we'd both have fun because I would take something weaker than a hardcore competitive list as I know you don't like that sort of play. I'd also have fun playing gloves off top tier lists against another competitive player. Building hard lists and learning to play well isn't against the spirit of the game at all, attempting to purity police other people out of a hobby is against the spirit of games and gaming in general though. I think there is room for everyone in this hobby, it's a big tent. Sure there are people and playstyles I'd rather not engage with, but I don't think they should be shamed for, for example, insisting on only playing open and/or narrative play with only imperium vs chaos, that's cool, it's just not really my cup of tea. There are also jerks, who suck to play against, but they can't be identified by playstyle as they fall across the entire spectrum.

 auticus wrote:
Like most games not played heavily in tournaments, or formats not followed in tournaments, Apoc will likely never really be the realm of the powergamer until Adepticon has an Apoc world championship for it where people can win internet fame and fabulous prizes.

We have plenty of powergamers in europe, and yet we lack big competitve events like that. We have the official GW events, but only a small minority of players go there (UK is damn expensive).
The big events are just an excuse, some players just like to turn everything in a competition, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Ice_can wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
@Jamshaman No need to reduce the deck. At 150ish PL (actually 148 vs 149 and roughly equivalent to 2500 points) we had 4-5 detachments in each army. 30 cards was fine. A reduced deck would mean you would draw through all the cards faster and start using them a second time when they get reshuffled. Better to have the bigger deck and maybe not get through all the cards.

IMO there are two problems with the full deck:

1) Building a meaningful 30 card deck with a single army gets challenging. The 30 card deck for a whole team works out well if you have some generic assets and then a few faction-specific ones for each player, but with a 30 card deck for a single faction you're probably resorting to stuff like putting in Cadian cards in your Catachan army and only being able to use the alternate re-roll a single die effect.

2) RNG gets more significant. Your most important cards are drawn less frequently, and having a bunch of weak filler cards only makes it worse. Some games you'll get great draws, some games you'll get nothing. And the game should involve tactics between armies, not who gets better RNG with the CCG mechanic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jamshaman wrote:
- "Slap Fest" - as I see it now, if slap fests occur, then it's probably a symptom of bad tactics, namely target selection.

Have you looked at the unit stats? Basic troops have few attacks and poor odds of success with each attack, and then the enemy unit gets a save to negate it. This is not the worst thing in a normal Apocalypse game where you can concentrate fire from many units and reliably get some wounds, but in a 2000 point 40k substitute it's going to be easy to have situations where there are too few units to reliably do any damage. Tactical squad vs. tactical squad is going to have a lot of turns where both players roll some dice and nothing happens. At least in normal 40k they're going to be taking some losses and the game is going to feel a lot more like things are progressing.

But the thing your complaining about squads not insta dieing turn 1 has been a massive point of complaints about 8th edition since day 1 it's lethality got dialled upto 11 to make the game faster.

and yet the game takes longer than ever to play for some reason.

Drager wrote:
Can we... not? I get super sick of coming to Dakka and having people crap all over competitive players. If you don't like a particular playstyle, that's fine, but acting like there's something wrong with other people enjoying something you don't is just unreasonable. I bet if I played any of you we'd both have fun because I would take something weaker than a hardcore competitive list as I know you don't like that sort of play. I'd also have fun playing gloves off top tier lists against another competitive player. Building hard lists and learning to play well isn't against the spirit of the game at all, attempting to purity police other people out of a hobby is against the spirit of games and gaming in general though. I think there is room for everyone in this hobby, it's a big tent. Sure there are people and playstyles I'd rather not engage with, but I don't think they should be shamed for, for example, insisting on only playing open and/or narrative play with only imperium vs chaos, that's cool, it's just not really my cup of tea. There are also jerks, who suck to play against, but they can't be identified by playstyle as they fall across the entire spectrum.

Yeah, and to further this, I really don't think it's unreasonable that people try to get value for money either. If you have the choice to buy something which will win and make you feel happy, over something which looks cool but will be nearly worthless, it's pretty logical to choose the former over the latter - ESPECIALLY given how much this hobby costs to being with. It's even more unreasonable to expect them to see a model they wish they could use and not complain about how rubbish it is. People in this community really get hung up on other players having fun "wrong" sometimes.

