PDA

View Full Version : Why Apocalypse?



Tarax
08-02-2009, 20:53
Since the release of Apocalypse, there is much talk about playing Apocalypse battles, in WD and in gaming communities.
I can see why people want to do so. What better than to have big battles?

But why can't people just play bigger battles by only playing more points? What is wrong with playing 3000 points with your codex? You can even play 2 or more FOCs if you want.

IMO some of the things allowed in Apocalypse battles seem ridiculous.

My biggest problem is that new players are pushed to play towards Apocalypse and not enjoy a smaller game.

Any other or similar opinions?

Grimtuff
08-02-2009, 20:58
In a word, unweildiness. The game becomes too sluggish at larger points. You want to get this game played in a day, right?

APOC is all about the granduer and big explosions. It is not meant to be a huge grand scale tatical company level game, that's Epic. ;)

Arador
08-02-2009, 20:58
Of course new players are pushed towards Apocalypse. It means more money for GW. It's cold, hard business. Nothing more.

CrownAxe
08-02-2009, 21:01
Apoc has additional rules and extra units that make large games much better

Thats why

Sleazy
08-02-2009, 21:04
Apoc played right is great fun. Sadly 99% of in store game sof apoc is just fill the table so full of minis and ultramarine baneblades so that any result is random.

Vaktathi
08-02-2009, 21:07
Since the release of Apocalypse, there is much talk about playing Apocalypse battles, in WD and in gaming communities.
I can see why people want to do so. What better than to have big battles?

But why can't people just play bigger battles by only playing more points? What is wrong with playing 3000 points with your codex? You can even play 2 or more FOCs if you want.

IMO some of the things allowed in Apocalypse battles seem ridiculous.

My biggest problem is that new players are pushed to play towards Apocalypse and not enjoy a smaller game.

Any other or similar opinions?

There's nothing wrong with playing games in the manner that you describe, however keep in mind that unless you *do* expand to more than one FoC, some armies (IG) that seem decent or even underpowered at lower points levels become far more ridiculous than other armies can compete with (want to deal with 15 tanks and 350 guardsmen and 90 heavy weapons in a 4500pt game?) while other armies that are very strong at normal points levels become progressively weaker as the armies get bigger but FoC's stay the same (SM's, Necrons, *Tau*)

You are correct that some things in Apoc are ridiculous. Bringing a Titan if there is nothing similar on the other side is likely to result in a massacre. fielding 90 obliterators isn't likely to make most people happy either. You *can* put limits on what people bring to an Apoc game.

Apocalypse is best played as a pre-arranged scenario type game, rather than a large pickup game. If it's done as the latter it's just kinda dumb, but if thought out a bit, it's great fun.

The Laughing God
08-02-2009, 21:11
If you play alot I would think it would be nice to switch up the point limit. And GW is getting tons of money with apoc.;)

Gensuke626
08-02-2009, 21:18
IMO some of the things allowed in Apocalypse battles seem ridiculous.


This is Why I play apoc. Having a unit of 100 Orks and A Warboss who always fleets and forces broken ork mobs to regroup and join up? Yes Please. Lootaz in a trukk who can fire even if the transport moves? Yes Please! Lifta-Droppa Armed Big Mek Stompa? OH GOD YES!

Latro_
08-02-2009, 21:19
Big war machines facing off against each other with a sea of infantry is also very much inline with the 40k fluff.

isidril93
08-02-2009, 21:22
apoca;ypse seems cool...high point battle but its the combos which add up points not hte models

Gimp
08-02-2009, 21:23
The only problem is stratigic assesst-just game ruiners

Ravenheart
08-02-2009, 21:26
My biggest problem is that new players are pushed to play towards Apocalypse and not enjoy a smaller game.

Personally, I really don't feel this being the case.

I'd rather have two different 1500 p armies than one at 3000p. And mixing imperials, xenos and chaos just to play apoc? Never!

Tzeentch2003
08-02-2009, 21:27
I think the store pick up game is exactly the wrong environment for Apocalypse. This is something pointed out in the Apocalypse rulebook itself, for crying out loud. It should be played with a bunch of friends who aren't going to bring a titan just because the other side has nothing that can stop it and they will be l33t. It should probably involve substantial quantities of alcohol, which also does not lend itself to most in-store games. :cool:

Jellicoe
08-02-2009, 21:35
Variety is the spice of life, A limited points game forces more tactics, more careful choices in terms of list and more balance. Apocalypse can when done right be equally fun, there is nothing more impressive than a fully painted 6000+ pt hive fleet laid out on the table, there is also nothing more painful than a large disparate collection of semi painted baneblades and undercoated space marines blowing each other up for no good reason

RichBlake
08-02-2009, 21:43
Apocalypse is where armies truly fight like they should.

Guard is all about big guns and digging in. Marines and Eldar are about Surgical Strikes. Orkz are about weird machinery and hoardes of boyz. Nids are all about swarms and deep striking fexes. Necrons and daemons are twice as unstopabble as usual.

I like Apocalypse and to be honest I'm going to try and play it more. Both Apoc and Cities of Death add flavour to 40K quite easily. Even using the same list each game can be different due to strategic assets/stratagems!

Hashshashin
08-02-2009, 22:01
I love apocolypse. Its what I want to see, tons of models ripping into each other and having laugh while your 350 point terminator squad is leveled by a orbital apocyliptic barrage before they even get to move, it's the grim dark and highly entertaining environment I want from 40k, don't get me wrong I like smaller games too but there is something to be said about 8,000 points halfing itself every turn that rules.

Killgore
08-02-2009, 22:19
The only problem is stratigic assesst-just game ruiners

thats why you restrict and alter them to suit your gaming groups needs

a well thought out list of allowable strategic assets can really make for an enjoyable apoc game

AdmiralDick
08-02-2009, 22:43
But why can't people just play bigger battles by only playing more points? What is wrong with playing 3000 points with your codex? You can even play 2 or more FOCs if you want.

as others have pointed out, Apoc is specifically designed to prevent larger games from becoming bogged down with unnecessarily complex rules.

more than that, it is an environment that is set apart from the increasingly rigid environment of 40k. its becoming more and more strict to meet with needs of tournaments and official environments, which is all well and good, but it doesn't leave a lot of room for creativity and player initiative. the seemingly lax rules of Apoc, that upset some, are just the sort of open space that allow players to flex their muscles, rather than taking things for granted.

this is no criticism of 40k, but its clear that a game can't really be at both ends of the spectrum, and so Apoc allows GW to side step the issue to some degree.


IMO some of the things allowed in Apocalypse battles seem ridiculous.

what sort of things do you mean specifically? its easier to explain perhaps find answers if we know what the question is.


You are correct that some things in Apoc are ridiculous. Bringing a Titan if there is nothing similar on the other side is likely to result in a massacre. fielding 90 obliterators isn't likely to make most people happy either. You *can* put limits on what people bring to an Apoc game.

i would agree that prearranged Apoc games where the boundaries are defined long before the models hit the table is really the most sensible option. games don't have to be alike, and the boundaries can move freely between games, but they do need to be set. that doesn't prevent you from building some horrendous forces, but it does mean that your opponents won't have to face that blind. it also doesn't prevent 'pick-up' style games, but it means that there is some kind of arbitration.


I think the store pick up game is exactly the wrong environment for Apocalypse.

whilst this isn't my preferred environment for gaming, i have to say that one of my favourite Apoc experiences was when they released the game, and my local store had a game going, where anyone could come along and drop up to 2000pts worth of models on to the table at the beginning of any turn. obviously the game had a lot of younger players, but it was truly good fun. it was a very different experience, because you knew that there was never going to be an end in sight, you just had to keep on fighting and hope for the best.

that is a specific kind of pick up game though, and i would agree that if someone asks you in a store or club whether you want to play a Apoc game there and then you should graciously refuse.

njfed
08-02-2009, 23:06
as others have pointed out, Apoc is specifically designed to prevent larger games from becoming bogged down with unnecessarily complex rules.

I kind of always thought of Apoc as too simple. I seems about on the same strategic level as rolling a D6 for each unit/vehicle on the board and on a 4+ it gets removed. Some of the rules are completely nuts...like Warhammer meets Calvin and Hobs.

I can understand the desire to play with super heavies, but Apocalypse misses the mark for me.

Trench_Raider
09-02-2009, 00:20
Of course new players are pushed towards Apocalypse. It means more money for GW. It's cold, hard business. Nothing more.

Quoted for truth.
Apoc does nothing that Epic does not.

TR

trigger
09-02-2009, 00:43
At my club , we have been playing large battles for years , anything up to 20k a side......but on a simular note there has only been 4 games of appocolips played with a max of 11k a side.

truth be told in our opinion Apoc is crap , it has offered nothing to the game other than a pie template to destroy a SM company in four turns. Apoc is for tank games.

If you dont want to play it , then dont chap.

Faddlevins
09-02-2009, 00:46
"Apoc does nothing that Epic does not."

Sure it does: It uses 40k miniatures ;)

Inquisitor_Ra
09-02-2009, 01:25
i agree with what admiraldick says

as others have pointed out, Apoc is specifically designed to prevent larger games from becoming bogged down with unnecessarily complex rules i havent played in apoc yet, but im guessing that they make sure you dont have to do WBB's for all 596 of your necrons that dies last turn :D

WildWeasel
09-02-2009, 03:45
i agree with what admiraldick says
i havent played in apoc yet, but im guessing that they make sure you dont have to do WBB's for all 596 of your necrons that dies last turn :D

Actually, yes, you do. That is the disappointing thing for me about Apocalypse. There is nothing in terms of changes to the game mechanics to speed things up, be it batch resolving massed fire with a few rolls or what have you. Apoc "speeds" things up, compared to an equivalent points game of 40K, by, one, allowing you to spend points on formations and on super-heavy models, so that an Apoc force likely has fewer models than the same points of 40K. Secondly, it has the huge templates that remove more models in a single attack (but you still roll all those dice). Really, Apoc is more of "here's the final offical rules for fliers and super-heavies" than it is a mass-scale combat system.

