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 had a really fun game as Necrons vs Dark Angels. The setup and going over the rules took a bit, but after the first round, it went a lot faster. It's a lot of flipping through datasheets, so it's definitely worth it to pick up the datacards. 40k needs to adopt a lot of these rules. Maybe GW is afraid that people are saying the rules are better than 40k, and they're purposefully ignoring Apoc because they want people to continue thinking 40k is best?

Regardless, the game is a lot of fun and I hope they support and update it in the future.

wisetiger7 wrote:
I had a really fun game as Necrons vs Dark Angels. The setup and going over the rules took a bit, but after the first round, it went a lot faster. It's a lot of flipping through datasheets, so it's definitely worth it to pick up the datacards. 40k needs to adopt a lot of these rules. Maybe GW is afraid that people are saying the rules are better than 40k, and they're purposefully ignoring Apoc because they want people to continue thinking 40k is best?

Regardless, the game is a lot of fun and I hope they support and update it in the future.

I wouldn't be surprised. For all it's lack of quality, 8th edition has sold gangbusters (shows what good marketing and toyetic models can do). Apocalypse is vastly superior but seems to have been kneecapped out the gate.

Interesting article in latest White Dwarf by Robbin Cruddacce going through the designer choices

Many of the issues raised that they wanted to solve and their soloutions

Accessible and Intuitive - simple but tactical
Quicker Gameplay- per unit
Minimal Downtime- altenating actions to avoid one player sitting watching - esp movment
Get to use all your models - nothing dies to end of turn

are often seen as the problems with normal 40k....

Get to use all your models - nothing dies to end of turn

An absolutely key factor considering the alpha strike heavy / high damage state 40k is in.

 Ratius wrote:

Get to use all your models - nothing dies to end of turn

An absolutely key factor considering the alpha strike heavy / high damage state 40k is in.

Indeed - so they know what the issues are..... I think that makes it worse.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Ratius wrote:

Get to use all your models - nothing dies to end of turn

An absolutely key factor considering the alpha strike heavy / high damage state 40k is in.

Indeed - so they know what the issues are..... I think that makes it worse.

It LITERALLY says in the book that they wanted to fix this problem.

But they choose a suboptimal way to do so.
The importance of which detachment to activate first is very often rather low, because it will be able to fight anyway. Also by not removing anything blocking forces are really blocking. In 40k there is not enough movement anyway(IMHO) and this rule doesn't make it better.
The better solution would have been to change the profiles so that a unit can't destroy a unit of equal points cost in one shooting face (except special cases) - which might be already the case. And activate unit wise, not detachment-wise. So before killed the target unit could rally, fight back, or hide before the opponent has the chance to destroy it. And if a unit destroys a decisively cheaper unit in one shooting phase, the owner shouldn't have placed it there - or that was the plan all the time, to draw the fire to an unimportant unit.. And it would give the order of activations additional importance,
It would also be possible to create holes in the enemies front ready to be exploited or to be "filled" in a hurry, In addition units shouldn't be able to split fire. I know some will disagree, but restricting fire to a single target, will only allow those units to kill off a single enemy unit and not whole detachments, giving other units the ability to fight back and not just being destroyed before they can act.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Sadly Apocalypse seems to be dead on the vine. GW have refused to fix the errors in the datasheets or provide any form of matched play rules.

It's actually pretty upsetting.

This is where I'm at. Really grumpy at how it was just dumped.

Im am less sure apoc is dead and more thinking its simply a lower priority with a slower update cycle.

Well I am primarily playing apoc now, rather than 40k, so if gw want my money they better think about getting apoc data sheets for the new releases (I'm looking at you impulsor), otherwise they are doing themselves out of some sales.

There is an update of datsheets today and some kind of an er. As short as it it errata is too long a word for it.

>mfw all they did was bump Skittari up to 8 PL while leaving 36 attack Kastellans

Glad to see the new marine units have rules, but disappointed the necron cryptec still can't use the canoptek cloak (fly and increased movement) considering that's the model they include with the necron apocalypse box set!

