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.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
The D12 system is far worse than AP and Damage. Boltguns were anti-titan and lascannons were anti-MEQ, because somehow 2 boltguns = 1 lascannon.

Um, what? The whole point of the D12 system was that you had separate anti-tank and anti-infantry values, making it easy to create weapons that were good at one but hopelessly bad at the other. And two attacks with boltguns represented an entire unit of 10 marines along with the unit's special weapon. So even if your comparison of D12 values is correct it's representing 9 boltguns + 1 plasma/melta gun = 1 lascannon.

And it's not like 40k is a deep game that can't be solved with a spreadsheet so at best your argument means that Apocalypse was no worse than 40k but had the virtue of being a far less bloated game.

If you do a spreadsheet for Apocalypse you find out unit X is best against everything.

If you do a spreadsheet for 10th edition you find out unit X is best against unit A, Y is best against unit B and Z is best against unit C.

The problem is that there is no separation between D12s and D6s, they're the same system, because 2D6s automatically turn into a D12. Boltguns are almost equally good against Carnifexes and Termagants, that's simply awfully simple. Lascannons are equally good against Carnifexes and Termagants. No amount of other changes will make up for this total brainfart of a system. It'd be like making every unit have the same Movement and Range characteristic and then people start clapping because you can use GW's new 6" measuring stick for all your units instead of having to bother with short-ranged flamers and long-ranged lascannons. No, flamers having a long range and being anti-horde is important, lascannons being long range anti-tank is important.

 vict0988 wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
The D12 system is far worse than AP and Damage. Boltguns were anti-titan and lascannons were anti-MEQ, because somehow 2 boltguns = 1 lascannon.

Um, what? The whole point of the D12 system was that you had separate anti-tank and anti-infantry values, making it easy to create weapons that were good at one but hopelessly bad at the other. And two attacks with boltguns represented an entire unit of 10 marines along with the unit's special weapon. So even if your comparison of D12 values is correct it's representing 9 boltguns + 1 plasma/melta gun = 1 lascannon.

And it's not like 40k is a deep game that can't be solved with a spreadsheet so at best your argument means that Apocalypse was no worse than 40k but had the virtue of being a far less bloated game.

If you do a spreadsheet for Apocalypse you find out unit X is best against everything.

If you do a spreadsheet for 10th edition you find out unit X is best against unit A, Y is best against unit B and Z is best against unit C.

The problem is that there is no separation between D12s and D6s, they're the same system, because 2D6s automatically turn into a D12. Boltguns are almost equally good against Carnifexes and Termagants, that's simply awfully simple. Lascannons are equally good against Carnifexes and Termagants. No amount of other changes will make up for this total brainfart of a system. It'd be like making every unit have the same Movement and Range characteristic and then people start clapping because you can use GW's new 6" measuring stick for all your units instead of having to bother with short-ranged flamers and long-ranged lascannons. No, flamers having a long range and being anti-horde is important, lascannons being long range anti-tank is important.

Mostly, 2d6 only has 11 results over a distribution bell curve where as a d12 should be linear over 12 values in a world where dice are perfect.

No, I'm saying in Apocalypse 2D6 get replaced with 1D12. Two S4 weapons in 40k do not get replaced with 1S8 shot, that'd be awful game design, which is what Apocalypse has.

The main advantage of a d12 over 2d6 is that you can roll multiple d12 easily while rolling multiple 2d6 is a pain unless you have fancy 2d6 dice (which is just a weirdly numbered d36).

 vict0988 wrote:
Lascannons are equally good against Carnifexes and Termagants.

Um, what? Lascannons are AT 5+ and AP 10+, meaning against a termagant squad you need a 10+ on a D12 to wound and against a carnifex you need a 5+ on the D12. How exactly do you think lascannons are "equally good" against both targets?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Lascannons are equally good against Carnifexes and Termagants.

Um, what? Lascannons are AT 5+ and AP 10+, meaning against a termagant squad you need a 10+ on a D12 to wound and against a carnifex you need a 5+ on the D12. How exactly do you think lascannons are "equally good" against both targets?

I believe Vict is conflating the damage markers (d6 vs d12) and the hit rolls.

If not, then I have no idea what he is talking about, since each weapon in 8th Apoc is clearly labeled for Anti tank or Anti personnel.