That said, the sheer genius of Apoc is the formation datasheets. Being able to pat 25-100 extra points to gain abilities that reflect the organic integration of different units is awesome. Things like the SM Surpression Force, there the Land Speeder actually gets to spot for artillery. This is something that really could use some form of transferal back into standard 40K IMO.

blackroyal
09-02-2009, 04:11
Formations are what makes apoc work for me. It is a way to use units in new and different ways.

The Orange
09-02-2009, 04:22
IMO some of the things allowed in Apocalypse battles seem ridiculous.


I think that was the point :p. Apocalypse was made so people with huge collections of armies could use all their miniatures at once. It was designed for vet's not newbs. Newbs don't buy $1K titans from Foregeworld, newbs don't have 5 different armies sitting in their closet. Part of Apocalypse was also to have narrative battles, not fair battles. It's unstructured so that you can come up with your own structure/scenarios. From what I've read the designers didn't even care if both sides had the same pts. Those stratagems were thrown in if the players thought their was to large of a discrepancy, but IIRC anything less then a 250pt discrepancy wasn't worth worrying about. Would you even play a 2k pts battle with that sort of a handicap?

AdmiralDick
09-02-2009, 07:45
njfed - there isn't a major difference between the basic mechanics of 40k and Apocalypse, so i would have to disagree with you. the simplification comes from army selection, mission objective and super-heavy vehicles. your tactical marines will still behave exactly as they do in non-Apoc games.

Tarax
09-02-2009, 08:10
In a word, unweildiness. The game becomes too sluggish at larger points. You want to get this game played in a day, right?

APOC is all about the granduer and big explosions. It is not meant to be a huge grand scale tatical company level game, that's Epic. ;)

Who said I wanted it to be played in a day? Take a whole week if you like.
I don't play Epic, so I can't compare, but 40K lets you play on model-level instead of a unit-level, which can be appealing. (Now you know what you commander has done, instead of his retinue.)


There's nothing wrong with playing games in the manner that you describe,

Thank you.


however keep in mind that unless you *do* expand to more than one FoC, some armies (IG) that seem decent or even underpowered at lower points levels become far more ridiculous than other armies can compete with (want to deal with 15 tanks and 350 guardsmen and 90 heavy weapons in a 4500pt game?) while other armies that are very strong at normal points levels become progressively weaker as the armies get bigger but FoC's stay the same (SM's, Necrons, *Tau*)

As long as both (all) players adhere to the same organisation, thing shoudl be more or less balanced, right? I guess not. :(


You are correct that some things in Apoc are ridiculous. Bringing a Titan if there is nothing similar on the other side is likely to result in a massacre. fielding 90 obliterators isn't likely to make most people happy either. You *can* put limits on what people bring to an Apoc game.

Things like that rub me the wrong way.


Apocalypse is best played as a pre-arranged scenario type game, rather than a large pickup game. If it's done as the latter it's just kinda dumb, but if thought out a bit, it's great fun.

So it is, just don't force me to.


I'd rather have two different 1500 p armies than one at 3000p. And mixing imperials, xenos and chaos just to play apoc? Never!

I don't see anything wrong with that. Perhaps I was a bit unclear. And some armies work as natural allies, IG and SM.


as others have pointed out, Apoc is specifically designed to prevent larger games from becoming bogged down with unnecessarily complex rules.

What's more complex than using the same rules as for smaller battles?


what sort of things do you mean specifically? its easier to explain perhaps find answers if we know what the question is.

I've never played it, don't own the book. All my opinions are based on what I see in WD or read here and a bit from what I heard from those who've played a game. So hearing about Titans and Super-Heavy Tanks, which are hard to destroy (or so I've heard) by 'normal' weapons, seeing all Named Characters together and not being able to leave this select group; just to name a few.

Though some things look nice to me, like rules for Flyers, but I can't comment on them, because I don't know what they are.


I kind of always thought of Apoc as too simple. I seems about on the same strategic level as rolling a D6 for each unit/vehicle on the board and on a 4+ it gets removed.

My sentiments exactly. I've heard of people removing tens of models at the time without them doing anything, and Tanks being destroyed without remorse. So what's the point of placing hundreds of models which have to be removed in the first minutes? (Except making a nice looking battlefield, of course. ;) )


Some of the rules are completely nuts...like Warhammer meets Calvin and Hobs.

LOL


I can understand the desire to play with super heavies, but Apocalypse misses the mark for me.

We think alike.


I think that was the point :p. Apocalypse was made so people with huge collections of armies could use all their miniatures at once. It was designed for vet's not newbs. Newbs don't buy $1K titans from Foregeworld, newbs don't have 5 different armies sitting in their closet. Part of Apocalypse was also to have narrative battles, not fair battles. It's unstructured so that you can come up with your own structure/scenarios. From what I've read the designers didn't even care if both sides had the same pts. Those stratagems were thrown in if the players thought their was to large of a discrepancy, but IIRC anything less then a 250pt discrepancy wasn't worth worrying about. Would you even play a 2k pts battle with that sort of a handicap?

There is nothing wrong with using all your models, but why in a Apocalypse setting and not a regular game? Except that some rules for certain units are not covered in the normal game/codex.
I know it's aimed at veterans, but I said that they are pushing it to newcomers as well, like there is no other type of game.

And you can always invent your own scenarios and/or strategems.

Thanks for all the comments and as I suspected most came from people who play Apocalypse. :angel:

BigRob
09-02-2009, 08:21
Two big things that I feel spoil the apaocalypse rules are the super explosion and "teleporting" free moves.

Various units, stratagy cards, formations, assets etc let you simply move the whole formation to the other wide of the board with no worrying about whats in the way. Easily abused and not making much sense. DS/Infiltate/flank march I can work out but just picking up the whole unit and dropping them into my table corner?

Super explosion. The original Apoc WD battlereport with ultrasmurfs vs deamons said it all. The Ultrasmurf second company drop pod in and powerfist the baneblade. The resultant explosion takes out most of the SM company! 1/10th of the ultramarine chapter just got killed because they destroyed a tank. Yes it is more of a problem in GW stores where the staff and little children just try and make things explode as quickly as possible to clear the table, but why would my army take one of these dangerous baneblades that is going to kill more of our troops if it gets splattered than the enemy?

Yes Apocalypse is a good idea, but with the giant cartoon templates and the fact that people end up bringing 3 tactical squads and a titan to a battle shows that saying "You can do anything" is a bad idea with GW instore gaming.

Tehkonrad
09-02-2009, 08:27
The only thing that really irritates me about apoc is SPECIAL CHARACTERS!!!. In my view, maybe its been corrupted by third editions lack of them, special characters don't belong in just 'any' game, they should only be used in totally fluff-justified situations. I mean that orks VS IG battle report, you know with the big gun. Yeah it had sammael (correct spelling?) Azrael and I think Ghazgull... WHAT IN THE ******?

Occulto
09-02-2009, 10:08
I don't play Epic, so I can't compare, but 40K lets you play on model-level instead of a unit-level, which can be appealing. (Now you know what you commander has done, instead of his retinue.)

Apocalypse isn't necessarily about fielding big armies, as allowing players to field their big 40K armies. The armies they've slaved over for years, painting and converting etc.

While an Epic army is spectacular (and fun to play), it's no substitute for dragging out a few figure cases and putting down everything you own.

Slaaaaaanesh
09-02-2009, 10:14
Apoc played right is great fun. Sadly 99% of in store game sof apoc is just fill the table so full of minis and ultramarine baneblades so that any result is random.

Very true, I witnessed how tyranids and Orks had managed to trudge to the other side of the board whilst having what seemed like an endless tide of baneblades, and landraiders 'just turn up'. What remained to get into close combat was short indeed. The owner of the tyranids player was a pretty good sport and stayed upbeat despite this as he positioned his revived gaunts as per the proper endless tide rule.

Oh and there were three Yarricks in play too, i was like WTF?

itcamefromthedeep
09-02-2009, 14:27
Two big things that I feel spoil the apaocalypse rules are the super explosion and "teleporting" free moves.
Super-heavies shouldn't always explode. The Apocalyptic Explosion only happens on a 6, and the smaller explosion is 2D6" with a 4+ to wound, saves allowed.

As for teleporting, strategic redeployment should have difficulty moving over troops, as no part of the movement can be within 12" of an enemy model.

As for Flank March, all it took was one Apocalypse game for that asset to feel the Banhammer. Don't use it, it can easily make the game not-fun.

Brother Loki
09-02-2009, 14:59
There are counters to Flank march though - both Ambush and Disruptor Beacon can make it largely irrelevant. I think it has its place, but should perhaps be restricted to formations which give it, rather than a general asset that your whole army can use. Having played most of my Apoc games against Chaos, often with large terminator or daemon contingents, I think Disruptor Beacon is pretty much the best thing ever. :)

I really like some aspects of the Apocalypse rules, most especially formations - which encourage building armies out of fluff-driven components - an infantry company, a tank squadron, an artillery battery and so on. Assets are good too provided some retraint is used. I think the best way to use them is for them to be part of the scenario, set by the GM rather than the players (plus ones given by formations).

I'm actually not that keen on the giant pizza template - it seems over the top even for super-heavy weapons - perhaps it should have been only for titan weapons, with the 7" one being sufficient for smaller super-heavies - better than normal ordnance, but not completely ridiculous.

Coasty
09-02-2009, 15:13
The only thing I'd say to the OP is; if you actually want to know about Apoc, then play it, then you can make an informed decision. Frankly, you seem determined to dislike it without, by your own admission, ever having even read the rule book.

RCgothic
09-02-2009, 15:53
Some things work in Apocalypse, some things don't.

The biggest problem I have is with infantry not moving fast enough to keep in the battle. I've also found that having densly terrained areas and large buildings creates areas where infantry is relatively safe from the big guns.

People stop taking flank march after they get disruptor beaconed a few times.

The Orange
09-02-2009, 16:11
There is nothing wrong with using all your models, but why in a Apocalypse setting and not a regular game?

