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.

In terms of balance. Apoc is the least balanced version of 40k I have ever played. The cards are overly powerful. Unit costs are atrocious and I mean atrocious. The general format is nice but they also blew it with hitting on d6's - it should be d12's. Deep strike should count as moving OFC. I could go on and on but it's bad.

 Xenomancers wrote:
In terms of balance. Apoc is the least balanced version of 40k I have ever played. The cards are overly powerful. Unit costs are atrocious and I mean atrocious. The general format is nice but they also blew it with hitting on d6's - it should be d12's. Deep strike should count as moving OFC. I could go on and on but it's bad.

I've been doing some mathhammer breakdowns of the different units from all my various factions, and I've been finding the exact opposite. The durability vs damage for the cost of most units is on a pretty even sliding scale. A few exceptions, but far fewer than 40k.

 Xenomancers wrote:
In terms of balance. Apoc is the least balanced version of 40k I have ever played. The cards are overly powerful. Unit costs are atrocious and I mean atrocious. The general format is nice but they also blew it with hitting on d6's - it should be d12's. Deep strike should count as moving OFC. I could go on and on but it's bad.

Your 40k players must be really nice to you.

This mostly sound like "Well I lost a few times, so the game is bad"

 Xenomancers wrote:
In terms of balance. Apoc is the least balanced version of 40k I have ever played. The cards are overly powerful. Unit costs are atrocious and I mean atrocious. The general format is nice but they also blew it with hitting on d6's - it should be d12's. Deep strike should count as moving OFC. I could go on and on but it's bad.

Odd, I don't want to invalidate your experiences, but mine have been quite the opposite. The unit costs and stat paradigms seem pretty clearly based on a formula that is applied evenly with some rounding here and there. I actually would feel pretty comfortable taking X points of random units up against X points of another faction and feel like I'm going to have a reasonably close game. But admittedly, I could have some blind spots in terms of factions I'm seeing.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
It's as bad as WHFB's end times fiasco. Just a stupid way to shoehorn all of the 40K toys (IK, flyers, etc.) into a single game but this topic has been already discussed to death without any of GW's suits becoming any smarter.

What? lol. You think apoc is as bad as the launch of end times?

Yeah, I saw the unit bases like they were used in good old Epic.
Pretty stupid. If you want to simulate mass warfare you play Epic. You want to play skirmish? Fine, play 40K.
And now GW's suits brainwashed their customers to play Epic but with 40K models. Only people with half a brain will fall for this most foul ploy.

You are free to have whatever opinion you want. But you are way off.

 Strg Alt wrote:

Pretty stupid. If you want to simulate mass warfare you play Epic. You want to play skirmish? Fine, play 40K.

Apocalypse is vastly better at 40k scale games than 40k is.

 Strg Alt wrote:

Pretty stupid. If you want to simulate mass warfare you play Epic. You want to play skirmish? Fine, play 40K.

Epic hasn't been supported by GW for 20+ years now. The last release was in 1997.

I'm sure there's still community support for it, but you can't seriously recommend that to a new player instead of the new release that seems to be generally well liked.

Glancing through the rules when I can (looking to buy the book asap) and I’m impressed with what they did. They’re clearly inspired by Epic, plus they match some of my own ideas for how 40k could work before the 8th edition was released. Not bad, not bad at all.

Now it’s time for me to work on building an AoS version.

Crispy78 wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

Pretty stupid. If you want to simulate mass warfare you play Epic. You want to play skirmish? Fine, play 40K.

Epic hasn't been supported by GW for 20+ years now. The last release was in 1997.

I'm sure there's still community support for it, but you can't seriously recommend that to a new player instead of the new release that seems to be generally well liked.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. At least one thing is certain:
Trying to play Epic with 40K models costs an arm and a leg. It seems most of the geeks of today are filthy rich to endeavor such a thought.
Another matter is table size. You will have to rent a hall to have enough space for all the models in company strength. Yeah, have fun.

 Strg Alt wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

Pretty stupid. If you want to simulate mass warfare you play Epic. You want to play skirmish? Fine, play 40K.

Epic hasn't been supported by GW for 20+ years now. The last release was in 1997.