In other, more on-topic news, I saw the maths behind Harlequins and holy christ on a bike are they too good for their points. They outdamage almost everything, are surprisingly cheap and their rules give them a deceptive amount of resilience - those 6+ saves are de facto 4+'s accounting for the D12 thing. 4+ saves on all units, attacks x8 in melee wounding on stupidly low numbers, super high agility? They're bonkers good before their stratagems. I hesitate to call them broken - there are some things which might be a counter, but they are incredibly durable for their price to the point of being a big red warning light. I a 2k pure harlequin army might actually make the system break down at low power levels.

Eyjio wrote:

Drager wrote:
Can we... not? I get super sick of coming to Dakka and having people crap all over competitive players. If you don't like a particular playstyle, that's fine, but acting like there's something wrong with other people enjoying something you don't is just unreasonable. I bet if I played any of you we'd both have fun because I would take something weaker than a hardcore competitive list as I know you don't like that sort of play. I'd also have fun playing gloves off top tier lists against another competitive player. Building hard lists and learning to play well isn't against the spirit of the game at all, attempting to purity police other people out of a hobby is against the spirit of games and gaming in general though. I think there is room for everyone in this hobby, it's a big tent. Sure there are people and playstyles I'd rather not engage with, but I don't think they should be shamed for, for example, insisting on only playing open and/or narrative play with only imperium vs chaos, that's cool, it's just not really my cup of tea. There are also jerks, who suck to play against, but they can't be identified by playstyle as they fall across the entire spectrum.

Yeah, and to further this, I really don't think it's unreasonable that people try to get value for money either. If you have the choice to buy something which will win and make you feel happy, over something which looks cool but will be nearly worthless, it's pretty logical to choose the former over the latter - ESPECIALLY given how much this hobby costs to being with. It's even more unreasonable to expect them to see a model they wish they could use and not complain about how rubbish it is. People in this community really get hung up on other players having fun "wrong" sometimes.

In other, more on-topic news, I saw the maths behind Harlequins and holy christ on a bike are they too good for their points. They outdamage almost everything, are surprisingly cheap and their rules give them a deceptive amount of resilience - those 6+ saves are de facto 4+'s accounting for the D12 thing. 4+ saves on all units, attacks x8 in melee wounding on stupidly low numbers, super high agility? They're bonkers good before their stratagems. I hesitate to call them broken - there are some things which might be a counter, but they are incredibly durable for their price to the point of being a big red warning light. I a 2k pure harlequin army might actually make the system break down at low power levels.

I'll have to test that out and see. 'Quins are one of my less used armies.

 zedsdead wrote:
these guys do a 100 pl Apoc game. Interesting

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/777430.page

Yeah watching that video actually sealed the deal for me on buying Apocalypse specifically to play at 100-150 PL.

I've got a game coming up this weekend to try it out, so hoping for the best but it looks promising.

Eyjio wrote:

Drager wrote:
Can we... not? I get super sick of coming to Dakka and having people crap all over competitive players. If you don't like a particular playstyle, that's fine, but acting like there's something wrong with other people enjoying something you don't is just unreasonable. I bet if I played any of you we'd both have fun because I would take something weaker than a hardcore competitive list as I know you don't like that sort of play. I'd also have fun playing gloves off top tier lists against another competitive player. Building hard lists and learning to play well isn't against the spirit of the game at all, attempting to purity police other people out of a hobby is against the spirit of games and gaming in general though. I think there is room for everyone in this hobby, it's a big tent. Sure there are people and playstyles I'd rather not engage with, but I don't think they should be shamed for, for example, insisting on only playing open and/or narrative play with only imperium vs chaos, that's cool, it's just not really my cup of tea. There are also jerks, who suck to play against, but they can't be identified by playstyle as they fall across the entire spectrum.

Yeah, and to further this, I really don't think it's unreasonable that people try to get value for money either. If you have the choice to buy something which will win and make you feel happy, over something which looks cool but will be nearly worthless, it's pretty logical to choose the former over the latter - ESPECIALLY given how much this hobby costs to being with. It's even more unreasonable to expect them to see a model they wish they could use and not complain about how rubbish it is. People in this community really get hung up on other players having fun "wrong" sometimes.

