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 vaguely recall that game, it was a flash in the pan, blink and you miss it. Shame as it seemed good.
It was good, but unlike The Painted Owl implied, its game system was simple on design, not because "it was honest on its lack of depth / because GW is unable to do games like that". Because the designers knew Apocalypse's scale means depths of layer would get in the way of players for no real addition of fun, but would just be more time wasting.
People actually didn't hate it, but simply, Apocalypse was always intended to a very small portion of players : those who had the collection (and finances) big enough to be able to play at that scale. It wasn't a commercial success because of that.
(and to be honest, it was more the cards that were a problem, not the core rules)
Here with LI, it's more a question to specifically use an older edition as base for the rules than wanting to make the simplest design ever. Reality with game design is that there's no real bad rules : they're just a convention people agree on to have fun together, and there are simply different expectations from players (some having a very stubborn view on what "the perfect game rules" should be).
This video does a good example of fleshing out all the "epic's". As someone who hasn't played any edition I get why something that has been around so long has so many people invested in what they feel the best edition to be and from the cursory glances at the editions I get why there would be strengths and weaknesses to each iteration.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/23 16:08:16
I vaguely recall that game, it was a flash in the pan, blink and you miss it. Shame as it seemed good.
It was good, but unlike The Painted Owl implied, its game system was simple on design, not because "it was honest on its lack of depth / because GW is unable to do games like that". Because the designers knew Apocalypse's scale means depths of layer would get in the way of players for no real addition of fun, but would just be more time wasting.
I suspect the failure of a mass combat game, normally requiring a large number of players, that came out end of 2018 start of 2019, may not have been entirely GWs fault.
As well as the Warmasters being way less points, when all other titans are up from their titanicus point values, I've just realised that the Psy-Warlord is also less.
If the leaked titan stats are correct, then this could be the Porphyrion issue all over again. I think this might be the deal breaker for me.
Crablezworth wrote: This video does a good example of fleshing out all the "epic's". As someone who hasn't played any edition I get why something that has been around so long has so many people invested in what they feel the best edition to be and from the cursory glances at the editions I get why there would be strengths and weaknesses to each iteration.
Amusingly, while the video serves its purpose, it (like GW's warcom articles) sells Armageddon way short, given that it is the currently most played and talked about iteration of Epic with the most tactically interesting gameplay. Sure 2nd ed was on GW shelves the longest, but its mainly played at home by folks who enjoy its quirks and E40k has been gaining some steam recently, despite usually being remembered for the initial rejection by many.
I played from 2nd Ed thru Armageddon. Armageddon was the superior ruleset with more ability for games to be found. I actually liked E40k but couldn't get anyone to play and 2nd Ed, while good, didn't feel as good as Armageddon. Granted 2nd Ed was when I was a kid and Armageddon was as a young adult.
Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)
They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016)
I prefer Epic 40k but Armageddon is a mighty fine game (the worst part for me is army building, which to me feels very restrictive for no good reasons).
2nd edition, to me, is a distant third, and I never played 1st edition.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/23 19:47:59
I suspect the failure of a mass combat game, normally requiring a large number of players, that came out end of 2018 start of 2019, may not have been entirely GWs fault.
The last Apocalypse came out in July 2019. About 6 months later COVID hit, so I can definitely see why the game never saw a reprint.
It's a shame though, the rules were solid and definitely the best incarnation of the concept so far. We had a fullday game of it at my local club as recently as last Xmas.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/23 22:25:16
I suspect the failure of a mass combat game, normally requiring a large number of players, that came out end of 2018 start of 2019, may not have been entirely GWs fault.
The last Apocalypse came out in July 2019. About 6 months later COVID hit, so I can definitely see why the game never saw a reprint.
It's a shame though, the rules were solid and definitely the best incarnation of the concept so far. We had a fullday game of it at my local club as recently as last Xmas.
Did it even get anything but the most barebones support during those six months though?
I also do not see how LI is related to Apoc: their similarities start and end with being a mass battle game set in the wider 40K universe. Different scale, different buy-in amounts different requirements for table sizes and players needed, completely different target demographic.
tneva82 wrote: Why points would have to be same as in titanicus? Different gamn, different values.
They aren't even same as in 40k...
The more same they are the more suspicious it is indicating lack
of balance
Nothing wrong with Titans costing more or less in different systems, but the differences between the titans should be somewhat consistant and inline with their characters.
