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've been lurking around here for quite a while reading up on lots of rules debate and discussion but one thing specifically caught my eye. That was someone making a case for Apocalypse being a better ruleset for regular games of 40k than the standard rulebook.

This took me for a surprise because the preconceived notion (or my preconceived notion) for Apocalypse was for narrative games above 3000ish points where you just want to use your entire collection without worrying too much about anything else. Fortunately or unfortunately I lean more towards the semi-competitive side of gameplay so that idea never really appealed to me until very recently.

Now I haven't had a thorough look at the Apocalypse rules but for the people that can crunch the fine details or just have plenty of tabletop experience with both which feels like the most balanced ruleset? Or at the very least is there any stock in believing that the Apocalypse is a decent sidegrade to the BRB with its own baggage?

Apocalypse has a better core ruleset, IMO.

-Alternating activations by detachment, rather than IGOUGO
-Units take saves and die at the end of the round rather than immediately after being wounded, meaning that alpha strike is greatly reduced
-Far fewer dice rolls and re-rolls, making resolution of combat actions far faster
-Removal of overwatch, random charge distance, and movement after deep strike makes melee far more viable
-Tighter unit coherency makes screens less problematic and unit movement much faster
-Abstracted LOS and terrain rules make for vastly fewer arguments
-A damage system that disincentivizes focusing fire makes the game in general far less deadly than 40k.

That said, if you released Apocalypse in the form it is right now alongside 40k as it is right now, Apocalypse would be much less balanced.

This is because certain units present such a mechanical problem in apocalypse that if you were to play it as cutthroat as a tournament game of 40k they would be impossible to beat.

Many of these are simple math errors (There's some silliness with Kastelan Robots accidentally being given multiplicative attacks, since you buy each individual robot a pair of fists or a pair of guns, and the number of attacks a robot with a pair of fists makes is based on the attacks stat of the WHOLE UNIT, meaning a 6-man robot unit with 6 fists make 6 melee attacks EACH rather than 6 melee attacks TOTAL....) But some are also mechanical issues.

Very small units that only cost 1PL are in general quite OP, especially if they can be taken as really big units. Ork Gretchin are an example of this - at a 30 model count they put out some super bonkers damage and are extremely durable just because of their low cost. Another good example is the Drukhari Ur-Ghul which is only 1PL but makes 2 fairly gakky attacks in melee. But because he's only 1 man, you can buy 10 ur-ghuls and put them in a Raider, and they'll basically shred any single unit that costs 10PL total with their 20 attacks. And in a game where most units fire only 1-2 dice, killing 10 separate units popping out of a single transport no matter how gakky is a huge challenge.

I don't doubt that if apoc was just "The new 40k" and received all the balance support we've had in 8th, we'd have a much more balanced game...after a month of emergency FAQs so we can stop being forced to kneel at the altar of our new god, the all-Kroot army of doom.

Everything Kroot is just laughably busted for some reason. Don't ask me why.

That may have been me recently, but I'm not the only one who has said it: the new Apocalypse rules do work well for standard-sized 40k games these days (~2000 points). A 2000 point 40k army works out to be about 120-150 power level, depending on the army and options taken, with about 4-5 detachments (Apocalypse works best with each detachment having just the minimum number of required units, plus maybe a character warlord to generate command assets, so each detachment can have a defined role/order - ex. charge and melee, advance and shoot, aim and shoot etc.; you don't need large detachments to generate CP).

That being said, I'm not sure how the rules would work in a tournament format due to the command asset cards. Deck construction would have to be controlled/monitored by the TO's, perhaps providing each player with the same set of generic cards that work with every army.

Edit: I agree that some units' datasheets need to be fixed and points values corrected. But the overwhelming majority of datasheets seem balanced pretty well in my experience. A few house rules or eventually GW updating the datasheets again would help solve most of the bad apples.

Here you go: https://www.beastsofwar.com/forums/topic/small-apocalypse-40k-demo-game-aar/

Hmm. Both of you seem to have a generally positive view of Apocalypse which I find fascinating. Have you completely migrated to that ruleset then in your gaming environment or is it more of a 'I would if the circumstances allowed?'


Another thought that came to mind is, would you recommend playing Apocalypse for someone who's taken an extensive hiatus from 8th Edition and is looking to come back in or would you advise to wait for Psychic Awakening/Chapter Approved to blow over? Asking for a friend of course....

Apocalypse has the stronger core, which is sensible given that it is built on GW writers having noted several problems with 40k, as Cruddance owns to in the commentary. Using Epic as a foundation is a good idea and the end result has managed to succeed in many of its objectives: less downtime, less dice, less feels-bad-man moments of having all your stuff blown up before getting to use them.