 Overread wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


At least with IGOUGO you know you are actually getting a turn. Half your army will be dead, but you will get a turn.

Unless its AoS then your opponent gets another turn and you're left with 1/8th of your army

unironically skill issue if you can't deal with the double turn. Prepping for it and mitigating its impact is part of the skill of the game

 vict0988 wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
The D12 system is far worse than AP and Damage. Boltguns were anti-titan and lascannons were anti-MEQ, because somehow 2 boltguns = 1 lascannon.

Um, what? The whole point of the D12 system was that you had separate anti-tank and anti-infantry values, making it easy to create weapons that were good at one but hopelessly bad at the other. And two attacks with boltguns represented an entire unit of 10 marines along with the unit's special weapon. So even if your comparison of D12 values is correct it's representing 9 boltguns + 1 plasma/melta gun = 1 lascannon.

And it's not like 40k is a deep game that can't be solved with a spreadsheet so at best your argument means that Apocalypse was no worse than 40k but had the virtue of being a far less bloated game.

If you do a spreadsheet for Apocalypse you find out unit X is best against everything.

If you do a spreadsheet for 10th edition you find out unit X is best against unit A, Y is best against unit B and Z is best against unit C.

The problem is that there is no separation between D12s and D6s, they're the same system, because 2D6s automatically turn into a D12. Boltguns are almost equally good against Carnifexes and Termagants, that's simply awfully simple. Lascannons are equally good against Carnifexes and Termagants. No amount of other changes will make up for this total brainfart of a system. It'd be like making every unit have the same Movement and Range characteristic and then people start clapping because you can use GW's new 6" measuring stick for all your units instead of having to bother with short-ranged flamers and long-ranged lascannons. No, flamers having a long range and being anti-horde is important, lascannons being long range anti-tank is important.

Have you even played the 2019 version of Apocalypse (released during 40k 8th edition)? As other posters have mentioned, there is a distinct difference in how most weapons compare against infantry (AP) and tanks/monsters (AT); AP and AT values can be quite different. Ex. A Multi-melta is designed to be an anti-tank weapon with 10+ AP, 4+ AT; it performs poorly against infantry squads, but very well against a tank/monster. A missile launcher, equipped with frag and krak missiles, can be a versatile "jack of all trades" with 7+ AP, 7+ AT; decent, but not particularly great versus either target.

A lascannon is definitely not "equally good against Carnifexes and Termagants" with AP 10+ and AT 5+. Even boltguns are not "almost equally good" when targeting between infantry or tanks/monsters: 7+ AP vs. 9+ AT can be a significant difference in a D12 linear distribution. 2D6s do not "automatically turn into a D12." Bell curve (2d6) versus linear distribution (1d12). Apocalypse uses both D6s and D12s for its game mechanics quite well.

Give the latest Apocalypse a couple games. You will likely find it is a much better wargame system than modern 40k, even when not using the cards mechanic (and even with normal, non-"Apocalypse"-sized battles).

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Overread wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


At least with IGOUGO you know you are actually getting a turn. Half your army will be dead, but you will get a turn.

Unless its AoS then your opponent gets another turn and you're left with 1/8th of your army

unironically skill issue if you can't deal with the double turn. Prepping for it and mitigating its impact is part of the skill of the game

I've yet to see any argument regarding skill for the doubleturn that isn't either

1) Normal wargame tactics that you'd use regardless of the doubleturn being a thing or not

2) Just not advancing into the gameplay area so that your opponent has to waste a turn moving into range. Which in a game that often maxes out at 6 turns and often relies on mid-table objectives - is just not a tactic that is going to work.


Things like screening your good units with chaff isn't inherent to the doubleturn; its a purely normal tactic people use all the time. The doubleturn just makes it even more essential for armies which can do it.

 Overread wrote:


I've yet to see any argument regarding skill for the doubleturn that isn't either

1) Normal wargame tactics that you'd use regardless of the doubleturn being a thing or not

2) Just not advancing into the gameplay area so that your opponent has to waste a turn moving into range. Which in a game that often maxes out at 6 turns and often relies on mid-table objectives - is just not a tactic that is going to work.


Things like screening your good units with chaff isn't inherent to the doubleturn; its a purely normal tactic people use all the time. The doubleturn just makes it even more essential for armies which can do it.