Whithout wanting to be pedantic covid wasnt taken seriously until late march, at least in spain , so it's nine months without further support appart from an additional set of command assets. So it's quite reasonable to see the game as what was planned from the beggining, and it works well with what is in the box already. I remember it as a game with good rules and a set of datasheets that was too fussy for the scale of the game. So the only thing that coul be reasonably added was an alternative set of datasheets, because the original ones were badly thought but covered almost all the units in the game.
Light your way in the darkness with the pyres of burning heretics.
tneva82 wrote: Why points would have to be same as in titanicus? Different gamn, different values.
They aren't even same as in 40k...
The more same they are the more suspicious it is indicating lack
of balance
Nothing wrong with Titans costing more or less in different systems, but the differences between the titans should be somewhat consistant and inline with their characters.
Its nice knowing that your Titan is going to be the same cost no matter what the loadout it though. In 1st ed AT since they only had Warlords in the beginning, it actually had different classes of Warlords, some with just two weapons systems, these tended faster and cheaper, so you had to add up points and figure a bunch of stuff out...in 2nd ed it was really easy to just grab a Titan knowing that the only variable was which weapons you took, but the points would still be same. Want less guns, take a Reaver.
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
tneva82 wrote: Why points would have to be same as in titanicus? Different gamn, different values.
They aren't even same as in 40k...
The more same they are the more suspicious it is indicating lack
of balance
Nothing wrong with Titans costing more or less in different systems, but the differences between the titans should be somewhat consistant and inline with their characters.
So should cost arbitary number over true value in game?
Did it even get anything but the most barebones support during those six months though?
I also do not see how LI is related to Apoc: their similarities start and end with being a mass battle game set in the wider 40K universe. Different scale, different buy-in amounts different requirements for table sizes and players needed, completely different target demographic.
To be fair there wasn't much support to give other than adding the small handful of new 40k datasheets and/or arranging a reprint. It's possible the original plan was to reprint the main Apoc box sometime in 2020/21 like they did with the AT GME or Blackstone Fortress.
It's relevant because this subject was first brought up when discussing how LI/Epic could have used non-D6-based rules, and how popular those were in other GW games. There was a suggestion that using D12's was a factor in Apocalypse's short run.
Nothing wrong with Titans costing more or less in different systems, but the differences between the titans should be somewhat consistant and inline with their characters.
Not if the core game rules discourage large expensive single units via diminishing returns. Hell, due to this reason units like Baneblades might not even have the same point cost across two games of LI. I can bring six of them in a single squadron for 490pts, while if they're taken in detachments of 1 or 2 that gets closer to 600pts.
So should cost arbitary number over true value in game?
No, you misunderstand the point I'm making here...
For example, lets say that a new game system places a warhound titan at 1000 points but a Warlord at 1100 points. No matter how the rules spin it, a Warlord is a much larger, heavier and destructive engine and the warhound much smaller, fragile and less powerful. 100 points difference is simply not enough to reflect the difference between those two titans, and one of those unit's points value is clearly in error - possibily both.
In both 40K and Titanicus you can have two Warhounds for every Warlord, even though the point values are different between the two games. I don't know what the difference is in The Horus Heresy but I'd be very surprised if it were not roughly the same.
Another example is the Acastus Knights and how they measure up to a titan; its an engine that can "rival" a scout titan. Therefore the only titan close enough to it in Titanicus or 40K is the regular Warhound. The points difference between them in 40K is straight up ridiculous as they're less than half the cost of a Warhound, and doesn't begin to suggest a rival at all. Points wise thats the difference between a Guardsman and a Space Marine. While the rules might be sound in that an Acastus can rival a Warhound, its broken if we can purchase two Acastus for every Warhound.
Now, getting back to the Warmaster and Psi-Warlord - Titanicus being the only game to represent them at this time; A Warmaster costs as much as two Warlords, and the Psi-Warlord is about roughly 35% more than a regular Warlord. And for good reason, because in both lore and rules a Warmaster is going to trash a Warlord, and a Psi-Warlord has better weaponary than a regular Warlord has access to.
So its not important how much units cost in a game, but the difference in relation to each other most certainly is.
really loved the way first edition in Codex Titanicus gave you the build flexibility with titans, a "scout warlord" being perfectly viable for example, ditto fire support titans and so on
I suspect the failure of a mass combat game, normally requiring a large number of players, that came out end of 2018 start of 2019, may not have been entirely GWs fault.
The last Apocalypse came out in July 2019. About 6 months later COVID hit, so I can definitely see why the game never saw a reprint.
It's a shame though, the rules were solid and definitely the best incarnation of the concept so far. We had a fullday game of it at my local club as recently as last Xmas.