I think you mistake what I mean. When I say all models I mean ALL models in a person's collection, not all models of a particular army a person has. Their are no rules for running Eldar alongside Daemonhunters, there are no rules for having that one daemon prince you bought because its a cool model work alongside your mobile Tau army, there are not rules for having Carnifex's come out of Ork battlewagons (Im pretty sure that example was in the Apoc book too). Apocalypse gives that kind of freedom because that's the point. It wouldn't be Apocalypse if it was as structured as normal 40k. I think some people take Apocalypse too seriously.

Vaktathi
09-02-2009, 16:18
There are counters to Flank march though - both Ambush and Disruptor Beacon can make it largely irrelevant. The problem is that then the game becomes about negating the flank march, if your opponent takes flank march, you think you now have to use your asset to counter that instead of taking something that you really wanted.



I think it has its place, but should perhaps be restricted to formations which give it, rather than a general asset that your whole army can use. I agree, although I think the "outflank" mechanic actually works much better. In most of my apoc games, we simply disallow flank march, but allow units that normally have the option to outflank.

Tarax
10-02-2009, 08:54
The only thing I'd say to the OP is; if you actually want to know about Apoc, then play it, then you can make an informed decision. Frankly, you seem determined to dislike it without, by your own admission, ever having even read the rule book.

Actually, I don't want to know about Apocalypse. I just get bombarded with it. As I said, there are some things I don't object to and some things I do.
Although I'm a long time Fantasy player, I only recently started regularly playing 40K. I just want to play the regular game. Perhaps in the future I will play bigger battles, but not necessarily Apocalypse.


I think you mistake what I mean. When I say all models I mean ALL models in a person's collection, not all models of a particular army a person has.

That's not what I meant. I don't mind playing with two or more different armies together...


Their are no rules for running Eldar alongside Daemonhunters, there are no rules for having that one daemon prince you bought because its a cool model work alongside your mobile Tau army, there are not rules for having Carnifex's come out of Ork battlewagons (Im pretty sure that example was in the Apoc book too). Apocalypse gives that kind of freedom because that's the point. It wouldn't be Apocalypse if it was as structured as normal 40k. I think some people take Apocalypse too seriously.

...but these examples just seem ridiculous to me. Use a little fluff/sense as to which armies are likely to fight side by side against a common foe. BTW Civil War is all right in my book.

decker_cky
10-02-2009, 09:17
Actually, I don't want to know about Apocalypse. I just get bombarded with it. As I said, there are some things I don't object to and some things I do.
Although I'm a long time Fantasy player, I only recently started regularly playing 40K. I just want to play the regular game. Perhaps in the future I will play bigger battles, but not necessarily Apocalypse.

There's the big problem. You have a fantasy perspective, and while fantasy can become ridiculous in bigger games if armies go too magic heavy or whatever, the rules overall are pretty solid even for big games. 40k doesn't really scale well past a certain point. Apocalypse, among the other things mentioned, addresses this.

But you're new to 40k. Learn the game and play 40k. When your army slowly grows too big, you might be interested but for now that's mostly irrelevant.

Radium
10-02-2009, 09:29
Why Apocalypse? To field my titan of course!

Read the book, learn the mechanics of 40k and then decided whether 40k needs a system liek apoc to scale large battles ;).

genestealer_baldric
10-02-2009, 10:00
because spoilsports wont let me use my titans in a normal game ;)

Tarax
10-02-2009, 11:40
There's the big problem. You have a fantasy perspective, and while fantasy can become ridiculous in bigger games if armies go too magic heavy or whatever, the rules overall are pretty solid even for big games. 40k doesn't really scale well past a certain point. Apocalypse, among the other things mentioned, addresses this.

But you're new to 40k. Learn the game and play 40k. When your army slowly grows too big, you might be interested but for now that's mostly irrelevant.

I've already got a fair number of battles under my belt, so I'm no complete newbie. And yes, I sometimes compare it too much to Fantasy.

But I can't see why it 'doesn't scale past a certain point'. While I can see the Fantasy restriction where the number of point played determines what you can field, eg 2000 allows you a Lord and more Specials and Rares; which also allows you to add your own restrictions like Magic Level and certain Monsters. In 40K you don't have such restriction, only the FOC. Playing more points can just as easily mean play more FOCs.

I already have close to 1500 points of painted IG. As I said in another thread, I will increase this force, but I will still be playing 40K and not add stuff like Baneblades or Titans.

Eryx_UK
10-02-2009, 12:34
I have played only one Apoc game and that was shortly after the rules came out. I have to say that I hated it. It didn't have a faster pace and took 7 hours to play! Dull and boring. I could have played a fun 3000pt non-Apoc game in under half the time. I've never bothered to go back to it.

Alx_152
10-02-2009, 12:41
I like it for the formations. Some of them are crap, but some give nice rules, to represent a larger formation of men/vehicles.
As long as it is an pre-arranged battle with people you know, it isn't that bad compared to a normal battle.

WildWeasel
10-02-2009, 13:22
There's the big problem. You have a fantasy perspective, and while fantasy can become ridiculous in bigger games if armies go too magic heavy or whatever, the rules overall are pretty solid even for big games. 40k doesn't really scale well past a certain point. Apocalypse, among the other things mentioned, addresses this.


How? Beyond just ditching the FOC entirely for army building? As others have noted, you can just as easily bring multiple FOCs. As for game play, the only thing "quicker" it offers is huge "wounds on 2+, pens armor" pizza plates to roll 30 wounds at once. It does nothing to address things like making 596 WBB rolls, or when 200 Boyz charge, or a SM company opens up with its bolters.

The Orange
10-02-2009, 14:42
I don't mind playing with two or more different armies together...
Again, you did miss my point. Apocalypse is not just about using different armies together, but you can also use different models together. If I have one deamon prince, and one wrathlord in the middle of my Tau army, thats not really fielding 3 armies, is it?



...but these examples just seem ridiculous to me.
and so what? The point of apocalypse is to allow you the freedom to have ridiculous scenarios if you want. I might as well complain that 40k is balderdash because its structured and has FOCs :rolleyes:. If you want to play uber large 40k battles with multiple FOCs dictating the structures of your armies, then do it. Apocalypse does not stop you from doing that does it? Apocalypse if for games where people don't want to stick to that. Apocalypse is for when someone with 40+ tank kits (possibly from different armies) can field all those vehicles w/o the required HQ + 2 Troops for every 3 tanks. Its for games where you want to send everything you and your friends have against "Movie Marines" and see how much they can actually kill. It's there to do that which normal 40k does not allow you to do.

Alessander
10-02-2009, 16:28
Main reason to play Apocalylpse is to get away from 40K rules lawyers. They don't "get" Apocalypse as a fun game and tend to stay away. Apocalypse is GW's way to say "it's OK to have an unbalanced force as long as you have fun" for the people who need GW to say it to do it.

Also a way to finally use you all your models without being hindered by the FOC charts. FOC are for tourney style play. Apoc is a completely different ball game.

Zelotes
10-02-2009, 19:10
Only Apocalypse game I've played was a 4000 pts vs 2x2000 pts against two friends of mine. I fielded two of the Eldar Scorpion super-heavy tank and 2 6-full Sunstorm squadrons (Fire Prisms) as well as some swooping hawks and a couple of psykers just for buffing the tanks. The one friend fielded a sizable elite contingent from the Witch Hunter codex, while the other had a Warhound and some basilisks and other guard.

Though I spent most of the game floating my hovercraft around one side of the map and systematically destroying units (took one shot at the titan and realized that in our limited time/turn match I was wasting my time), and ultimately ended up destroying almost 3/4 of their points (they only took me down by a third) I still lost since they controlled more objectives. Did I care? No, first off I wasn't really playing in the mindset to win by objective, more just to do as much big boom-boom killings as I could before I ran out of turns. My friend got to field his titan which he was proud of and blow up some tanks with it. My other friend got to use a phenomenal number of Faith Points to make his army quite a pain in my ass. Everyone wins because we went into it with the understanding that the game was just going to be a ridiculous scenario for fun.

However, I do see Apocalypse having the potential to do what I really want to see as a player, which is to have those truly colossal-feeling battles that leave worlds destroyed in their wake. That's why I play 40K and not Fantasy, to be honest.

I dunno, I guess it's not for everyone, but for people that want to do a full armored company of 20 Leman Russes, or 4000 Orks (though I wouldn't recommend it), it's a nice way to get to do that. To be honest my favorite models are the vehicles anyway...I always end up owning more than I'll ever field in a normal game just because I love to make, convert, and paint the models.

Finn
10-02-2009, 23:43
I actually prefer Apocalypse. I've played more normal games than I care to count, and I've always lusted after being able to drop all my guys down on the table and not care about points. I can post on my group's forums saying "Hey, my friend and I have 15K of Nids and we'll take anybody on at such-and-such a time". Typically we enforce only 1 asset per side for every 3-5k points in the game, and really none of them are over the top. Most of the "broken" assets can be countered by simply anticipating their use during deployment - such as flank march or some sort of apocalyptic explosion. That being said, we typically don't randomize the deployment zone as the book states - it's the biggest weakness in the rules, IMO.

But yes, there's just something alluring about being able to set a battle in which you can use an air wing for your army, a massive alliance of your Space Marines and homegrown IG, or a horde of Tyranids and not care about how many get slaughtered so long as you get to giggle about your big baddies eating some poor independent character who thought himself safe.

The true beauty of Apocalypse is that it provides a starting point for the creation of battles involving more than two people. Our group has had organized big battles for years - some of them resembled the standard Apocalypse scenario, others were custom, and the ones I've been organizing of late are made much easier to do by the existence of the rules. Rather than nitpicking which units are allowed, I can simply state "All units and formations in the Apocalypse and Reload books are allowed", and when it comes to assets I can put limitations and say "Replacements may only be used on models of up to 750 points". Things of that nature... I guess what I'm slowly getting at with this block of text is this: If you have a problem with a section of the rules, change it. It is your battle, after all. You can play the game however you want.