Hey now, BCB, they also changed the Ork Battle Fortress from costing either 8 or 12 to 20(!) while still not actually giving it a gun it's allowed to replace in its entry. So, you know, progress. I imagine the number of discussions about the mystery gun will be lessened by increasing its cost to 250% of the original, after all.

They did clear up the Kustom Stompa's cost, too (and didn't even double it!), and clarified that a character doesn't have to have the highest Ld to be in charge (important for Orks, who could otherwise never command full squads of boyz).

I posted this in another thread in the 40k forum:

After playing the new Apocalypse at approximately 2000 points per side (a fairly standard-sized 40k game these days), I'm sold on a mix of D6 and D12 for different types of actions/rolls. I'm also sold on anti-tank weapons working much better against tanks, anti-personnel weapons working much better against personnel, no AP modifiers, no invulnerable saves, no first-turn alpha strikes, alternating activations, less down time, less dice needed, less CP and stratagem combo shenanigans, more strategy when choosing which units to activate and when, and actual damage unknown and not determined until after both sides have completed all of their actions. The new Apocalpyse rules do away with the vast majority of issues I have with 40k and I honestly wish they would become the major basis for a new 9th edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

brumbaer wrote:
There is an update of datsheets today and some kind of an er. As short as it it errata is too long a word for it.

Any explanation for the green text in some of the datasheets? See the last datasheets for Rough Riders in the new Astra Militarum file and Cultists of the Abyss in Heretic Astartes' file. Is this for some "Legends" OOP models?

Green is supposed to be new/changed.

Some decades ago there were Rough Riders.
Tallarn as well as generic models,

brumbaer wrote:
Green is supposed to be new/changed.

Some decades ago there were Rough Riders.
Tallarn as well as generic models,

Nice Tallarn rough riders. I'm not sure about green being for new/changed, as I've noticed some datasheets with changed points values and weapon entries not in green, as well as some new datasheets in the Space Marines' file that are not green.

Whatever the reason, I'm glad to see that GW is making some effort to clean up the game's rules and datasheets.

Still can't use my Ta'unars, good job GW

You can. It's in the FW-Tau_Empire pdf,

They haven't fixed the rules for them, No Cluster Launcher, etc

While not a great update it is an update. Games not dead. And Orks can use characters as commanders to draw cards now.

I am having trouble figuring out what they changed for Nids.... Did they add Shrikes to the FW datasheets or was I missing those last time?

I keep wanting to play, but they keep the Eldar Titan rules crap so it just discourages me from using them.

A protective field rule ignored by the enemy standing still using a core action?

A main gun that doesn't even have destroyer on it?

Weapons in general that are just not very good at taking out enemy titans?

With most imperial Titans effectively ignoring 2 hits a turn, the Eldar ones just don't have the output to do much to them.

It's like they just want you to fight in melee with them exclusively.

What Titan are you talking about ?

The Phantom has besides other weapons 2 D-Bombards That's 4 shots hitting on 2s, Wounding on 3s and doing 4 blast markers for each "hit going through".

The Revenant seems to be fine compared to a Warhound. So it fits in.

brumbaer wrote:
What Titan are you talking about ?

The Phantom has besides other weapons 2 D-Bombards That's 4 shots hitting on 2s, Wounding on 3s and doing 4 blast markers for each "hit going through".

The Revenant seems to be fine compared to a Warhound. So it fits in.

For +24powrr you can 'upgrade' that bombard to a dire pulsar with identical stats except it has no destroyer and 2 more shots - why would you ever spend that? If they gave it destroyer it would at least have an equal number of potential blast markers as the bombard. Extra range it irrelevant when your enemy's guns are longer ranged.


The revenant's pulsar is just as bad, the turbo laser destructor is superior - longer range, better sap and sat, AND. It has destroyer. It's shields ignore 1 blast marker a turn while just standing still keeps it shooting at 2+ against the revenant putting tonnes of markers on it.

In a shoot off there is no way a revanent is going to have a chance and it costs MORE than the warhound.

There is no point in trying to have a titan battle with Eldar titans which is the whole reason I want to play. They don't have Eldar in adeptus titanicus

Hellebore wrote:

brumbaer wrote:
What Titan are you talking about ?