In other, more on-topic news, I saw the maths behind Harlequins and holy christ on a bike are they too good for their points. They outdamage almost everything, are surprisingly cheap and their rules give them a deceptive amount of resilience - those 6+ saves are de facto 4+'s accounting for the D12 thing. 4+ saves on all units, attacks x8 in melee wounding on stupidly low numbers, super high agility? They're bonkers good before their stratagems. I hesitate to call them broken - there are some things which might be a counter, but they are incredibly durable for their price to the point of being a big red warning light. I a 2k pure harlequin army might actually make the system break down at low power levels.

They hit really really really hard, but i don't know what math you have been using, because they are stupidly squishy by all possible metrics. Sure, you should never focus fire a single unit, but who cares about that when a single small blast has about 50% chances (between save and morale) to wipe out 8 PL of units!

Spoletta wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

Drager wrote:
Can we... not? I get super sick of coming to Dakka and having people crap all over competitive players. If you don't like a particular playstyle, that's fine, but acting like there's something wrong with other people enjoying something you don't is just unreasonable. I bet if I played any of you we'd both have fun because I would take something weaker than a hardcore competitive list as I know you don't like that sort of play. I'd also have fun playing gloves off top tier lists against another competitive player. Building hard lists and learning to play well isn't against the spirit of the game at all, attempting to purity police other people out of a hobby is against the spirit of games and gaming in general though. I think there is room for everyone in this hobby, it's a big tent. Sure there are people and playstyles I'd rather not engage with, but I don't think they should be shamed for, for example, insisting on only playing open and/or narrative play with only imperium vs chaos, that's cool, it's just not really my cup of tea. There are also jerks, who suck to play against, but they can't be identified by playstyle as they fall across the entire spectrum.

Yeah, and to further this, I really don't think it's unreasonable that people try to get value for money either. If you have the choice to buy something which will win and make you feel happy, over something which looks cool but will be nearly worthless, it's pretty logical to choose the former over the latter - ESPECIALLY given how much this hobby costs to being with. It's even more unreasonable to expect them to see a model they wish they could use and not complain about how rubbish it is. People in this community really get hung up on other players having fun "wrong" sometimes.

In other, more on-topic news, I saw the maths behind Harlequins and holy christ on a bike are they too good for their points. They outdamage almost everything, are surprisingly cheap and their rules give them a deceptive amount of resilience - those 6+ saves are de facto 4+'s accounting for the D12 thing. 4+ saves on all units, attacks x8 in melee wounding on stupidly low numbers, super high agility? They're bonkers good before their stratagems. I hesitate to call them broken - there are some things which might be a counter, but they are incredibly durable for their price to the point of being a big red warning light. I a 2k pure harlequin army might actually make the system break down at low power levels.

They hit really really really hard, but i don't know what math you have been using, because they are stupidly squishy by all possible metrics. Sure, you should never focus fire a single unit, but who cares about that when a single small blast has about 50% chances (between save and morale) to wipe out 8 PL of units!

If we assume a unit of 10 (15 power) within range of Shadowseer (4 PL) and we shoot at them with Splinter Cannon armed Venoms (which are very good Anti Personnel) you need 16 shots spread over 2 turns to kill the unit or 32 shots in one turn. That's 4 venoms shooting twice (24 PL) or a whopping 16 venoms (96 PL) to kill them in one turn. If we compare that to, say Terminators, for 11 power they have 2 wounds and a 4+ save. To kill them in a turn takes 9 venoms (54 PL) and spreading it across 2 turns you only need 5 venoms (30 PL). So against focussed fire in a 2 wound unit they are tougher than terminators (though also more expensive). Against spread fire on multiple turns they are weaker.

Spoletta wrote:
They hit really really really hard, but i don't know what math you have been using, because they are stupidly squishy by all possible metrics. Sure, you should never focus fire a single unit, but who cares about that when a single small blast has about 50% chances (between save and morale) to wipe out 8 PL of units!

Normal, basic maths, just without morale (because that affects most armies). As follows:

Every 2 blasts is 1 large blast; for a unit with a 4+ save, they have a 50% chance to save each large blast and a 75% chance to save small blasts. This means that their distribution looks as follows, using a ratio of small blasts : effective wounds

1 : 0.25
2 : 0.5
3 : 0.75
4 : 1
5 : 1.25
6 : 1.5
7 : 1.75
8 : 2
9 : 2.25
10 : 2.5
etc.