Double turn being a thing means you can't overcommit because your opponent gets a possible comeback mechanic. Often new players will jump on the double turn because they think its a winning play when really its gonna lose them the game, because their opponent played smart and only let them kill their less important units. Its a mechanic that lowers the severity of alpha strikes and overall lethality.

And units take a lot more space on the board in AoS too (3" engagement range) so screening is actually easier to do in that game. Sure its a part of every wargame but you can be moderately successful in 40k without ever screening since you can just shoot down stuff, while in AoS, shooting is much more limited.

And i didnt say screening was inherent to AoS, i was implying that its a much more important skill in AoS because of the possibility of the double turn.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
. Its a mechanic that lowers the severity of alpha strikes and overall lethality.

I really cannot wrap my head around how an alternate turn game lowers lethality by giving one player chance to run their whole army twice in a row. Having two rounds to activate, move, magic, shoot and all doubles that players potential lethality. Yes the alternating nature of close combat can mitigate that a bit, but only if the army getting the doubleturn relies heavily on close combat. If they are ranged or magic heavy they can operate with far more impunity. Furthermore they can at least define close combat engagements for two turns, which is very powerful in being able to avoid combat they don't want to get int.
Again unless both players didn't move into the board for a turn. Which is mostly only a viable tactic on the very first turn, since we are limited on turns.

Considering high lethality is a huge issue in GW games in general, its just not something I can get my head around when someone argues that double turns reduces lethality and reduces alphastrikes.

It doesn't and could be achieved with a reaction system that gw funnily enough has implemented in HH.

 Overread wrote:


I really cannot wrap my head around how an alternate turn game lowers lethality by giving one player chance to run their whole army twice in a row.

because its a *chance* to go twice in a row AND because most of the game is melee based AND because combat is always alternating (charges don't grant the unit "fight first").

It's the combination of those facts that lowers the lethality because a double turn you're not prepared for can be crippling, and the big damage dealers are usually units you don't wanna get countercharged if you don't get the double. OR if your double turn fails to deal enough damage, your opponent then has more chances of hitting you with HIS double.

Honestly, most of the games i've seen and played, when faced with the opportunity to double turn, players opt to not do it. I'd say about 75% of the time.

pretty much any choice a player faces needs a mix of potential risks and potential rewards

AoS seems to have that

leopard wrote:
pretty much any choice a player faces needs a mix of potential risks and potential rewards

AoS seems to have that

pretty much this yeah.

Unfortunately, the AOS double-turn mechanic provides a significant (potential) advantage to factions that rely heavily on magic or shooting (ex. Kharadron Overlords).

I am not a fan of the double-turn mechanic and would prefer doing away with it entirely until a better solution is created (reactions? not sure).

I do like the LOTR/MESBG alternating system a lot more (rolling for initiative each turn to determine which side gets to activate first in each phase), but as that game normally includes many more than 3-5 turns, it balances out more fairly.

 Gnarlly wrote:
Unfortunately, the AOS double-turn mechanic provides a significant (potential) advantage to factions that rely heavily on magic or shooting (ex. Kharadron Overlords).

agreed on that point, luckily shooty factions are pretty rare.

i would never want to see that kind of mechanic in 40k to be clear

I don't play AoS significantly, so I could be totally wrong about this - but I think the double turn is a major balancing factor because its so swingy.

I.E. you look at 40k and go "this faction is overpowered and winning all the tournaments because its offense and defense is just mathematically better compared to everyone else".

But if chuck in a certain chance of a double turn, that should disappear. I don't know about last-version's Eldar vs Death Guard etc - but I think Death Guard with a double turn could have done a reasonable amount of damage and scoring versus Eldar.

I guess the evidence of this would be whether the same usual suspects win all the AoS tournaments or whether its much more random. I don't follow, so don't know.

Tyel wrote:
I don't play AoS significantly, so I could be totally wrong about this - but I think the double turn is a major balancing factor because its so swingy.

I.E. you look at 40k and go "this faction is overpowered and winning all the tournaments because its offense and defense is just mathematically better compared to everyone else".

But if chuck in a certain chance of a double turn, that should disappear. I don't know about last-version's Eldar vs Death Guard etc - but I think Death Guard with a double turn could have done a reasonable amount of damage and scoring versus Eldar.

I guess the evidence of this would be whether the same usual suspects win all the AoS tournaments or whether its much more random. I don't follow, so don't know.