Ddraiglais
11-02-2009, 00:19
I won't use just my codex to play games anymore. If it wasn't for Apocalypse, I would have quit the hobby. All I play is Apoc.

Apocalypse also allows for armies that normal 40K won't allow. You can do LatD very easily in Apocalypse. AdMech would be better represented in Apocalypse. Pretty much any Chaos legion works better in Apocalypse.

Before Apocalypse I use to play larger games using the normal rules. Apocalypse makes things flow more smoothly. It allows for people to bring out their special toys that would mostly gather dust if they didn't play Apoc. I really don't see how anyone could be against it. I can see why some people wouldn't play it, but I can't see why someone would be against it.

Tarax
11-02-2009, 08:21
Again, you did miss my point. Apocalypse is not just about using different armies together, but you can also use different models together. If I have one deamon prince, and one wrathlord in the middle of my Tau army, thats not really fielding 3 armies, is it?

Actually it is. You take models from 3 different Codices, 3 different armies. Whether it is just one model or one hundred does not matter. (Thinking of some people who are called 1-man-armies.)


and so what? The point of apocalypse is to allow you the freedom to have ridiculous scenarios if you want.

I have no problem with ridiculous scenarios, but a Carnifex in a Battlewagon is no scenario.

While reading some other threads, including the rumours on IG, I came to think that Apocalypse is actually Epic in 40K scale. I mean, all the units which you could use in Epic but not in 40K were released with Apocalypse, like Baneblades and Titans.
But these games are not the same, aside from being a different scale. The game mechanics and organisation of armies are quite different. You can not expect to simply upscale the game without playing it differently.

(Though I have to admit I have never played or seen an Epic battle.)

Finn
11-02-2009, 08:47
Apocalypse being 40k-scale Epic is a misconception. As far as I know, Epic doesn't have rules for assets (vortex grenades, counting all your units as scoring to the last man, etc.) and it doesn't use formations that grant the units in them special rules. And even if it does, it doesn't have the freedom Apocalypse does with creating your own units.

I must also point out that all these units did exist prior to Apocalypse, you simply used the vehicle design rules or IA rules. It was explicitly stated that you had to be playing at 3000 points or more to use super heavies, and they were in a second FoC in a group of 1-3 of the same type of super heavy. What Apocalypse did was adjust the rules for quicker gameplay and the addition of larger, "more apocalyptic" template weapons.

Like the guy above, I don't understand why people who choose not to play Apocalypse complain about it so much. It's not like you're being forced to play it (or playing it at all, for that matter). If it doesn't float your boat, leave the rest of us who love it alone. Criminy. If you're complaining because you WANT to play bigger games but don't like the Apocalypse rules - fine, make up your own rules. Or just use standard 40k rules at larger points values. Do whatever you want, but don't complain about something you're not even going to consider.

Carlos
11-02-2009, 09:34
The impression I get from the Apocalypse book (a very well made book, it must be mentioned) is that its a way for you and all your buddies to get all your miniature collection onto the board as opposed to leaving some things at home.

The key word here is buddies, because Apocalypse goes hideously wrong when played in-store or with complete strangers who have a habit of cheesing things up.

If you have a good group of friends to game with Apocalypse is amazing, as none of you are there to out-cheese each other, and you can come up with narratives and differing objectives and bring a bit of the fun back into 40K. Sadly the tournament-based promotion of the main game has crossed over, causing n00bs to start thinking the game is about winning at all costs, as opposed to just having a laugh. This is where the cheese comes from.

IJW
11-02-2009, 10:19
Actually it is. You take models from 3 different Codices, 3 different armies.
Nope, because without loosening the FoC chart you can't take those single models from other books.


(Though I have to admit I have never played or seen an Epic battle.)
So not only have you never played Apocalypse or read the book, but the same applies to what you're comparing it with? :confused:

Apocalypse certainly isn't perfect, but without at least reading through the book to get a feel for the atmosphere of the expansion you cannot make judgements and expect to be taken seriously.

EDIT

The impression I get from the Apocalypse book (a very well made book, it must be mentioned)
This can't be emphasised enough - the Apocalypse book is one of the best produced and written books that GW have put out in some time, especially when it comes to getting people to look beyond the FOC/standard mission/tournament straightjacket. It's easy to argue that people can do narrative games without Apoc, but in practice they don't. :(

laudarkul
11-02-2009, 10:26
Why Apoc?...More models, different style of playing, alliances are cool..I just want to finish my IG army for smth like 4000points together with some GK and hope to find people to play:D...It is a good battleground to learn more about your army and your enemies...

Bunnahabhain
11-02-2009, 10:43
The point is to use large model collections in a less formal way, so everyone can have fun.

Personally, I think various modifications to the stand apoc set of rules are needed for this, and a few of the suggestion sin the book need to e re-enforced.

Big tables, so not too over-crowded.

Reasonably fluffy forces- No random Banebaldes everywhere without some Guard/Traitors/Ad.Mech , and no really silly combinations of allies

Ban/alter various assets- Flank march is the best example, as 100 flank marching genestealers turning up behind you is not fun for anyone.

Tone down quite a few of the blasts. The 5 and 7" ones are quite big enough for virtually all weapons*. The hellstorm and 10" one should be very rarely used, and only by Titan class weapons. Also, reactor melt downs, should be either smaller/rarer, so you don't have to worry constantly about being vaporised by your own side.. This stops the game being all about who brought more structure points.

* yes, this means altering many weapons and formations. For example, a linebreaker formation still has the chance to remove terrain, but must hit the terrain with 3+ standard demolisher shells, rather than just the one big blast.

CthulhuDalek
11-02-2009, 10:44
I've played some huge Apoc games(50,000+ points), and my opinion is that you still need to impose *some* order on the chaos.

We also usually house rule objectives a bit(sometimes a big stone monument in the center of the board counts as 2 for everyone etc etc).

I really do not think some of the stratagems are "balanced" if such a term could be applied to apocalypse. Namely Flank March. There are a few others but I haven't read them in a while.

We also usually find, that rather than playing an entire collection, we use fluff-based forces. In other words, most of the time order vs. disorder(good v. evil) and most of my friends don't like to mix armies that wouldn't normally do so(unless there's a good reason.) We also try to come up with fluff or backstory beforehand.

EDIT.

Bunnahabhain kinda struck it right on the nose.

Brother Loki
11-02-2009, 10:50
That's the way it works best in my experience - fluffy forces, lots of formations, sensible allies, narrative objectives etc. That's the kind of game you reminisce about for years.

Nephilim of Sin
11-02-2009, 11:27
But I can't see why it 'doesn't scale past a certain point'. While I can see the Fantasy restriction where the number of point played determines what you can field, eg 2000 allows you a Lord and more Specials and Rares; which also allows you to add your own restrictions like Magic Level and certain Monsters. In 40K you don't have such restriction, only the FOC. Playing more points can just as easily mean play more FOCs.
.

Actually, no, it does not. There is no correlation in that aspect between fantasy and 40k. You have to remember, there are huge differences between a high magic army, and a high combat army.

5000 pts. of Dark Elves is completely different than 5000 pts. of Dark Eldar under the Apocalypse rules, especially since a 5000 pt. Dark Eldar Army can fit under two Force Organization Charts. That is a lot of differences between fielding everything you can, which you can pretty much do in fantasy.

Master Stark
11-02-2009, 11:37
Personally, I really don't feel this being the case.

I'd rather have two different 1500 p armies than one at 3000p. And mixing imperials, xenos and chaos just to play apoc? Never!

Why not?

Whenever someone complains about mixing allies in Apoc, I think of the 'end-game' for the Eldar in Dawn of War: Dark Crusade. You are nominally fighting the eldar, but they've recruited orks and chaos in the area so you end up fighting them as well.

Different races could very well end up fighting alongside one another for various reasons.

Master Stark
11-02-2009, 11:41
Quoted for truth.
Apoc does nothing that Epic does not.

TR

:eyebrows:

Apart from give me a semi-formal framework to use heaps of cool 28mm figures?

Sure, I can use a Thunderhawk squadron in Epic. But an Epic Thunderhawk squadron is in no way as impressive as a 40K scale one.

Thats the difference.

Grimtuff
11-02-2009, 11:43
The only thing that really irritates me about apoc is SPECIAL CHARACTERS!!!. In my view, maybe its been corrupted by third editions lack of them, special characters don't belong in just 'any' game, they should only be used in totally fluff-justified situations. I mean that orks VS IG battle report, you know with the big gun. Yeah it had sammael (correct spelling?) Azrael and I think Ghazgull... WHAT IN THE ******?

I'm going to sound rude here, but I don't care.

:wtf:
"Special Characters have no place in 40k" as the "Engagment is not big enough to warrant their presence" is a phrase often tossed around. Now, you're saying they can only be used in a very narrow amount of situations. APOC is the perfect place for them.

If you cannot "feel bad" about using SC in APOC there where can you bloody well use them? :eyebrows:

This is what grinds my gears about some people. "Wah wah wah, he's using Marneus Calgar again!" Big whoop. Did you ever stop to think this may be a small part of a much larger battle (even in APOC)? Or this is the last remains of an army on the retreat from a previosu battle, hence the Big MC showing up in "such a small battle".

Where is the "acceptable" level for me to use a SC in your games then? 20K? 30K? because you seem to be wanting people to use restrictive amounts.#

Special Characters did not ruin APOC at all, they enhance it.

Son of Makuta
11-02-2009, 11:49
Apocalypse seems to work best with an arbitrator. The arbitrator writes up some mad scenario, then runs the game, using an NPC army to even out the game balance as necessary. The first time I did this the game turned out to be far too random and unpredictable, but it was a hell of a laugh. I'm running a second game in a few weeks; the plan for this one is to tie it in with a game of BFG, where each side can recycle as many infantry units a turn as they have cruisers left surviving in the BFG game.

