PDA

View Full Version : Have you played in a balanced Apoc Game?



boogle
02-04-2009, 21:49
And by balanced, i mean force planned well in advance and both sides using forces that, whilst complimenting each other actually need no explanation as to why they are allied together.

Do you limit the amount of 'big stuff' that each side has?

Do you use formations, with complementing units?

Or

Have you just turned up with whatever you fancy and been lumped in a side that looks, plays and feels odd (like Necrons allied with Eldar, allied with Orks)

Reaver83
02-04-2009, 21:52
I've played one game where we agreed sides before hand with specific missions and objectives. Restirctions on Flank March, limited superheavies - 2 a side.

As for complementing units, not so much, I took the force I thought would be fluffy and fun as did the others

IAMNOTHERE
02-04-2009, 21:54
Yep but then I've been to a few Tempus Fugitives campaign weekends.

boogle
02-04-2009, 21:54
I've played one game where we agreed sides before hand with specific missions and objectives. Restirctions on Flank March, limited superheavies - 2 a side.

As for complementing units, not so much, I took the force I thought would be fluffy and fun as did the others

did it work well?

Yarick Zan
02-04-2009, 21:55
For us it is bring what you want.

We do tend to split into groups so there is an even match of super heavies and so on on both tables, and so that it is somewhat even on both sides.

We don't generally do stuff like Necrons with Chaos, but we try to divide up the teams into mainly Imperium, and non Imperium. Usually though we can change it to Good vs Evil. IE Dark Eldar, and Chaos on one side, with Tau, Space Marines, and IG on the other.

SPYDER68
02-04-2009, 22:15
Somewhat starting to get into it here.. im looking toward no Str D weapons with 1-2 superheavies per side or so.

Chaplain Dionitas
02-04-2009, 22:17
Yes. We have limitations as far as not going over the top. There have been times though...

Kurisu313
02-04-2009, 22:22
Everytime I play apoc is balanced.

We usually agree on a set number of super-heavies, then rely on the fact that we are friends and won't make jackass lists. We don't make any further artificial restrictions, though.*

*Except we don't use Flank March

Sircyn
02-04-2009, 22:26
We remove flank march and disruptor beacon.

I've played in a few games of apoc from 3-6k a side, with single race armies on both sides that have a brief storyline, themed objectives and lots of terrain. No beardy lists with few if any super heavies or flyers (unspoken consensus). We generally have lots of beer and snacks around, some really good music and excellent company with fun gamers who won't spoil things.

It's Apocalypse at it's best imo.

General Squeek Squeek
02-04-2009, 22:36
had a great game the other week where there was roughly 15k of marines going against 16-17k worth of orks. (It was a themed game set in a ork space hulk so the orks had slightly large numbers for it being on their turf). Not only were the tables designed for the game, but each objective was vital to the story. All in all one of the funnest games I'd personally played in awhile.

Decius
02-04-2009, 22:46
I've had about 4 apoc games and three of them were a lot of fun. The un-fun one was me and a friend with our ork hoard against two marine players. The orks spent most of the game trying to get in range and getting bombed all to hell instead. This was when Apoc was still really new and we thought "strategic Redeploy" was overpowered. We should have used it. :p

The best game however, was my 3000 points of IG and my friend's 2500 points of Terminators verses about 5000 points of Tyranids. Since the Imperials had about 500 points more than the bugs, and a well dug in position, we gave the Tyranids a "super asset": all Tyranid models now had without number, including the big bugs and the flanking genestealers. It was a last stand for the Imperials. On turn six a thunderhawk would pick up any survivors (if there were any).

I had a Infantry Company Formation (which gives me 3+ save barricades, scheduled bombardment, and the ability for my vox guys to call a bombardment right onto their own position!) I also had 2 russ squadrons and a baneblade.
My partner had 30 ish terminators lead my Calgar. Calgar also got a legion relic stategic asset, giving him strength 10 at regular initiative.
THe tyranids, in addition to their unlimited hoard, had two or three flanking stealer units and that deepstriking carnifex formation (with 5 carnifexes).

The Imperials were doing good until about turn 4, when attrition started really set in. By turn six, we had to stop the game due to time, but it turned out to be a good time to stop. Most of the Imperials were dead, but the Colonel and Calgar survied with one wound each and boarded the tunderhawk, leaving the rest to die. So much fun.

And so many pictures too, if you guys want me to upload them.

But I got to go, I work in 5 minutes!