I'm sure there's still community support for it, but you can't seriously recommend that to a new player instead of the new release that seems to be generally well liked.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. At least one thing is certain:
Trying to play Epic with 40K models costs an arm and a leg. It seems most of the geeks of today are filthy rich to endeavor such a thought.
Another matter is table size. You will have to rent a hall to have enough space for all the models in company strength. Yeah, have fun.

....you do know that nothing stops you from playing apoc at 100PL, right? And that the table size for that game would be...exactly the same size as a standard 40k game? and exactly the same models? Except for the fact that the formula they used to balance the units and the greatly reduced requirements for your models to be legally WYSIWYG makes it actually require fewer models and less monetary investment than a standard game of 40k?

Is it much fun at lower points levels?

The rules look good, but I worry games would be over fairly quickly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nowt wrong with that of course. I just prefer 2-3 hour games.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Is it much fun at lower points levels?

The rules look good, but I worry games would be over fairly quickly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nowt wrong with that of course. I just prefer 2-3 hour games.

I've played a couple 100pl games. Both lasted about 2hrs. Compared to standard 40k games with the same lists, however, the games went a much longer number of turns (both went out to turn 5 and ended because of scoring with each player having over a quarter of their army left alive).

I don't think I've ever played a game of 40k 8th and had it go to turn 5 without a player getting either tabled or very nearly tabled. The games I've played that have gone long are usually mututally destructive affairs with players being left with units that are either slow and out of postiion or non-deadly units like transports. And that's never the competitive games, which are always decided by turn 3 at the very latest.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Is it much fun at lower points levels?

The rules look good, but I worry games would be over fairly quickly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nowt wrong with that of course. I just prefer 2-3 hour games.

Games actually last until the final turn, but also go quicker so it balances out, because normal 40k barely goes past turn 3.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Is it much fun at lower points levels?

The rules look good, but I worry games would be over fairly quickly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nowt wrong with that of course. I just prefer 2-3 hour games.

I don't see any reason why games would be over too quickly in terms of how many turns the game takes. Alpha strikes have been significantly nerfed and overall firepower seems lower than in 40k. The only reason you'd have a quick game is because the rules allow you to execute your actions much faster and you spend less time slogging through endless rolls and re-rolls and modifiers and re-rolls and more modifiers.

I figure moving stuff in trays rather than one model at a time would speed things up, at least.

Nurglitch wrote:
I figure moving stuff in trays rather than one model at a time would speed things up, at least.

It goes beyond that as well. My first test game of apoc I took a couple of 30-man boyz units without trays, and because of the unit coherency, movement and terrain rules, moving the blobs around was far faster than in base 40k.

let's say I have an ork unit I want to move to attack an enemy situated in a terrain feature in base 40k.

I move my ork boyz 5" taking care not to move the front row too far because it's important for my charge roll later. I declare the charge, then stop while we resolve overwatch attacks. I roll saves, removing models individually for the fails. I then roll my charge roll and move the entire blob again, placing each model individually on the terrain to get the maximum number in coherency because I attack by the model.

I declare they will attack. I move the entire blob individually AGAIN, moving each model to get more models in on the pile in. I maneuver the individual models in the terrain piece.

We resolve the fighting, removing individual models as we fail saves. I move the entire blob AGAIN for the consolidation.

Now, how do I do that in apoc?

I declare an assault order. I move the unit once, 10" with no dice rolling. If any model touches the agreed upon boundary of the terrain piece, I make all my close combat attacks against any units within the terrain piece.

There is no overwatch, separate charge move, individual model removal, pile-in, or consolidate.

The terrain rules are another HUGE help with time. You embark into terrain like you would a transport: it doesn't matter at all where in the terrain piece the models are actually located, and the terrain piece is then used in lieu of any of the models inside to determine who can see who and who can fight who.

That's a big improvement in terms of time spent carefully placing models trying to make sure they can still draw LOS and don't fall out of the windows. You can just place your models in either as quick-and-dirty or as narratively pleasing way as you like, somewhere in the building, and not have to worry about the micro-impact of where you put them, on which floor, how far can they move, etc.

Have gotten 5 games in so far, all at 100PL. Has been a lot of fun. I see MASSIVE potential. For a version 1.0, it's damn good.

Some issues are:

Data sheets need some work, but not much. There are some oddities..