They are a bit different in purpose, given 40k works better on platoon level and Apoc on company level, but without any modifications Apoc offers more meaningful decision making for the players.

 Mixzremixzd wrote:
Hmm. Both of you seem to have a generally positive view of Apocalypse which I find fascinating. Have you completely migrated to that ruleset then in your gaming environment or is it more of a 'I would if the circumstances allowed?'


Another thought that came to mind is, would you recommend playing Apocalypse for someone who's taken an extensive hiatus from 8th Edition and is looking to come back in or would you advise to wait for Psychic Awakening/Chapter Approved to blow over? Asking for a friend of course....

For casual gaming, minus an occasional 40k pickup game at my local FLGS, I have completely migrated to Apocalypse for 40k games normally in the 1500+ point range.

For approximately the cost of the 8th BRB and a codex you can get the Apocalypse rules box which includes the markers and cards. All datasheets for all armies and FW are free. I would definitely recommend Apocalypse over standard 40k for someone that already has a full sized army and wants to get back into 40k. The rules are easier to learn IMO, just one page of simple USRs, the gameplay is better with more tactical opportunities, less balance issues, list building is quick, less dice rolling and rerolling, simpler data sheet rules, less chapter tactics-type complexities, no CP and stratagem shenanigans. I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it’s a big improvement for playing 40k games.

2nd edition

The better Core Ruleset is 5th edition.

jeff white wrote:2nd edition

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:The better Core Ruleset is 5th edition.

Don't derail the thread with which edition you prefer we've had plenty of threads of that nature

The core rules for Apoc are just amazing, i really hope a lot of it comes into the next edition.

the_scotsman said it really well.

I really like apoc, but I don’t like how characters are basically incapable of being impactful, and I wish there were more abilities on the units rather than being relegated to random cards

C4790M wrote:
I really like apoc, but I don’t like how characters are basically incapable of being impactful, and I wish there were more abilities on the units rather than being relegated to random cards

In apoc it makes since b.c a little dude vs knights and full armies wouldnt be that impactful. If you ported the activation's, D6/D12 system, and the damage system into 40k, you could still have very impactful heroes.

C4790M wrote:
I really like apoc, but I don’t like how characters are basically incapable of being impactful, and I wish there were more abilities on the units rather than being relegated to random cards

Characters as commanders/warlords are your primary source for command assets, so they are actually quite impactful. Plus many still provide aura abilities and increased leadership for units, and with morale checks happening so frequently and failed morale able to wipe an entire unit, every leadership buff is huge. Ex. Units like commissars and command squads don’t see the light of day anymore in regular 40k, but they can be very helpful in Apocalypse to buff leadership in the Imperial Guard. However, characters are able to be targeted and killed much easier than in standard 40k, so the benefits they bring can be countered/removed as part of game strategy.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Apocalypse has the stronger core, which is sensible given that it is built on GW writers having noted several problems with 40k, as Cruddance owns to in the commentary. Using Epic as a foundation is a good idea and the end result has managed to succeed in many of its objectives: less downtime, less dice, less feels-bad-man moments of having all your stuff blown up before getting to use them.

They are a bit different in purpose, given 40k works better on platoon level and Apoc on company level, but without any modifications Apoc offers more meaningful decision making for the players.

It also offers a very different experience for the players. IMO, 40k nowadays feels a lot like a marvel movie fight sequence - there's rules for all the cool heroes to do all the cool hero stuff and most of the units on the battlefield that you don't spend CP on are there to get dunked on.

So if you like your hero dudes to be badass then it's a good system. My last game for example was drukhari V space wolves and I had a haemonculus pretty much do all the stuff he could possibly do - killed a librarian with his Crucible stratagem, healed a talos, charged and sliced up a squad of blood claws. Meanwhile my opponent got to Lone Wolf a sergeant and murder a cronos and his jump captain smashed a raider and beat up all the dudes inside.

Individual heroes and the units you spend CP on feel cool. In apoc, your big formations of models feel impactful. Your battalion of Orks advances up the board while your detachment of tanks opens fire. It feels a bit more structured and things take a lot longer to die. Detachments that all have a coherent theme are the way to go.

I like then both for different reasons.

Yup, agree on that.

For me, 40k as a system pushes for cool duels that escalate to bar fights of dozen guys here and there. Apoc pushes for cohesive detachments maneuvering towards their given military objectives, reinforced further by us playing it with 6 mm miniatures that feel like a proper company on the field.

Both are cool.