The Phantom has besides other weapons 2 D-Bombards That's 4 shots hitting on 2s, Wounding on 3s and doing 4 blast markers for each "hit going through".

The Revenant seems to be fine compared to a Warhound. So it fits in.

For +24powrr you can 'upgrade' that bombard to a dire pulsar with identical stats except it has no destroyer and 2 more shots - why would you ever spend that? If they gave it destroyer it would at least have an equal number of potential blast markers as the bombard. Extra range it irrelevant when your enemy's guns are longer ranged.


The revenant's pulsar is just as bad, the turbo laser destructor is superior - longer range, better sap and sat, AND. It has destroyer. It's shields ignore 1 blast marker a turn while just standing still keeps it shooting at 2+ against the revenant putting tonnes of markers on it.

In a shoot off there is no way a revanent is going to have a chance and it costs MORE than the warhound.

There is no point in trying to have a titan battle with Eldar titans which is the whole reason I want to play. They don't have Eldar in adeptus titanicus

It's cool that you want to play to have a titan fight, but honestly that shouldn't be your only reason to want to play. You should play because it's better rules for normal games of 40k. Just play apoc instead of 40k.

Spending a lot of.money on models that suck is pretty disheartening.

Titans is where it's at for me.

I've actually been thinking of using the EPIC Armageddon rules for 40k miniatures - one model = one stand.

Those rules have me actual titan on titan battles that didn't have naff Eldar titan rules...

Hellebore wrote:

brumbaer wrote:
What Titan are you talking about ?

The Phantom has besides other weapons 2 D-Bombards That's 4 shots hitting on 2s, Wounding on 3s and doing 4 blast markers for each "hit going through".

The Revenant seems to be fine compared to a Warhound. So it fits in.

For +24powrr you can 'upgrade' that bombard to a dire pulsar with identical stats except it has no destroyer and 2 more shots - why would you ever spend that? If they gave it destroyer it would at least have an equal number of potential blast markers as the bombard. Extra range it irrelevant when your enemy's guns are longer ranged.


The revenant's pulsar is just as bad, the turbo laser destructor is superior - longer range, better sap and sat, AND. It has destroyer. It's shields ignore 1 blast marker a turn while just standing still keeps it shooting at 2+ against the revenant putting tonnes of markers on it.

In a shoot off there is no way a revanent is going to have a chance and it costs MORE than the warhound.

There is no point in trying to have a titan battle with Eldar titans which is the whole reason I want to play. They don't have Eldar in adeptus titanicus

The Dire Pulsar on the phantom titan does not cost more than the D-bombard, the +24PL cost is only for the Glaive and Starcannon weapon option.

A battle between a Warhound titan with laser destroyers and a Revenant titan with Pulsars does end in the Warhound destroying the Revenant in 6 rounds, while the Revenant only deals 11 damage to the Warhound. As has been pointed out before, the Destroyer keyword on the Laser Destroyer vs the Pulsar is meaningless because the pulsar has twice the number of attacks. If the two titans were to stand still simply shooting at each other, the player of the Revenant would be making a mistake, because it can use Advance moves to move 36" with FLY and still fire with 2+ BS, so it can close in to melee and get its melee attacks as a bit of bonus damage while the Warhound must continue to use Aimed Fire and thus cannot attack in melee.

The main difference however between the Warhound and Revenant which in almost any normal game would see the Revenant win is the fact that every Eldar aura, command cards and psychic powers can be applied to the Revenant, while the Warhound cannot benefit at all. A Revenant next to a Spiritseer rerolls 1s to hit. A revenant in an army with a Farseer can search its deck for any psychic power and benefit from it. A revenant near a Bonesinger can be healed on a 4+.

the_scotsman wrote:

Hellebore wrote:

brumbaer wrote:
What Titan are you talking about ?

The Phantom has besides other weapons 2 D-Bombards That's 4 shots hitting on 2s, Wounding on 3s and doing 4 blast markers for each "hit going through".

The Revenant seems to be fine compared to a Warhound. So it fits in.

For +24powrr you can 'upgrade' that bombard to a dire pulsar with identical stats except it has no destroyer and 2 more shots - why would you ever spend that? If they gave it destroyer it would at least have an equal number of potential blast markers as the bombard. Extra range it irrelevant when your enemy's guns are longer ranged.