Did it even get anything but the most barebones support during those six months though?
I also do not see how LI is related to Apoc: their similarities start and end with being a mass battle game set in the wider 40K universe. Different scale, different buy-in amounts different requirements for table sizes and players needed, completely different target demographic.
The other two epics were also set in 40K rather than 30K and with the level of abstraction per unit (tactical squads might just have a stand with a special weapon) and that infantry were mounted 5 to a stand as a single unit - it might as well be considered part of that family. There were definitely people using epic models and 40Kapoc rules with an inch to cm conversion (which would get it to a regular table size) at the time to try out the ruleset, as well as the perrennial 'travel 40K'.
I'd be tempted to include it as it was also the last stage on the 'Blast Markers and morale' path that started with Epic40K, which makes LI going back to the start that bit more suprising.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/24 10:56:18
Crablezworth wrote: This video does a good example of fleshing out all the "epic's". As someone who hasn't played any edition I get why something that has been around so long has so many people invested in what they feel the best edition to be and from the cursory glances at the editions I get why there would be strengths and weaknesses to each iteration.
Thanks for posting this
That's a nice vid and well worth a watch, covers everything nicely I thought in a short video.
I liked especially that they mentioned some of the community supported versions of the game and proxy miniatures after support of the official games ceased.
As for favourite versions.. I think everyone has one. I would say 2nd/Titan Legions is probably my favourite, just because there is a big nostalgia element for me, I *love* playing Orks (and they are suitably chaotic in that edition!) and it copes really well with massive point mega battles.
I do like Armageddon too though, it's a deeply tactical game and tremendously satisfying to play (I always think it's a great game design when your opponent pulls of an excellent strategy, and you can admire and commend them for it, rather than just picking some awful NetList deathstar unit, resulting from lack of game balance, and smashing you with it!) I didn't like however that they made Orks and Chaos in particular quite boring, and the Titan rules also lost something by changing to an HP-bar and doing away with the hit charts. 1st edition SM and Epic 40k I have yet to play unfortunately, but would love to give them a try one day.
Will be interesting to see where Legions Imperialis falls on that scale, and what will happen in a year's time if we ask "what is your favourite version of Epic?"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/24 10:56:54
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Oooh, we’re expecting to see some form of artillery shown off today.
more interested in the rules, the old "Barrage points" idea was good where overlapping markers made it worse, if its back to a basilisk battery can fire twice and is by rare the recommended way to strip void shields it will be disappointing
I suspect the failure of a mass combat game, normally requiring a large number of players, that came out end of 2018 start of 2019, may not have been entirely GWs fault.
The last Apocalypse came out in July 2019. About 6 months later COVID hit, so I can definitely see why the game never saw a reprint.
It's a shame though, the rules were solid and definitely the best incarnation of the concept so far. We had a fullday game of it at my local club as recently as last Xmas.
Did it even get anything but the most barebones support during those six months though?
I also do not see how LI is related to Apoc: their similarities start and end with being a mass battle game set in the wider 40K universe. Different scale, different buy-in amounts different requirements for table sizes and players needed, completely different target demographic.
The other two epics were also set in 40K rather than 30K and with the level of abstraction per unit (tactical squads might just have a stand with a special weapon) and that infantry were mounted 5 to a stand as a single unit - it might as well be considered part of that family. There were definitely people using epic models and 40Kapoc rules with an inch to cm conversion (which would get it to a regular table size) at the time to try out the ruleset, as well as the perrennial 'travel 40K'.
I'd be tempted to include it as it was also the last stage on the 'Blast Markers and morale' path that started with Epic40K, which makes LI going back to the start that bit more suprising.
Apoc is firmly within the Epic family as a ruleset, yes. It combined many ideas from previous games in very recognisable ways (orders, blast markers, AP/AT weapon values etc.). Some of its ideas are in all honesty pretty great, like the delayed feedback from damage as casualties are resolved at the end of the round or how garrisoning terrain is made clear. I played some games of it with Epic minis in centimetres and it works fine on a 6' x 4' table. Its certainly more of a casual affair, but not a bad game.
Hopefully both. Their messaging on Monday said flyers next, though last Thursday did mention earth shaking firepower. Which many thought meant ES cannons (artillery vehicles), but maybe it could have meant the titans. I hope not, as I want to see even more vehicles!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/24 12:36:54
This sounds like you'd be able to build all 8 with the same weapon?
Each box provides eight vehicles that can be assembled as the support platform of your choice, so you can fill your need for fire support at whatever range suits you best.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/08/24 13:00:35