Effectively, every 2 large blasts becomes 1 expected wound, and you go up in 0.25 intervals - very neat. As quarters:
1 : 1/4
2 : 2/4
3 : 3/4
4 : 4/4
5 : 5/4
6 : 6/4
etc.


Now, here's the same chart for harlequins with a 6+, who always roll a D12:

1 : 5/12 (~0.4167)
2 : 5/12 (~0.4167)
3 : 10/12 (~0.8333)
4 : 10/12 (~0.8333)
5 : 15/12 (1.25)
6 : 15/12 (1.25)
7 : 20/12 (~1.667)
8 : 20/12 (~1.667)
9 : 25/12 (~2.083)
10 : 25/12 (~2.083)

So, every small blast is +5/12, and every large blast is effectively wasted. This makes them incredibly durable against shooting generally and in no way "stupidly squishy". If you're taking at least 10 models in a troupe - and you should always be taking at lease 10 models in a troupe to get the 2 wounds - you are more durable against shooting than literal terminators, with substantially more deadly assault and good, if short ranged, shooting also. They also ignore terrain and have a stratagem that might as well say "you are invincible this turn". It's actually crazy - at least on paper. And it's all very well to say "oh, spread out your shooting, don't focus fire" but they have 2 wounds; if you aren't focus firing, they likely won't die, they're moving towards you very quickly, can hide behind terrain without it affecting them at all and if they get into melee they're the most cost effective unit in the game. You have to kill them, and that's very hard to do.

So, as I say, dunno about practice, but on paper they're silly.

You are not considering that terminators Know no fear, which is a huge defensive boost in Apoc.

My math is much simpler here:

1 blast on said harley squad inflicts 0,5 wounds from the damage and 0,16 wounds from morale, for a total of 0,66 wounds. 1 wounds is worth 7,5 PL, so 0,66 wounds are worth 5 PL. A small blast inflicts 5 PL of damage.
The same blast on terminators inflicts 0,25 wounds from the damage, and no wounds from morale. Each wound costs 5,5 PL. A small blast inflicts 1,375 PL. Terminators are 3 times more resilient in this scenario.

Let's repeat for a large blast.

Harley again take 5 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,5 wounds, so suffer 2,75 PL of damage.

Large blast and small blast:

Harley take exactly double from damage and double from morale, so they take 10 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,75 wounds from damage and 0,027 from morale. 4,28 PL of damage.

Double large blast?

Harley take 10 PL
Termie take 5,5 PL.

You can see that in no scenario harley have even something resembling the durability of termies.

This is Apoc, not 40K. Units have no defensive stats with interaction (like S vs T or Sv vs AP). Don't try to look at possible attackers versus possible defenders, a blast is a blast.
Use that as a basis, the math is much easier.

I have no idea why you're saying one wound is 7.5PL, which is clearly untrue, let alone why you're being condescending about using blast markers instead when that's literally what I did (and it's not 0.5 to save, its 5/12 as I said - they have a 6+), but you're right - morale has a big impact. So, while we're here, let's consider domino fields too, as that's only fair. Let's revise my harlequin chart to reflect morale; so, as numerator over 12, it's 7/7/14/14/21/21/28/28 for 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8 blasts. Given blasts are discrete, that means 7 blasts kill 2 wounds of harlequins. For terminators, it also takes 7 templates to kill 2 wounds - 1.75 from failed saves, 0.25 from morale. However, then harlequins are -1 to hit, so are MORE durable on a discrete basis.

Let's work fractionally instead to see if that 1/3rd of a blast marker is compensated for by domino fields. Wound rolls are identical so we only need bother with to hit rolls:
2+ to hit means terminators needs 8.4 shots; for harlequins that's a 3+, but you only need 6 and 3/7th blasts, so about 9.64 shots.
3+ is 10.5 shots for terminators, but for harlequins its 12.86.
4+ is 14 for terminators, 19.29 for harlequins.
Etc.

So, not only are harlequins more durable, they are significantly moreso. I stand by my prior statements.