The revenant's pulsar is just as bad, the turbo laser destructor is superior - longer range, better sap and sat, AND. It has destroyer. It's shields ignore 1 blast marker a turn while just standing still keeps it shooting at 2+ against the revenant putting tonnes of markers on it.

In a shoot off there is no way a revanent is going to have a chance and it costs MORE than the warhound.

There is no point in trying to have a titan battle with Eldar titans which is the whole reason I want to play. They don't have Eldar in adeptus titanicus

The Dire Pulsar on the phantom titan does not cost more than the D-bombard, the +24PL cost is only for the Glaive and Starcannon weapon option.

A battle between a Warhound titan with laser destroyers and a Revenant titan with Pulsars does end in the Warhound destroying the Revenant in 6 rounds, while the Revenant only deals 11 damage to the Warhound. As has been pointed out before, the Destroyer keyword on the Laser Destroyer vs the Pulsar is meaningless because the pulsar has twice the number of attacks. If the two titans were to stand still simply shooting at each other, the player of the Revenant would be making a mistake, because it can use Advance moves to move 36" with FLY and still fire with 2+ BS, so it can close in to melee and get its melee attacks as a bit of bonus damage while the Warhound must continue to use Aimed Fire and thus cannot attack in melee.

The main difference however between the Warhound and Revenant which in almost any normal game would see the Revenant win is the fact that every Eldar aura, command cards and psychic powers can be applied to the Revenant, while the Warhound cannot benefit at all. A Revenant next to a Spiritseer rerolls 1s to hit. A revenant in an army with a Farseer can search its deck for any psychic power and benefit from it. A revenant near a Bonesinger can be healed on a 4+.

My mistake. Either way, it's not as good as the bombard so there's no reason to ever use it. It can't cause the same amount of damage. Range is irrelevant because imperial titans can get longer ranged weaons anyway. You'll always be within range of an enemy weapon so standing further away penalises only you.

I did mention above that I didn't like the Eldar titans havjng to fight in melee as their only viable option. The revenant is 10pl more expensive, but will spend it's time kicking a warhound to death. Thats like a devestator unit's only effective strategy being punching their enemy rather than shooting them.

Adding extra units just makes it even more expensive.

I really hate GWs insistence on taxing a unit for a buff it MIGHT get. It seems only Eldar armies suffer that. It also forces you to take a restricted armyist just to get any decent use out of a unit. Make a spirit seer cost more - it's the thing doing the thing. ..


Epic Armageddon had the balance pretty good:

http://www.net-armageddon.org/rules.html



I think part of the problem is that GW is trying to make imperial titans have it all -better weapons, better resilience.
In epic the speed of Eldar titans meant they could get into rear arcs and shoot. Their holofield gave them a fixed save against anything that wasn't a barrage weapon.

They had good resilience and good weapons.

Punching rather than shooting is a bit misleading here, given titanic units can do both in the same activation, thus getting more mileage out of their long move stat. Also, objective grabbing is a thing and tables large.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Punching rather than shooting is a bit misleading here, given titanic units can do both in the same activation, thus getting more mileage out of their long move stat. Also, objective grabbing is a thing and tables large.

Ive...had this conversation before with this dude. He does not seem to have actually played a game of apocalypse, and generally ignores how a lot of the mechanics work beyond looking at two datasets and deciding they'd stand across from one another and shoot until one is dead. And even then...5 turns to die and dealing 11/12 hp in return is hardly a crushing defeat....

A single titan fighting a single other titan is basically never not going to be a snoozefest, regardless of match up. If you want any hope of either titan dying, you probably want to bring a supporting army alongside the titan. And if you play Eldar and bring absolutely no farseers, spiritseers, bonesingers or warlocks and you never get a psychic power in your hand and go "Hmmmmmmm, fortune on the 10 guardians, or Fortune on the titan? Decisions decisions...." then, sure. The Eldar titans are inefficient.

I'll let you in on a secret though: the imperial superheavies totally pay for buffs they might get. Just the ones who can get buffs, like marine and guard superheavies.