The odds are the same of getting a double turn if your army is OP, UP, or well-balanced.

Yep, any other system of turns won't just resolve the issues with balances as established earlier, but at least if the turn sequences allow you to try something before the op army has technically out you out if the frame is at least some solace. You at least were allowed to fight back. Random allocation can also be strange at time with one player playing almost all of its army but that's really rare though in my limited experience. I'll try one day to homebrew BoltHammer or War Action in depth, so far I only scratched the surface of this silly house ruling .

 JNAProductions wrote:
The odds are the same of getting a double turn if your army is OP, UP, or well-balanced.

The odds are the same but the effect is not. Consider pre-nerf Eldar vs. DG. If the Eldar player gets a double turn they're going to win but they were going to win anyway, at most the double turn makes it a 100-10 win instead of a 95-30 win. If the DG player gets a double turn at the right moment they might manage to pull off a 65-60 win, something they'd never be able to do in a normal game. The existence of the double turn only benefits the weaker army in this case.

Of course there is definitely a difference in enjoyment between systems, with the double turn having a lot of potential to turn a loss into an even more miserable and hopeless experience for the player on the wrong side of it, but that part of it isn't relevant to win rate statistics. A loss is a loss for statistical purposes whether it's a fun closely matched game decided on the final turn or a 100-0 game that ends on turn 1.

Statistically a loss is a loss, but if I lose in a close cut game that's one thing. But if my opponent gets to go twice in a row and makes the situation even worse then, whilst the statistical "win loss" rate might be identical; the game experience is vastly different.


Thing is everyone who tries to justify that the doubleturn helps underdogs or just speeds up an "auto win" seems to be purely overlooking all those cases where it takes a 50-50 situation and tips it for one player.

All because of one single dice roll at the start of the turn.

It's a very swingy mechanic and even when it might not change the game-state on the statistics front (win/lose) it can drastically alter the perception of the game for those involved. Heck even a win can feel empty when you win because you are playing a ranged/magic heavy army and just blew your opponent off the table through those two turns.






There's a reason no other game on the market has a doubleturn mechanic like that.

 Overread wrote:
There's a reason no other game on the market has a doubleturn mechanic like that.

Oh, I agree, it's a terrible mechanic because of those game experience factors. But technically it does favor the underdog if you screw up balancing badly enough elsewhere.

An easy way to understand if there is skill in the double-turn or if it's just a slot machine of victory is to see who is winning AoS GTs.

If it's all the same people, often, then there's likely skill involved. If it's a bunch of randoms every time, then there's likely overwhelming RNG.

I don't know the answer tho.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If it's all the same people, often, then there's likely skill involved. If it's a bunch of randoms every time, then there's likely overwhelming RNG.

I don't think that's necessarily true. The competitive community for AoS is small and so you're going to see repeat winners simply because of how few people are willing to pay to attend multiple large events, buy new armies to keep up with the meta, etc. It adds up quickly when each attempt at a GT win costs $500 for travel, $500-1000 for the hotel, a couple days worth of PTO to get out of work, and managing partner/family expectations that you also use some of those resources on normal vacations. And you pay those costs just to get in the door even if you don't buy a single additional model. Add even more cost to buy and paint new models and new armies regularly if you want to have a real chance at winning the event. Do we really end up with a large enough pool of potential multi-event winners that we can say whether it was skill vs. random luck picking one of the 5-10 eligible people each time?

The skill test works a lot better in a game like MTG where there's an immense player base and the cash prizes for winning events make pro tour slots highly desirable and a target of thousands of players making their best effort to win them. But I don't think 40k rises to that level and if 40k doesn't AoS definitely doesn't.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Then what is your point in being here? If the current game is bad and every conceivable alternative is assumed to result in the worst possible outcome then why are you engaging in a discussion of possible improvements? Do you get some kind of emotional satisfaction from venting about how much GW sucks and how pointless it is to discuss anything else?

I am here to inject a cool breeze of realism on what it is possible to expect of GW game design.

Claiming that activations will somehow improve things is unsupportable based on available evidence, because GW has taken mechanics that work well in other systems and utterly botched them in the 40k environment.

At one point I owned more than a hundred wargames and rule systems, so I'm pretty well grounded in how they work. I've also watched what GW does to its products and I wouldn't call it iterative improvement.