I think the big distinction people might be failing to take into account with the "Terminators/Other Stuff vs Harlequins" comparison is the fact that Harlequins in most circumstances will be presenting you three targets at once, as they'll be deployed in Battalions. When people say "Spread out your fire" they mean to the other two units of harlequins that are going to be within 12" of the first unit of harlequins.

Focus firing down a unit of harlequins like you would deal with a unit of terminators is a bad idea, putting a single blast on each harlequin unit is a much better idea, because a small blast is a large blast for all intents and purposes.

The other thing people are ignoring in this is that unlike Terminators, or Striking Scorpions, Harlequins are not going to be in combat turn 1 or even doing any damage at all unless they use particular stratagem cards. Terminators, jump death company, striking scorpions and others will be able to get into combat turn 1 and deal guaranteed damage the turn they arrive - you physically can not kill them before they can act, and you have a decent chance of critically damaging or even destroying a harlequin squad on that first turn if you shoot it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will say though, Harlequins are #1 on my list when thinking about things that might prove to be a balance problem in apoc. They do A LOT of damage and they have A LOT of defensive buff abilities. I do think there's a reason why the damage done by Skyweaver Jetbikes is less than 1/4 that of the regular clowns though.

Some other units that have that "I definitely do not do damage until turn 2" property (I'm looking at Murderfang and Thunderwolves as I had the space wolf page open) seem to do relatively similar damage in melee. murderboi does a little bit more (and quite a bit more if the enemy is wounded), Thunderwolves do slightly less but do have a guaranteed Consolation Shot with their bolt pistols turn 1.

Spoletta wrote:
You are not considering that terminators Know no fear, which is a huge defensive boost in Apoc.

My math is much simpler here:

1 blast on said harley squad inflicts 0,5 wounds from the damage and 0,16 wounds from morale, for a total of 0,66 wounds. 1 wounds is worth 7,5 PL, so 0,66 wounds are worth 5 PL. A small blast inflicts 5 PL of damage.
The same blast on terminators inflicts 0,25 wounds from the damage, and no wounds from morale. Each wound costs 5,5 PL. A small blast inflicts 1,375 PL. Terminators are 3 times more resilient in this scenario.

Let's repeat for a large blast.

Harley again take 5 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,5 wounds, so suffer 2,75 PL of damage.

Large blast and small blast:

Harley take exactly double from damage and double from morale, so they take 10 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,75 wounds from damage and 0,027 from morale. 4,28 PL of damage.

Double large blast?

Harley take 10 PL
Termie take 5,5 PL.

You can see that in no scenario harley have even something resembling the durability of termies.

This is Apoc, not 40K. Units have no defensive stats with interaction (like S vs T or Sv vs AP). Don't try to look at possible attackers versus possible defenders, a blast is a blast.
Use that as a basis, the math is much easier.

You are missing the -1 to hit and to wound, which make a big difference. Therefore, in this case, a blast is not a blast as there are defensive differences. Further Harlies have a 6+ save, not a 7+ so it's not a 50 % save, it's 58%. If you redo the maths and include these modifications you'll find I'm correct. Your calculations are simpler, true, but also incorrect.

I should have said this sooner, but it appears that the easiest way that I see right now to scale down Apoc would be to lessen the Detachment requirements.

So maybe at 100-300PL a Battalion Detachment would only require 2 units of troops instead of 3, for example. So basically -1 required unit per Detachment type.

This would allow most of the game mechanics to stay in tact I think...

jamshaman wrote:
I should have said this sooner, but it appears that the easiest way that I see right now to scale down Apoc would be to lessen the Detachment requirements.

So maybe at 100-300PL a Battalion Detachment would only require 2 units of troops instead of 3, for example. So basically -1 required unit per Detachment type.

This would allow most of the game mechanics to stay in tact I think...

Unneeded. Ive already played it. The detachment requirments are fine.

Drager wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
You are not considering that terminators Know no fear, which is a huge defensive boost in Apoc.

My math is much simpler here:

1 blast on said harley squad inflicts 0,5 wounds from the damage and 0,16 wounds from morale, for a total of 0,66 wounds. 1 wounds is worth 7,5 PL, so 0,66 wounds are worth 5 PL. A small blast inflicts 5 PL of damage.
The same blast on terminators inflicts 0,25 wounds from the damage, and no wounds from morale. Each wound costs 5,5 PL. A small blast inflicts 1,375 PL. Terminators are 3 times more resilient in this scenario.