# of attacks is confusing sometimes

The nomenclature could have been better, use "Deepstrike phase" instead of "Reinforcements phase", use "Strength Against Lights" and "Strength Against Heavies" instead of SAP/SAT, for example.

A couple more order choices would be cool, like "take a knee" so that friendlies can shoot through you (which requires a rule that you can't shoot through friendlies). Maybe a "low crawl" that allows a half move but gives you Obscured and -1 to shooting and fighting.

Sometimes you actually WANT 2 small blast markers instead of a large, it would be nice to have that option - better for killing large mob units..

So I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for this question, but I'm confused about # of attacks. For example a unit of 9 Grotesques - they have 6 attacks with Flesh Gauntlets, and then I give them either a Liquifier or Cleaver PER MODEL. So if I have 8 with Cleavers and then 1 with a Liquifier, that means I get a total of 6 attacks with Gauntlets, 16 attacks with cleavers, and 1 attack with liquifier (assuming no B2B contact). Is that correct?

Same thing with Windriders - If i have a unit of 3 and they all have Twin Shuriken Catapults, does that mean I then get 6 attacks total? Or would I get a total of 2?

Thanks in advance.

jamshaman wrote:
Have gotten 5 games in so far, all at 100PL. Has been a lot of fun. I see MASSIVE potential. For a version 1.0, it's damn good.

Some issues are:

Data sheets need some work, but not much. There are some oddities..

# of attacks is confusing sometimes

The nomenclature could have been better, use "Deepstrike phase" instead of "Reinforcements phase", use "Strength Against Lights" and "Strength Against Heavies" instead of SAP/SAT, for example.

A couple more order choices would be cool, like "take a knee" so that friendlies can shoot through you (which requires a rule that you can't shoot through friendlies). Maybe a "low crawl" that allows a half move but gives you Obscured and -1 to shooting and fighting.

Sometimes you actually WANT 2 small blast markers instead of a large, it would be nice to have that option - better for killing large mob units..

So I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for this question, but I'm confused about # of attacks. For example a unit of 9 Grotesques - they have 6 attacks with Flesh Gauntlets, and then I give them either a Liquifier or Cleaver PER MODEL. So if I have 8 with Cleavers and then 1 with a Liquifier, that means I get a total of 6 attacks with Gauntlets, 16 attacks with cleavers, and 1 attack with liquifier (assuming no B2B contact). Is that correct?

Same thing with Windriders - If i have a unit of 3 and they all have Twin Shuriken Catapults, does that mean I then get 6 attacks total? Or would I get a total of 2?

Thanks in advance.

Any weapon with a fixed number of attacks grants a number of attacks equal to that number times the number of weapons you have. So if your tank has 2 heavy bolters, obviously it gets 2 shots. Same deal with your 8 cleavers - they grant 16 attacks. And your 3 Twin Shuriken Catapults - 6 attacks.

weapons based on User attacks only scale with the users attack stat, and I have yet to come across any User weapons you can take multiple of, though they could theoretically exist I suppose.

jamshaman wrote:

So I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for this question, but I'm confused about # of attacks. For example a unit of 9 Grotesques - they have 6 attacks with Flesh Gauntlets, and then I give them either a Liquifier or Cleaver PER MODEL. So if I have 8 with Cleavers and then 1 with a Liquifier, that means I get a total of 6 attacks with Gauntlets, 16 attacks with cleavers, and 1 attack with liquifier (assuming no B2B contact). Is that correct?

Assuming no BSB you get 1 attack at 8" auto-hitting with the Liquifier. In melee you get 6 Attacks (unit gets 6 attacks at 9 models) with the Flesh Gauntlets and 16 (8 equipped models at 2 attacks each) with the Cleavers. Note that you attack with all equipped weapons and can split the targets of the weapons. (Flesh Gauntlets against unit A and Cleavers against unit B)

BomBomHotdog wrote:

jamshaman wrote:

So I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for this question, but I'm confused about # of attacks. For example a unit of 9 Grotesques - they have 6 attacks with Flesh Gauntlets, and then I give them either a Liquifier or Cleaver PER MODEL. So if I have 8 with Cleavers and then 1 with a Liquifier, that means I get a total of 6 attacks with Gauntlets, 16 attacks with cleavers, and 1 attack with liquifier (assuming no B2B contact). Is that correct?