We have a number of super-heavies in the club here at uni, most of whom are owned by one guy (who, weirdly, is named Phil Kelly. How cool is that?). The Reaver is waaaay too powerful in context - it took the Warhound down from full structure/shields to apocalyptic explosion in one shooting phase in the last game, and at the moment we've got nothing that can seriously threaten it in return. This game we may have more variety of armies though - Stompa-equipped Orks and Revenant/Scorpion Eldar may join the fray. I can see a massive Imperial+Eldar vs Chaos+Orks square-off going on. I'll be arbitrating with random-factor Tyranids and/or playing in the BFG game.

I agree that Flank March is too powerful - especially combined with Careful Planning. In fact most of the strategic assets are ever so slightly ridiculous (although On My Coordinates is just brilliant). We left them out of the last game, which I think was a good move. One side did get a turn-by-turn orbital bombardment provided a certain daemon prince was alive, but Yrarnax got banished to the Warp (literally - the game included a daemonworld table, and models could get transported from one to the other; I decided on impulse that Yrarnax would go there when he died) in the first turn courtesy of that damn turbolaser-pumping Reaver. It looks gorgeous, but it's just too good...

Apocalypse does suffer from people 'not getting it'. I notice that most of its detractors haven't even read the book. The thing with Apocalypse is that even though they didn't change the basic rules at all - they just added a new, great mission and a load of really big stuff to nuke swathes of the enemy with - the mindset and the feel of the game is completely different. Apoc's devil-may-care attitude has even crept over into my friendly games. When you've played it once or twice you realise that, in fact, these are just models, and 40K is not the kind of game to be played hard and fast like Warmachine. It's a game where I can throw some Nids down on the table and murder or be murdered as the dice take me. It's a game where I can borrow an army of Guard, line up in front of an Ork army knowing I have literally no hope (he owned no Chimeras; need I say more?) and still have a blast, particularly when one below-strength Guard squad held off about 25 Orks for an assault round, drawing the combat (admittedly this benefited the greenies more than me, because I couldn't Hellhound them, but who cares?).

Apocalypse embodies this attitude. Your basic troops, your elite troops, your characters and even your tanks are rendered expendable. There's just so much stuff to kill on the other side that the only significant units are the ones that throw down 10" blast templates and take out 20% of your army if they explode in the right way. In Apocalypse, you can cheerfully hurl units into the meat grinder, knowing that a) they don't matter and b) it's all in the name of fun. Whoever wins doesn't actually matter that much, it's all about the funny moments that 40K seems to deliver more frequently than almost any other game, and the mass death that no other game can provide. If I accidentally deepstrike a Winged Tyrant onto a Hammerhead in a normal game of 40K, and it goes splat, that's 150-200 points wasted to a bad roll and it was probably there for some tactical ploy or other. It's still funny, but also irritating. If I do it in Apocalypse, not only will there be five or six Carnifexes coming down with it, but nobody cares that much about one monstrous creature when there's 5000+ points on the board, do they?

Tarax
11-02-2009, 11:57
Nope, because without loosening the FoC chart you can't take those single models from other books.

But in Apocalypse you CAN!

I understand some people buying and painting individual models from a certain army, because they like them. But using them without even considering building a whole army of them (that army) does seem to me like he only wants to have something very powerful. Eg, a Greater Deamon without even wanting to play Chaos or Deamons.


So not only have you never played Apocalypse or read the book, but the same applies to what you're comparing it with? :confused:

I admit:

I don't play Apocalypse
I don't play Epic
I don't play Battlefleet Gothic
I don't play Necromunda
I don't like the background of the 40K universe

But I do like some of the models and some of the rules of 40K. To me it's like using the models I've collected in a game.

So why complain?

I think some of you have not read all of it. I don't mind people playing Apocalypse, if you like it. But I don't want to be hammered with it everywhere I go.
I'm just wandering why people play Apocalypse and not play bigger battles with more points and probably more FOCs.

IJW
11-02-2009, 12:04
I don't mind people playing Apocalypse, if you like it. But I don't want to be hammered with it everywhere I go.
Who's hammering you with it? It's not promoted any more than the current army releases, War of the Ring etc.

Master Stark
11-02-2009, 12:04
I'm just wandering why people play Apocalypse and not play bigger battles with more points and probably more FOCs.

Because Apoc is easier and more fun.

Occulto
11-02-2009, 12:06
Sure, I can use a Thunderhawk squadron in Epic. But an Epic Thunderhawk squadron is in no way as impressive as a 40K scale one.

Thats the difference.

In an Epic game that's in progress on my gaming table, I used a Scorpion super heavy as a throwaway unit purely to remove overwatch status on a unit of Orks. It died, and... well I just shrugged and moved onto the next activation. :p

That's a little different to Apocalypse where the same vehicle would be a major thing on the table - and destroying it would be considered an achievement.

At the end of the day, a vortex grenade pales into comparison when you have spacecraft support. :D

Comparing Apocalypse to Epic is like comparing apples and oranges.

Master Stark
11-02-2009, 12:08
Comparing Apocalypse to Epic is like comparing apples and oranges.

I know, thats why Trenchies comment about Epic doing the same thing as Apoc caught my eye.

Brother Loki
11-02-2009, 12:15
Because a 20,000 point game with normal rules takes a lot longer than one day to resolve.

In my opinion Apocalypse works better the bigger the game. Sure, a Baneblade's big pie plate is a problem in a 3,000 point game, but in a 20,000 pointer its just one more big tank. A marine battle company getting 3 free assets is powerful at 3,000 points or so (if you can fit that formation in an army that size) but when it's only one detachment in an entire army it makes a lot more sense.

What makes you say you're hammered with it everywhere you go? I suspect that must be a problem unique to your area, as that doesn't seem to be the general experience. Typically a club may play one big apoc game every couple of months.

Grimtuff
11-02-2009, 12:15
Comparing Apocalypse to Epic is like comparing apples and oranges.

QFT.

Eventually certain people will get that APOC is not Epic "40k scale".

RCgothic
11-02-2009, 12:45
We have a number of super-heavies in the club here at uni, most of whom are owned by one guy (who, weirdly, is named Phil Kelly. How cool is that?). The Reaver is waaaay too powerful in context - it took the Warhound down from full structure/shields to apocalyptic explosion in one shooting phase

That would be me. ;)

Liked your post very much. The reaver probably won't be coming to play in our game in a few weeks, but I have a marauder destroyer now...

Nephilim of Sin
11-02-2009, 13:01
]

I think some of you have not read all of it. I don't mind people playing Apocalypse, if you like it. But I don't want to be hammered with it everywhere I go.
I'm just wandering why people play Apocalypse and not play bigger battles with more points and probably more FOCs.

You are bombarded with Apocalypse because it is still relatively new.

Bigger battles does not equal more FOCs, at all. It is completely different than fantasy, which too does suffer at larger battles in some ways (I.e. you can get a Sword of Might at 500 pts, but can't have more than one at 10,000 pts? :wtf:). 40k as written thus far just suffers in a different way, and I welcome the addition of a true Fantasy 'Apocalypse', not some half-baked WD article. Or maybe I should still be playing 5th....

Corrode
11-02-2009, 13:07
I'm just wandering why people play Apocalypse and not play bigger battles with more points and probably more FOCs.

I can **** with sandpaper, that doesn't mean it's the best way to do it.

The Orange
11-02-2009, 15:01
I can **** with sandpaper, that doesn't mean it's the best way to do it.

Best post yet :p.

itcamefromthedeep
11-02-2009, 15:40
I can **** with sandpaper, that doesn't mean it's the best way to do it.


Best post yet :p.
Yeah, that just about sums up the thread right there.

Barring super-heavies, most Apocalypse forces I've seen would actually fit into an appropriate number of FOCs.

LoneSniperSG
11-02-2009, 17:32
This is a simple question with a simple answer, guys.

We COULD do 10,000 point battles with the books we have and throw out the Apoc book and all it's datasheets. But then we would have a few problems.

1. The game (As said earlier) would be incredibly sluggish, long, exhausting and boring without Apoc to streamline everything. No one plays the game for work. They play for fun. Apoc keeps big battles fun.

2. Without the datafaxes, we would have to get people's permission to use a farking Hydra! "Hey can I use my Hydra?" "No. [Can't let him get AA to shoot down my Maurauder.]" This is of course a worst-case example but still. Apoc lets us grab a unit we would have to ask to use.

3. Apoc gives us a heck of a lot of creative license with the ''Counts as" rule. This concept isn't always possible in normal games. "Counts as" Also applies to terrain and not just units. So we can build a useable ground-based AA weapon or something. (Think the Necron Pylon)

grissom2006
11-02-2009, 17:53
my apocalypse gaming experience is hugely enjoyable it's great finally being able to pull out old 40k models that i moth balled years ago and put them back to good use. yes you can use really quite silly stuff in the game but thats what makes it more fun and lots of my friends agree with it. most just up scale there armies without the use of titans and such but the wouldn't stop a person using them in a million years as they enjoy the game.

as the the matter of getting kids into playing it i have to say my local gw and games club both actively encourage experienced players in the expansion. the newer players if anything are discouraged from it until there at a level to take part in such games.

malisteen
11-02-2009, 17:54
Apoc is terrible for pick up games. Terrible. It takes a very special manager/hobby specialist to be able to get an in-store, open participation apocalypse game to be any fun at all.

Apocalypse is great for pre-arranged themed games, with army contents, special rules, and acceptable strategems agreed to well in advance. It's fabulous for it. As mentioned by many, APO formations breath new life into bland units. They enable armies that don't exist otherwise, and let your army play like it should.


Take chaos marines. like it or lump it, their current book is notoriously skeletal on special rules and options, and many feel (rightly or wrongly) that it does a terrible job of representing chaos marine fluff in model form on the tabletop. But! In apocalypse we can take units from the guard codex and use the lost and the damned formation to represent the teeming hords of cultists, mutants, and traitors that fight as expendible slaves for the legions. We can show the variety of their daemonic allies by pulling units from the daemons codex. We can use formations that highlight our chosen HQ's fighting style, or that enable cult unit formations that simply don't exist anymore, otherwise. In short, we can get a real chaos marine army on the field, one matching the fluff that drew us to the army in the first place. My apocalypse army looks and plays the way I think it should, and I can't really say that for my 40k army. When I run my APO army in a big game against my hated arch-foes it's simply cooler for me then a regular 40k game.