Activations would solve some problems and create new ones. We've already talked about how GW creates super-units that inflict disproportionate amounts of damage. You seem to think that with activations, these units would be hamstrung. They wouldn't.

Savvy players would activate them first, and then play the "go again" strategem, and then use the "second wind' army special rule and when the dust settled, you'd have another alpha strike.

But one that could be answered by only a single unit, not the remnant of the enemy army.

To put it another way, you can fix the alpha strike problem with better terrain rules, LOS rules, setup options, scenarios and shooting combat systems. It is not inherent to IGOUGO, it is only inherent to GW.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Savvy players would activate them first, and then play the "go again" strategem, and then use the "second wind' army special rule and when the dust settled, you'd have another alpha strike.

So alternating activation wouldn't be an improvement because you've invented a deliberately bad version of it and assumed that one would be implemented?

To put it another way, you can fix the alpha strike problem with better terrain rules, LOS rules, setup options, scenarios and shooting combat systems.

Terrain can't fix anything because you'll play the "ignore terrain" stratagem and use the "delete that building" special rule.

LOS can't fix anything because you'll play the "I have LOS to anything" stratagem and use the "all my guns have indirect fire" army rule.

Setup options can't fix anything because you'll play the "ignore setup rules" stratagem and use the "redraw the deployment zones" army rule.

Scenarios can't fix anything because you'll play the "choose a new scenario" stratagem and use the "score VP for killing" army rule.

Shooting combat systems can't fix anything because you'll play the "shoot twice" stratagem and use the "all my guns always hit" army rule.

Your argument against alternating activation as a solution applies to literally any conceivable rule you can propose, leaving the only conclusion that 40k is impossible to fix and there's no point in discussing improvements.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
So alternating activation wouldn't be an improvement because you've invented a deliberately bad version of it and assumed that one would be implemented?

Not at all. I'm sure GW will find an entirely unique way to botch it, something I never even imagined was possible.

But it will be botched. I'm not a gambling man, but I would put money on it.

And I would go further and wager that they would fix the one big problem, but create a new one, because that's how GW rolls.

That's the churn. I don't know why anyone would believe that yet another change of game mechanics would stop it.

GW has had multiple opportunities to stop it. Indeed, if rumors are correct, the designers left because of it. They went on to make stable systems.

GW doesn't want stable systems. They want churn.

I don't know how the anti-tank mechanic from Apocalypse slipped my mind. If I recall correctly there is no difference between light and heavy infantry or light and heavy vehicles so a boltgun or a meltagun would be equally strong vs Space Marines/Kabalite Warrior. The former is tougher, but Space Marines were not differently tough, they were essentially just multiples of Drukhari Kabalite Warrior taped together by math, the same applied to Land Raiders vs Drukhari Venoms.

The anti-tank mechanic does help a tonne, but that's still a lot less deep and thematic than having so many Toughness, Save, S and AP values available. The D12 mechanic still adds nothing to the game, because you can't have multiple single wounds inflicted (D6s) or multiple of the double (D12s) inflicted, so the odd extra D6 might be more effective against some units than others but it didn't represent anything because there was no reason why the first, the third and the fifth wound would be different than the second, fourth or sixth.

It always blows my mind how 40K players aren't the slightest bit bothered that target size has zero impact on to-hit (Warhound Titan or Grot? Same odds!), and range doesn't make any difference either (Six inches? Two miles? Who cares!), or how aircraft are just flying tanks since the system can't handle any more than a -1 to-hit penalty without imploding, but when you propose a simplified larger-scale wargame that doesn't use three different stats to model the minute nuances of differing durability between Beef Strongman and Strong Beefman, they complain about lack of depth. Maybe the issue is more about what things you put focus on and what things you abstract out.

Apocalypse is a fine game. It's basically Epic-lite, and I've gotten an awful lot more tactical depth out of Epic's effects-driven focus on C&C, maneuver, morale and combined arms- concepts atavistic at best in 40K- than I have from the obsession with inconsistent pointless bs chrome in 40K.

Also, the D12 mechanic certainly does add something. Two things, even. It increases the granularity of the AP and AT stats, and it neatly cuts the overall lethality in half by facilitating essentially 'half-wounds' (since a save taken on D12 is half as likely to fail as one taken on D6, and every two D12 saves consolidate into a D6). It's the sort of not exactly groundbreaking but at least reasonably elegant design that 40K could stand to have more of.