Assuming no BSB you get 1 attack at 8" auto-hitting with the Liquifier. In melee you get 6 Attacks (unit gets 6 attacks at 9 models) with the Flesh Gauntlets and 16 (8 equipped models at 2 attacks each) with the Cleavers. Note that you attack with all equipped weapons and can split the targets of the weapons. (Flesh Gauntlets against unit A and Cleavers against unit B)

You don't need to split them on a weapon by weapon basis, you can on an attack by attack basis, even if the weapon is A:User.

Apoc Field Manual, Page 32 wrote:If a weapon has an Attacks characteristic greater than 1, you can direct all of the attacks at the same target, or split them between different enemy units.

Since a weapon with A:User has an attack characteristic "equal to the unit's current Attacks characteristic", it means a A:User weapon on a unit with an attack characteristic of 3 has A:3 and can split those 3 attacks as they desire.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

BomBomHotdog wrote:

jamshaman wrote:

So I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for this question, but I'm confused about # of attacks. For example a unit of 9 Grotesques - they have 6 attacks with Flesh Gauntlets, and then I give them either a Liquifier or Cleaver PER MODEL. So if I have 8 with Cleavers and then 1 with a Liquifier, that means I get a total of 6 attacks with Gauntlets, 16 attacks with cleavers, and 1 attack with liquifier (assuming no B2B contact). Is that correct?

Assuming no BSB you get 1 attack at 8" auto-hitting with the Liquifier. In melee you get 6 Attacks (unit gets 6 attacks at 9 models) with the Flesh Gauntlets and 16 (8 equipped models at 2 attacks each) with the Cleavers. Note that you attack with all equipped weapons and can split the targets of the weapons. (Flesh Gauntlets against unit A and Cleavers against unit B)

You don't need to split them on a weapon by weapon basis, you can on an attack by attack basis, even if the weapon is A:User.

Apoc Field Manual, Page 32 wrote:If a weapon has an Attacks characteristic greater than 1, you can direct all of the attacks at the same target, or split them between different enemy units.

Since a weapon with A:User has an attack characteristic "equal to the unit's current Attacks characteristic", it means a A:User weapon on a unit with an attack characteristic of 3 has A:3 and can split those 3 attacks as they desire.

Incorrect. You can point each profile at a different target. You cannot divide up the shots from a single profile to different targets.

 Lance845 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

BomBomHotdog wrote:

jamshaman wrote:

So I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for this question, but I'm confused about # of attacks. For example a unit of 9 Grotesques - they have 6 attacks with Flesh Gauntlets, and then I give them either a Liquifier or Cleaver PER MODEL. So if I have 8 with Cleavers and then 1 with a Liquifier, that means I get a total of 6 attacks with Gauntlets, 16 attacks with cleavers, and 1 attack with liquifier (assuming no B2B contact). Is that correct?

Assuming no BSB you get 1 attack at 8" auto-hitting with the Liquifier. In melee you get 6 Attacks (unit gets 6 attacks at 9 models) with the Flesh Gauntlets and 16 (8 equipped models at 2 attacks each) with the Cleavers. Note that you attack with all equipped weapons and can split the targets of the weapons. (Flesh Gauntlets against unit A and Cleavers against unit B)

You don't need to split them on a weapon by weapon basis, you can on an attack by attack basis, even if the weapon is A:User.

Apoc Field Manual, Page 32 wrote:If a weapon has an Attacks characteristic greater than 1, you can direct all of the attacks at the same target, or split them between different enemy units.

Since a weapon with A:User has an attack characteristic "equal to the unit's current Attacks characteristic", it means a A:User weapon on a unit with an attack characteristic of 3 has A:3 and can split those 3 attacks as they desire.

Incorrect. You can point each profile at a different target. You cannot divide up the shots from a single profile to different targets.

It seems I've gotten some wires crossed. For shooting that is the case, each weapon must target a single unit, but for melee attacks you can split attacks for each weapon. That was my mistake!

BCB has made a rules error!
*klaxon sound blaring*

the_scotsman wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

Pretty stupid. If you want to simulate mass warfare you play Epic. You want to play skirmish? Fine, play 40K.

Epic hasn't been supported by GW for 20+ years now. The last release was in 1997.