I did once play in a 3k point pickup APO game against a stranger on a regular sized table. His entire force of hardcore units from unrelated codeces flank marched in from the back of my table edge on the second turn. I put my stuff away right then and there - there's no point playing that. Still, APO, played by friends who share the same gaming philosophy, can be increadibly cinematic and loads of fun. If you don't like big games, if you don't like 40k fluff, or if you're looking for competetive balance, or if you want to play a pickup game, then APO is most certainly not for you. Even says so in the book. If your local scene is trying to force APO on you, or use it as the asssumed format for pickup games, then they're doing it wrong.

WildWeasel
11-02-2009, 23:12
1. The game (As said earlier) would be incredibly sluggish, long, exhausting and boring without Apoc to streamline everything. No one plays the game for work. They play for fun. Apoc keeps big battles fun.


How does Apoc streamline anything? Standard 40K or not, when 300 Slugga Boyz get their charges off, you have to roll 1200 attacks, and resulting wounds and saves. Now with super-heavies eating up points (lowering over all model count) and pizza plate attacks chewing up huge swaths of Boyz, I suppose it's a bit quicker, since you put one template down and roll 50 wounds and potential cover saves, instead of putting down 5 templates and rolling 5 batches of 10 wounds and potential cover saves. But Apoc really doesn't address the single biggest slowdown in 40K, the dice rolling. It just makes it even more Grimdark Yahtzee.

Lord Inquisitor
11-02-2009, 23:25
I realise I'm jumping in 4 pages in, but I really like Apocalypse. It achieved (at least for me) an important new way of playing 40K.

Actually, it's pretty much an old way of gaming, but for me Apocalypse was like a slap in the face that said "you don't need to use the FOC!"

Holy crap, says I. You're right. I've become dogmatically stuck with army lists and legality. I hark back to 2nd ed days of making our own vehicles (even a whole army at one point) and virtually no restrictions on what we could take in our armies.

To me, Apocalypse isn't about big armies, it isn't about the scenarios or streamlined rules, what it's about is a book that means that I can say "let's play a 3,000-point apocalypse game" which means "let's play 3,000 points and throw the FOC out the window and I might bring titans" - which would have had people looking at me like I was barking before Apoc was released.

Apocalypse is good because it's a mindset. Don't get me wrong, 99% of the time I'm still playing "regular" 40K with "proper" rules. But Apocalypse is so fun because it frees you from the shackles preventing you from shoving that Warhound on the table and having fun!

Darnok
11-02-2009, 23:44
How does Apoc streamline anything? Standard 40K or not, when 300 Slugga Boyz get their charges off, you have to roll 1200 attacks, and resulting wounds and saves.

If you allow this to happen, then it really is your fault. Apart from the fact that I highly doubt that you get 300 models in full CC, it would be at least foolish from both you and your opponent to let this happen.

And yes, the simple use of big template weapons and some strategic assets simplifies a lot of things. But consider it more of an cooperative game than normal 40K. It is not meant to bring the most ueber killy combo of mass destruction. It is meant for cinematic awesomeness. And for that you have to talk with the other side, to communicate what that means for both of you.

WildWeasel
12-02-2009, 00:34
If you allow this to happen, then it really is your fault. Apart from the fact that I highly doubt that you get 300 models in full CC, it would be at least foolish from both you and your opponent to let this happen.

And yes, the simple use of big template weapons and some strategic assets simplifies a lot of things. But consider it more of an cooperative game than normal 40K. It is not meant to bring the most ueber killy combo of mass destruction. It is meant for cinematic awesomeness. And for that you have to talk with the other side, to communicate what that means for both of you.

I have no problem with Apoc as the friendly/casual wazoo game style, I have no issue. In fact, I'm glad that GW is providing a bit more of a split between the base codexes for pick-up/competitive play and CoD/Apoc for what they are. But when I see people say that Apoc has rules that make the game run quicker/smoother, I just don't see it. My 300 Boyz was just an illustrating example. Apoc doesn't do anything that speeds up the resolution of game mechanics themselves. If you have 10K points of models on the board, be it 40K or Apoc, you're still gonna be throwing oodles of dice, counting them out, doing wound allocations, rolling pen rolls and damage charts, etc. Apoc doesn't address that at all. It is an ethos and play style, with the only rule change being army comp. Ethos and style doesn't make dice roll faster.

Darnok
12-02-2009, 01:01
If you have 10K points of models on the board, be it 40K or Apoc, you're still gonna be throwing oodles of dice, counting them out, doing wound allocations, rolling pen rolls and damage charts, etc. Apoc doesn't address that at all. It is an ethos and play style, with the only rule change being army comp. Ethos and style doesn't make dice roll faster.

If you have problems with rolling dice, then 40K might not be the game for you. ;)

And no, Apoc doesn't change the mechanics of the game itself. That would be quite stupid, wouldn't it? It gives you some options to speed the game up, by making it more destructive on single model basis (SH tanks with big guns) or multi models basis (strategic assets, formations), or by simply your choice of victory conditions.

No, Apoc doesn't make you roll your dice faster. But it makes you make roll more dice in a shorter amount of time, thus speeding up the whole game. Wether you like that or not is up to you. And I'm not the one going after you with a shotgun if you don't like it. :D

WildWeasel
12-02-2009, 01:49
If you have problems with rolling dice, then 40K might not be the game for you. ;)

And no, Apoc doesn't change the mechanics of the game itself. That would be quite stupid, wouldn't it? It gives you some options to speed the game up, by making it more destructive on single model basis (SH tanks with big guns) or multi models basis (strategic assets, formations), or by simply your choice of victory conditions.

No, Apoc doesn't make you roll your dice faster. But it makes you make roll more dice in a shorter amount of time, thus speeding up the whole game. Wether you like that or not is up to you. And I'm not the one going after you with a shotgun if you don't like it. :D

I don't have a problem rolling dice, I play Exalted after all ;) What I'm saying is that it's the dice rolling part of things where 40K is most wont to slow down, and which Apoc doesn't really address.

I see where it does make it a bit faster (super-heavies, huge templates), but I don't see it making it that much faster. Especially in the context of huge points values. My main contention is that is does nothing systemically to speed the game, as people are wont to claim. It just has the potential to increase density (but while you're moving just one model instead of many, it often times has multiple, complex attacks), and some bigger guns (which don't reduce the number of dice rolled, just in a couple less batches, which doesn't matter as much with Apoc scale games).

The problem is that GW touted Apoc as being something to make huge battles fast and doable, and that just isn't there. As "Here's the casual/story play supplement with rules for formations and SH's" it's pretty much the bee's knees.

Maine
12-02-2009, 01:53
Why I like Apocalypse:

When I have bigger armies, I want bigger things to go with them, and I don't mean more troops in a squad.

At 500-1000 points, a tank or heavy vehicle is a 'focal point' for the army.

At 4000 points, 3 tanks isn't that impressive. Now something bigger - brought out a Baneblade!

At 20000 points, a couple Baneblades are a yawner. Time to bring out a Titan!

As the game gets bigger, with regular rules you simply bring more of the existing models. This works well enough in Fantasy, where blocks get bigger, and more blocks of troops appear... but they're all on movement trays, and combat flows very differently. Movement is still relatively fast, combat still flows relatively quickly.

It doesn't work so much in 40K. The game turns static, and the heavy amount of shooting gets overwhelming.

Apocalypse solves this in three ways:

First, it brings about weaponry and assets that can eradicate larger numbers of models than normal units.

Second, it brings about super-heavies and gargantuan creatures, which soak up larger chunks of points, and are the carriers of those weapons.

Third, the standard scenario actually encourages splitting your forces into two: a static defensive force to rear guard objectives in your zone, and a mobile assault force to take or contest forward objectives. This reduces time spent moving. The scenario also starts the battle lines much closer together, so there is shooting, assault, and units being eliminated from turn 1.

The battles that Apoc reproduces can compare to some of the more epic battles in the 40K fiction that Black Library publishes.

As for what Apoc does that Epic doesn't - it actually get attention from GW, has a built-in player base, and sells models. Epic is a niche, sadly.

druchii lord narakh
12-02-2009, 04:19
SCREW APOCALYPSE
i mean dang get over it.O LOOK I GOT A BANEBLADE AND A REAVER TITAN BECAUSE MY PARENTS ARE RICH.im tired of getting this crap shoved in my face by rich only children. im poor and i know it i don't need there help. im not going to play a apocalypse game unless everyone has all and i mean ALL the rules for all there miniatures. if you aint got imperial armor 2 from forge world well than fine that scorpian or stompa is nothing more than a falcon of a battle wagon. i hate apocalypse games set up by GW. i either get stuck with a team who likes to spread at least 1/3 of there army on each table then make it so i cant shoot cause of there running around and tying up all other players. or i get stuck on a team full of little kids who dont even know what the running rules are.

the only time i will play apocalypse anymore is with people i know really well and dont cheat and also have painted armies and not PROXYS!!!!!!!!!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad:

i also would rather have a game that you and your friends can set up that has like a sturry behind it and stuff.

Warforger
12-02-2009, 04:32
I hate it because it just becomes no strategy games, really I feel sorry for noobs who do buy the expensive big tanks, because once a unit of Fire Dragons pops up you realize Baneblades suck.

Problem with noobs these days, tend to think that "The Bigger the army the more veteran the player..." really, so they go for the bigger battles, but hey, you can't lose the nOOb until you learn.

I enjoy normal games much more then Apoclypse, most people over here do too, there's only one guy over here that is like "TANKS!" oftenly enough loses to players who've been playing just as long as he has, he also seems to be still in nOOb status a little, I mean seriously, I know his armies rules better then he does.....

Tarax
12-02-2009, 09:06
Who's hammering you with it? It's not promoted any more than the current army releases, War of the Ring etc.

It's broadly exposed in WD, with new models coming out. In GW-stores they always try to sell you Apocalypse-stuff. On this forum there is much talk. It seems no-one plays 40K anymore.