Let's repeat for a large blast.

Harley again take 5 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,5 wounds, so suffer 2,75 PL of damage.

Large blast and small blast:

Harley take exactly double from damage and double from morale, so they take 10 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,75 wounds from damage and 0,027 from morale. 4,28 PL of damage.

Double large blast?

Harley take 10 PL
Termie take 5,5 PL.

You can see that in no scenario harley have even something resembling the durability of termies.

This is Apoc, not 40K. Units have no defensive stats with interaction (like S vs T or Sv vs AP). Don't try to look at possible attackers versus possible defenders, a blast is a blast.
Use that as a basis, the math is much easier.

You are missing the -1 to hit and to wound, which make a big difference. Therefore, in this case, a blast is not a blast as there are defensive differences. Further Harlies have a 6+ save, not a 7+ so it's not a 50 % save, it's 58%. If you redo the maths and include these modifications you'll find I'm correct. Your calculations are simpler, true, but also incorrect.

I hate to ask this...but if we are including the -1 to wound, surely we are including the cost of the Shadowseer granting the buff with the cost of the Harlequins (possibly only 2.33PL if we're talking about 3 squads of harlequins benefitting), right?

It would be silly to give a 15PL unit a 7PL buff and compare them, right?

the_scotsman wrote:

Drager wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
You are not considering that terminators Know no fear, which is a huge defensive boost in Apoc.

My math is much simpler here:

1 blast on said harley squad inflicts 0,5 wounds from the damage and 0,16 wounds from morale, for a total of 0,66 wounds. 1 wounds is worth 7,5 PL, so 0,66 wounds are worth 5 PL. A small blast inflicts 5 PL of damage.
The same blast on terminators inflicts 0,25 wounds from the damage, and no wounds from morale. Each wound costs 5,5 PL. A small blast inflicts 1,375 PL. Terminators are 3 times more resilient in this scenario.

Let's repeat for a large blast.

Harley again take 5 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,5 wounds, so suffer 2,75 PL of damage.

Large blast and small blast:

Harley take exactly double from damage and double from morale, so they take 10 PL of damage.
Termis take 0,75 wounds from damage and 0,027 from morale. 4,28 PL of damage.

Double large blast?

Harley take 10 PL
Termie take 5,5 PL.

You can see that in no scenario harley have even something resembling the durability of termies.

This is Apoc, not 40K. Units have no defensive stats with interaction (like S vs T or Sv vs AP). Don't try to look at possible attackers versus possible defenders, a blast is a blast.
Use that as a basis, the math is much easier.

You are missing the -1 to hit and to wound, which make a big difference. Therefore, in this case, a blast is not a blast as there are defensive differences. Further Harlies have a 6+ save, not a 7+ so it's not a 50 % save, it's 58%. If you redo the maths and include these modifications you'll find I'm correct. Your calculations are simpler, true, but also incorrect.

I hate to ask this...but if we are including the -1 to wound, surely we are including the cost of the Shadowseer granting the buff with the cost of the Harlequins (possibly only 2.33PL if we're talking about 3 squads of harlequins benefitting), right?

It would be silly to give a 15PL unit a 7PL buff and compare them, right?

The terminators will have a commander too. It just applied no defensive buff. I'm mostly thinking on the scale of a battalion so the cost of the commander is moot. It's more like a 50 pl group of models (3 troops and a shadowseer). I'm just zooming in to make the demonstration easier to follow.

In the case of the terminators it's probably 4 units plus a commander so they are roughly equally durable, hence mentioning the Harlequins are more durable but cost more.

 Lance845 wrote:

jamshaman wrote:
I should have said this sooner, but it appears that the easiest way that I see right now to scale down Apoc would be to lessen the Detachment requirements.

So maybe at 100-300PL a Battalion Detachment would only require 2 units of troops instead of 3, for example. So basically -1 required unit per Detachment type.

This would allow most of the game mechanics to stay in tact I think...

Unneeded. Ive already played it. The detachment requirments are fine.

How many games have you got in? At which PLs? With how many different factions?

You know, there's a way to say things without sounding like a douche... just sayin...