I'm sure there's still community support for it, but you can't seriously recommend that to a new player instead of the new release that seems to be generally well liked.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. At least one thing is certain:
Trying to play Epic with 40K models costs an arm and a leg. It seems most of the geeks of today are filthy rich to endeavor such a thought.
Another matter is table size. You will have to rent a hall to have enough space for all the models in company strength. Yeah, have fun.

....you do know that nothing stops you from playing apoc at 100PL, right? And that the table size for that game would be...exactly the same size as a standard 40k game? and exactly the same models? Except for the fact that the formula they used to balance the units and the greatly reduced requirements for your models to be legally WYSIWYG makes it actually require fewer models and less monetary investment than a standard game of 40k?

Fewer models? . Now I am sure that you don't know what you are talking about. Apocalypse has always been about taking your entire 40K collection to the table, placing them down for hours and seeing them evaporate in one or two turns.

Maybe in the past, but not now. In addition to working for huge games and medium games it's a superior ruleset for "normal" 2000 point games. Hell, replace detachment activations with unit by unit activations and it would probably also be better for 500-1000 point games.

 Ratius wrote:
BCB has made a rules error!
*klaxon sound blaring*

No rules error, just talking about different scenarios!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Maybe in the past, but not now. In addition to working for huge games and medium games it's a superior ruleset for "normal" 2000 point games. Hell, replace detachment activations with unit by unit activations and it would probably also be better for 500-1000 point games.

I really would like to see how unit by unit activation works. If you treat each unit as it's own detachment you'd even remove the problem you have with things like "double shoot" cards affecting multiple units.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Maybe in the past, but not now. In addition to working for huge games and medium games it's a superior ruleset for "normal" 2000 point games. Hell, replace detachment activations with unit by unit activations and it would probably also be better for 500-1000 point games.

I really would like to see how unit by unit activation works. If you treat each unit as it's own detachment you'd even remove the problem you have with things like "double shoot" cards affecting multiple units.

It would need more brainstorming. There's a problem with Commanders in "treat each unit like a detachment".

The brainstorming would be worthwhile. Apocalypse is an enormously better ruleset than 40k.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Maybe in the past, but not now. In addition to working for huge games and medium games it's a superior ruleset for "normal" 2000 point games. Hell, replace detachment activations with unit by unit activations and it would probably also be better for 500-1000 point games.

I really would like to see how unit by unit activation works. If you treat each unit as it's own detachment you'd even remove the problem you have with things like "double shoot" cards affecting multiple units.

It would need more brainstorming. There's a problem with Commanders in "treat each unit like a detachment".

The brainstorming would be worthwhile. Apocalypse is an enormously better ruleset than 40k.

How so? It just means every unit is it's own commander. Only issue is that every CHARACTER can become a WARLORD, but that can be fixed by making only HQs WARLORDS.

the_scotsman wrote:


I move my ork boyz 5" taking care not to move the front row too far because it's important for my charge roll later. I declare the charge, then stop while we resolve overwatch attacks. I roll saves, removing models individually for the fails. I then roll my charge roll and move the entire blob again, placing each model individually on the terrain to get the maximum number in coherency because I attack by the model.

I declare they will attack. I move the entire blob individually AGAIN, moving each model to get more models in on the pile in. I maneuver the individual models in the terrain piece.

We resolve the fighting, removing individual models as we fail saves. I move the entire blob AGAIN for the consolidation.

Now, how do I do that in apoc?

I declare an assault order. I move the unit once, 10" with no dice rolling. If any model touches the agreed upon boundary of the terrain piece, I make all my close combat attacks against any units within the terrain piece.

There is no overwatch, separate charge move, individual model removal, pile-in, or consolidate.

This! For the love of all that is unholy, I so much hate that stupid fraction-of-an-inch manoeuvring in the charge and fight phases in regular 40k. If I weren't stuck at home with my newborn daughter, I'd be rounding up my gaming pals and locking them up until they all start using the apoc ruleset for every game of 40k.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

The brainstorming would be worthwhile. Apocalypse is an enormously better ruleset than 40k.

How so? It just means every unit is it's own commander. Only issue is that every CHARACTER can become a WARLORD, but that can be fixed by making only HQs WARLORDS.

I might be convoluting many effects for Commanders that are actually for Characters. I can just re-read the cards and such later to see. If that's the case, I rescind my comments.