Because a 20,000 point game with normal rules takes a lot longer than one day to resolve.

And Apocalypse can be played in one day, also with 20000 points? I've heard people can hardly get 3 turns in a day. Or is 3 turns the normal number of turns, like 5 is in 40K?


Bigger battles does not equal more FOCs, at all. It is completely different than fantasy, which too does suffer at larger battles in some ways (I.e. you can get a Sword of Might at 500 pts, but can't have more than one at 10,000 pts? :wtf:).

No, it doesn't. But there is some kind of limit. What is the most points you can get with one FOC? 3/4000? And now you want to play more points. Enter 2 FOCs!
Yes, Fantasy is different. But both systems suffer from bigger battles. Perhaps not equally, but still.


This is a simple question with a simple answer, guys.

I'm glad to hear it.


We COULD do 10,000 point battles with the books we have and throw out the Apoc book and all it's datasheets. But then we would have a few problems.

OK, I'm interested.


1. The game (As said earlier) would be incredibly sluggish, long, exhausting and boring without Apoc to streamline everything. No one plays the game for work. They play for fun. Apoc keeps big battles fun.

Work can be fun. Aside from bringing bigger models, are there any rules which make it easier for the use of infantry? Which to me is the major cause for the most work.


2. Without the datafaxes, we would have to get people's permission to use a farking Hydra! "Hey can I use my Hydra?" "No. [Can't let him get AA to shoot down my Maurauder.]" This is of course a worst-case example but still. Apoc lets us grab a unit we would have to ask to use.

But he can't take a Marauder too.


3. Apoc gives us a heck of a lot of creative license with the ''Counts as" rule. This concept isn't always possible in normal games. "Counts as" Also applies to terrain and not just units. So we can build a useable ground-based AA weapon or something. (Think the Necron Pylon)

I'm not a big fan of 'Counts as'. And there's nothing wrong with inventing your own units and using house-rules.


I realise I'm jumping in 4 pages in, but I really like Apocalypse. It achieved (at least for me) an important new way of playing 40K.
...
Don't get me wrong, 99% of the time I'm still playing "regular" 40K with "proper" rules. But Apocalypse is so fun because it frees you from the shackles preventing you from shoving that Warhound on the table and having fun!

Thank you for this answer. (Cut some of your comment out to save space.)


Why I like Apocalypse:

When I have bigger armies, I want bigger things to go with them, and I don't mean more troops in a squad.

At 500-1000 points, a tank or heavy vehicle is a 'focal point' for the army.

At 4000 points, 3 tanks isn't that impressive. Now something bigger - brought out a Baneblade!

At 20000 points, a couple Baneblades are a yawner. Time to bring out a Titan!

So, it's all to bigger and stronger models?


As the game gets bigger, with regular rules you simply bring more of the existing models. This works well enough in Fantasy, where blocks get bigger, and more blocks of troops appear... but they're all on movement trays, and combat flows very differently. Movement is still relatively fast, combat still flows relatively quickly.

It doesn't work so much in 40K. The game turns static, and the heavy amount of shooting gets overwhelming.

And there's me thinking it's all to do about playing bigger battles with alternative scenarios and more tactical play? My bad. (And yes, I'm ironic here. No smiley needed.)


Apocalypse solves this in three ways:

First, it brings about weaponry and assets that can eradicate larger numbers of models than normal units.

Second, it brings about super-heavies and gargantuan creatures, which soak up larger chunks of points, and are the carriers of those weapons.

Third, the standard scenario actually encourages splitting your forces ...

Point one I've already discussed. Why placing 100 models if you have to remove them seconds later.
Point two is irrelevant. You can still play Apocalypse with normal model.
Point three is also countered by my comment above.

destroyerlord
12-02-2009, 10:34
I haven't read this whole thread, but I'll voice my opinion anyway. Apocalypse is basically an excuse to use those large formations that you always dreamed about when playing 40k. Wouldn't it be cool if I could afford a baneblade? Sure you can, its plastic! What about being able to take an entire force org chart of orc boyz in one unit? Go for it!

RCgothic
12-02-2009, 11:24
How does Apoc streamline anything? Standard 40K or not, when 300 Slugga Boyz get their charges off, you have to roll 1200 attacks, and resulting wounds and saves. Now with super-heavies eating up points (lowering over all model count) and pizza plate attacks chewing up huge swaths of Boyz, I suppose it's a bit quicker, since you put one template down and roll 50 wounds and potential cover saves, instead of putting down 5 templates and rolling 5 batches of 10 wounds and potential cover saves. But Apoc really doesn't address the single biggest slowdown in 40K, the dice rolling. It just makes it even more Grimdark Yahtzee.

I wonder if there would be a market for a virtual-dice rolling machine that would simulate large dice rolls.

Has a dial on the front with how many dice you're rolling, and a series of buttons labelled 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+, >2, >3, >4, >5, >6 and reset.

Need to roll a hundred dice to hit on a 4+? Set the dial to 100 and press 4+. gives you how many results passed, eg 56 passing results.
Need to wound on a 5+? press reset, set the dial to 56 and press 5+, eg 18 successful wounds.
3 up armour saves? Press reset, Set the dial to 18 and press >3 to see how many results were less than 3 so that you can remove models.

If rending is important, set the number of wound rolls, press the required button to see if they wound, then without pressing reset press 6+ to see how many of those were rending.

That would be a way of seriously speeding up large dice rolls.

Corrode
12-02-2009, 11:44
SCREW APOCALYPSE
i mean dang get over it.O LOOK I GOT A BANEBLADE AND A REAVER TITAN BECAUSE MY PARENTS ARE RICH.im tired of getting this crap shoved in my face by rich only children. im poor and i know it i don't need there help. im not going to play a apocalypse game unless everyone has all and i mean ALL the rules for all there miniatures. if you aint got imperial armor 2 from forge world well than fine that scorpian or stompa is nothing more than a falcon of a battle wagon. i hate apocalypse games set up by GW. i either get stuck with a team who likes to spread at least 1/3 of there army on each table then make it so i cant shoot cause of there running around and tying up all other players. or i get stuck on a team full of little kids who dont even know what the running rules are.

the only time i will play apocalypse anymore is with people i know really well and dont cheat and also have painted armies and not PROXYS!!!!!!!!!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad:

i also would rather have a game that you and your friends can set up that has like a sturry behind it and stuff.

Wow, hearing a 40k player whining about how 'only rich kids can afford it' is comedy gold. I'm glad to see that your games are about having fun and enjoying the craziness of Apocalypse, rather than rules lawyering and punishing people because they are, in your eyes, more fortunate than yourself.

No wait hang on, I got that totally wrong didn't I!

@RCGothic - there's already several of those around, and I believe there's a few iPhone apps which do the job.

Lord Damocles
12-02-2009, 12:14
It's a bit late to be sticking my oar in after 5 pages, but there you go...

I've not read all of the posts in this thread, but I've read enougth of them to see that my opinion of Apocalypse puts me in the minority - I don't care for it.
[Ducks to avoid sharp projectiles and flames] ...and here's some reasons why:


1) 'Now you can play big games' syndrome - It was very perculiar (not to mention disturbing) to note that as soon as GW released rules giving vague guidelines on how you might go about playing 3000pt+ games, most people who I've come into contact with completely forgot that you could do this already. Now you can't play large games unless you're playing Apocalypse apparently...

2) 'You killed Fluff, you *******!' - Seriously. There used to be a logical naming system for Imperial superheavy tanks. Now they're all just the BaneSwordDeathGrimHammerDoomLeetTank :eyebrows:.
Plus there's the background butchery in the two rulebooks...

3) 'And then we can ally them!' (http://grimdorkness.smackjeeves.com/comics/301695/apocalypse-fun-numba-2/) - Wulfen in Falcons, Carnifexes in Thuderhawks, Ghazghull with Calgar's Honour Guard. Oh god, it burns my eyes! My beautiful eyes!

4) The 'Apocalypse L33tness Scale' - Your worth as a person is measured by the number of points you've fielded at one time. Fact.

5) Datasheets - 'Buy 3 of this tank and get a pointless bonus. Buy 10 and get a midling bonus. Buy 25 and you've proved your manliness!'
Most of them are just silly.

6) 'Rules? What rules?' - Why does nobody playing Apocalypse games in GW stores ever know (any) rules :confused:


And breath... Ah, been a while since I had a good rant... feels good to get it all out there (again :angel:)

Iziuth
12-02-2009, 12:26
Just have to add my 2 cents.

@tarax why don't you give it a go and play a game. Apocalypse has a lot to offer, but it is most rewarding if you put some effort into creating a good narrative.

Apocalypse is somewhat faster than a regular large game of 40k in several ways. It already begins with deploying. This is done by bidding time to set up. The one has bids the lowest goes first. Also this leads to the second reason why it is faster while setting up with a time limit units will be left in reserve, which are brought on the board in the second and third turn of the game. So no dice rolling for lots of reserves.

These were things that when playing regular 40k took forever (especially in 4th ed) and caused the most aggrevation.

The biggest asset of apocalypse is that it gives you freedom to use what you want, so you can create a very nice armies without worrying about the legallity of it.

From my personal experience I like the somewhat smaller apocalypse battles best, say around 4000 point per side. This is mainly due to the limited space we have availabe to play the game. This allows for a more tactical feel of the game. However we do now enforce that only troops can take objectives in line with 5th edition so this still balances most arnies out.

So to sum up, the enjoyment of apocalypse is entirely reliant on the players playing it.

trigger
12-02-2009, 13:01
Because a 20,000 point game with normal rules takes a lot longer than one day to resolve.
.

Umm no it does not , it is still 40k with Pie plates and extra (some good some retarded) rules.

Big tanks /titans are now to cheep for how destructive they are.

I still dont see how appoc offers any benefits. If people needed a new rule book to play big games or to have some new formation rules , they need to find a new gaming circle.

People have pointed out that for a good game of Appoc you need to pre arange it to limit supper stuff , what is the point of it.

Corrode
12-02-2009, 13:12
I've not read all of the posts in this thread, but I've read enougth of them to see that my opinion of Apocalypse puts me in the minority - I don't care for it.
[Ducks to avoid sharp projectiles and flames] ...and here's some reasons why:


1) 'Now you can play big games' syndrome - It was very perculiar (not to mention disturbing) to note that as soon as GW released rules giving vague guidelines on how you might go about playing 3000pt+ games, most people who I've come into contact with completely forgot that you could do this already. Now you can't play large games unless you're playing Apocalypse apparently...

As has been mentioned time and again, it was POSSIBLE but AWKWARD. Multiple FoCs is a pain, dealing with things like 'so does Vulkan's 'army' apply to just the FoC he's in, to my entire army, to all my allies' is a pain, set-up time with traditional deployment is a pain (I believe 4th edition still used the old 'set up two Troops then an HQ then Heavy Support' or whatever strange deployment system?). It's not about 'you can only play big games with Apocalypse' but again, we're back to ******* with sandpaper - why WOULDN'T you use Apoc?


'You killed Fluff, you *******!' - Seriously. There used to be a logical naming system for Imperial superheavy tanks. Now they're all just the BaneSwordDeathGrimHammerDoomLeetTank :eyebrows:.
Plus there's the background butchery in the two rulebooks...

Which is worse than the various other background changes made in 5th edition? There still seems to be a pretty logical naming system, albeit a slightly expanded one.


3) 'And then we can ally them!' (http://grimdorkness.smackjeeves.com/comics/301695/apocalypse-fun-numba-2/) - Wulfen in Falcons, Carnifexes in Thuderhawks, Ghazghull with Calgar's Honour Guard. Oh god, it burns my eyes! My beautiful eyes!

Don't play with idiots, then. Or house-rule that you can't run different-Codex units in different transports. Or play with people who don't rely on allying to reach Apoc game sizes. Or just get over yourself.


4) The 'Apocalypse L33tness Scale' - Your worth as a person is measured by the number of points you've fielded at one time. Fact.

Um, no. See above about 'don't play with ****** people.'


5) Datasheets - 'Buy 3 of this tank and get a pointless bonus. Buy 10 and get a midling bonus. Buy 25 and you've proved your manliness!'
Most of them are just silly.

See, this is one of those silly Warseer things. People whine endlessly that 3rd edition onwards removed customisation (which I believe datasheets allow), and encouraging synergy and 'big formations' is kinda the point of the system.


6) 'Rules? What rules?' - Why does nobody playing Apocalypse games in GW stores ever know (any) rules :confused:

Again - don't play with ****** people. 3 of your 6 point list comes down to your apparent need to play with idiots and then blame the system for their failings. If you can't cope with Apocalypse games in GW stores (and I'll bet that most of the people who don't know the rules are the kids who jump in because it's LEET EPIX BATTLE and wouldn't know the rules in regular 40k either) then don't play them. Nobody's forcing you to. Yes, GW staff push things like the Stompa (I mentioned I had around 1k points of Orks and someone tried to sell me a Stompa) but that's their ******** job. Deal with it.

druchii lord narakh
12-02-2009, 14:13
No, it doesn't. But there is some kind of limit. What is the most points you can get with one FOC? 3/4000? And now you want to play more points. Enter 2 FOCs!
Yes, Fantasy is different. But both systems suffer from bigger battles. Perhaps not equally, but still
OK, I'm intereste
.


I've gotten space marine and even guard army lists in one FOC up to 6,000 pts. though i've never had that much.

RCgothic
12-02-2009, 14:39
11,980 is highest theoretical in one FOC for the new marines AFAICT.

That would be:
marneus calgar,
chapter master,
4x hounour guard squads,
3x terminator squads,
1 land raider as dedicated for termies.
6 las/plas tac squads with las razorbacks
3 vangaurd vet squads
3 las dev squads with las razorbacks

All tooled up with the max upgrades.

trigger
12-02-2009, 14:43
^You cant do that list bud ^

Bunnahabhain
12-02-2009, 15:33
11,980 is highest theoretical in one FOC for the new marines AFAICT.

That would be:
marneus calgar,
chapter master,
4x hounour guard squads,
3x terminator squads,
1 land raider as dedicated for termies.
6 las/plas tac squads with las razorbacks
3 vangaurd vet squads
3 las dev squads with las razorbacks

All tooled up with the max upgrades.

Current Guard one is a full mechanised company, about 23K in one FOC, just sticking to the codex (With FW, it hits about 30K), and you can't go higher than that without using one of the infinite upgrade ones ( ie buying an a 2000 man seer council, the same psychic power 3000 times over, or 100 squads of Non-FOC using Daemons ( I know, not all current codexs, you get the point...)) Only using the upgrades etc that are worth buying, it's about 12-13K.


On topic....
Big games, be them Apoc, Multiple Conventional FOCs, or anything else, have always worked better with people you know, who know the rules well enough, and are not going to be Win at all cost jerks, but rather will follow the background to a reasonable degree.

If you're going to dedicate an evening and a very large table to playing a game, you might as well make it fun and cinmematic.

loveless
12-02-2009, 15:40
^You cant do that list bud ^

what's wrong with it?

Lord Inquisitor
12-02-2009, 16:06
With sufficient Lesser Summoned Daemons, I can match any points value with my Chaos Marines using one FOC.

Occulto
12-02-2009, 21:58
I still dont see how appoc offers any benefits. If people needed a new rule book to play big games or to have some new formation rules , they need to find a new gaming circle.

People have pointed out that for a good game of Appoc you need to pre arange it to limit supper stuff , what is the point of it.

I can grow my own tomatoes, but that doesn't mean I necessarily want to. It's more convenient to buy them at the store. If I do so, I don't particularly want to hear someone listing all the reasons why growing them myself is better and how I'm an idiot for not doing so. :rolleyes:

Apocalypse is more about guidelines and inspiration than some super-duper new rule system. The WHFB General's Compendium was the same - yet instead of bashing it, people welcomed the book as one of the better releases GW has done. Sure you can write up your own campaign system, but with the General's Compendium it listed a whole range of ways to do it that players could either use or modify.

Over the course of numerous mega-games my gaming group learned a few things (the hard way) - even down to hanging up a bed sheet to do hidden deployment to speed things up. In a lot of ways, Apocalypse is simply a bunch of advice about running big games condensed into one book.

If you want to use it? Fine.
If you don't want to use it? Fine.

If it took a release like Apocalypse to introduce the "100% official is not the only way to play" mentality to people who otherwise wouldn't, then it's a success in my opinion.

Maine
12-02-2009, 22:13
If you want to use it? Fine.
If you don't want to use it? Fine.


Agreed, this thread seems to have run it's course. It started with us answering Tarax questions about why we like Apoc, to which he and others want to refute and argue each opinion, and even toss vague insults over. Now there are plenty of posts that are just attacks by some anti-Apoc folks, with comments that boil down to these people don't like Apocalypse, and because they don't like it, nobody else should like it or play it either. And that's just being silly and selfish.

Especially the 'anti rich kid' remark. I'm almost 30, work for a living, make a good salary, and if I feel like dropping $500 on a Warhound, then that's my perogative, and if you don't like that and it makes you feel bad because you can't afford to do so, tough. Get over it.

RCgothic
12-02-2009, 22:15
^You cant do that list bud ^


Why, what's wrong with it? (besides the multiple chapter banners. oops.)

Only thing I can see you objecting to is 4x honour guard, but calgar gets an allowance of 3, while the remaining chapter master gives an extra 1.

grissom2006
12-02-2009, 22:34
Why Apocalypse simple big games are fun for those of us who've played the game for decades we don't care abou how many dice we roll or don't roll. we have a laugh when it goes right and a even bigger laugh when it goes pear shape. damm rear action took out my reaver didn't see that one coming oh well back to the drawing board lol

shin'keiro
12-02-2009, 23:06
Apoc is ridiculous.. an army of assassins? no problem, infiltrating the enemy, firing the shredder and then using the ctan phase sword, to wipe the rest out... with a few titans thrown in for good measure... its all a bit silly.. i prefer smaller more tactical games.

Aegius
12-02-2009, 23:24
Apoc is ridiculous.. an army of assassins? no problem, infiltrating the enemy, firing the shredder and then using the ctan phase sword, to wipe the rest out... with a few titans thrown in for good measure... its all a bit silly.. i prefer smaller more tactical games.


but Apoc isn't a WAAC game, it's a beer and doritos game. If you want to have pure assassin lists, then you are going to have difficulty playing..........well.............anyone really.

I'm perfectly capable of killing a person, but I haven't and don't want to do it. It's illegal, but more importantly, its immoral. Apoc throws the 'illegal' thing out the window, but the 'immoral' thing is still there.

Fluxeor
12-02-2009, 23:38
Apoc - The only time you're likely to see Calgar, Abaddon, Thrakka and Eldrad .. all on the same side.. nay, both sides, with the accepted reasoning being thier friendly arm wrestling competition shred the fabric of the universe.

It works for me.... that and the system itself allows you to use pretty much every GW-related model you own (or have something to represent), might be the most unfluffy combination you can think of or couldn't actually justify sensibly, but that doesn't stand in the way of fun!

grissom2006
13-02-2009, 00:48
large games can be tactical

Tarax
13-02-2009, 08:05
I've gotten space marine and even guard army lists in one FOC up to 6,000 pts. though i've never had that much.

That's how much I know. :rolleyes: I've always wandered and even thought of starting a thread about it, like: Who can fit the most points in a FOC?


.. , this thread seems to have run it's course. It started with us answering Tarax questions about why we like Apoc, ... Now there are plenty of posts that are just attacks ... And that's just being silly and selfish.

I agree. I've got some sensible answers and some not so sensible. Perhaps I will try some Apocalypse, but probably not. Reason? Not that I won't like it, but I don't have any models/armies for it and the people I usually play with don't play it (much) either. And the people I know who do play, I don't like playing against.

Everybody thanks for your comment.

Closing this thread.