ColonelGreiss
02-04-2009, 22:49
At my flgs we've been playing awesome mega battles for as long as I've been playing. Apoc just made it a little easier and more fun. We usually set up a sign up sheet about a month in advance. We dont focus too much on who allies with who (usually, sometimes we do themed ones, guard vs nids, etc.) tho we will usually do Order vs Disorder, with guard acting as the balancer (guard on order, rebel guard on disorder). We are a pretty nice friendly bunch, and our store owner can be a bit of an ******* (in a good way) so no one brings dumbass lists in case they get kicked out of the battle and banned from the next mega battle. We dont have too many superheavies in our group, so we dont really need to put a cap on them, but if someone showed up with like 4 titans we might onlt let him use two or something. Works out pretty well for us.

AmBlam
02-04-2009, 22:54
No, not really, only played it twice I like the idea of banning flank march though.

Hi_ex_lover
02-04-2009, 23:02
Thye best we played lately was 3 players per side, 4000 pts per player, no more than 1000 pts of superheavies. Disrupter beacon is **** vs long range armies, and flank march is absolute death unless you take ambush to counter it.. etc, etc..

Khornies & milk
02-04-2009, 23:15
Our group play at least one Apoc game a month, and some of them have lasted 2 weekends, as we're lucky enough to be able to leave our tables set up.
We always play balanced games, so
..equal amount of Super-heavies on each side (no Titans...don't have any)
..narrative based
..a balanced board (terrain-heavy in some areas, sparse in others)
..quite a lot of Infantry
..we adhere to the 'Allies' chart
..Flank March is banned, period!
..complementing Forces (I run Armoured Battlegroup/Armoured Company lists, so I ally with Infantry-heavy lists)

Seen as 90% of our group are 'older gamers' and have known each other for many years we don't have any crap going on, well except the usual friendly rivalry BS. Any Outsiders that get invited know the guidelines so there's never any dramas.

Apoc is great fun when organised right!

LonelyPath
02-04-2009, 23:23
Most games I've taken part in have been "bring whatever along", but I took part in 1 battle that was themed and greatly enjoyed it.

The game was set for 6000 a side, Imperial and Chao forces. We talked about it beforehand and decided that it would be a Chaos invasion with Daemons and CSM, the Imperials were going to be IG, DA and GK so we decided that the Daemons and GK would be held in strategic reserve and come on to meet one another, but the GK were not allowed on until after the Daemons (so turn 3). It made a great game with a Warp Rift in action where we decided units of destroyed lesser daemons could respawn at the beginning of any turn. Super heavies would be limited to no more than 2000 points on each side, but neither side went over 1000. We also allowed forces to buy Assets for 250 points each instead of taking them as normal, but only 1000 points per side could be spent on them.

All the Imperials had to do was avoid being completely overrun for the duration of th game, the Chaos having to wipe out the Imperials (helped with the fact they had recycling units in the daemon force).

The GK were also allowed to be a Redeemer force and at the end of 1 turn there were no daemons left on the table, but seeing how they would return in the next phase the after effect rule wouldn't come into effect.

I must admit that when 3 GK dreadnoughts get into combat they can make a real mess of daemons, 3 bloodthirsters fell to them!

We're planning another at some point, 4500 a side all DA, loyalists vs fallen set at the siege of Calliban. No super heavies allowed, no titans, both sides having a orbital strike each turn if they roll a 4+ at the start of that turn (for the fallen this represents their own gun batteries firing into the assaulting lines from off table). It should be alot of fun since I can field nearly twice that with counts as models and could muster the forces for both sides if necessary.

IJW
03-04-2009, 00:10
And by balanced, i mean force planned well in advance and both sides using forces that, whilst complimenting each other actually need no explanation as to why they are allied together.
Is there any other way to play Apocalypse, and get any enjoyment out of it? ;)

Actually, I'm only half-joking - Apocalypse is the epitome of 'what you get out of it depends on what you put into it'.

tacoo
03-04-2009, 00:52
iv only been in one apoc game, but up at the FLGS, any time team battles are made we can spend up to an hour explaining why units are on each side. there is never any necron with eldar for fluff reasons. but necrons and tyranids are except able since they would both tend more to ignore each other (tyranids don't have soul's so nothing to feed ctan, and except for pharias, necrons have no biomass to feed tyranids, and the fact that the tyranids tend to skip over necron worlds in general), orks can bee on ether side since some ork clans do hire out to humans for a Little while. eldar can be on any side but necrons, chaos daemons, or chaos marines since eldar are manipulative. if chaos marines appear on a random side like with ig, we claim there alpha legion and so on. if we cant find a aceptable reason, the sides wont ally at all.

and on apocalpse, at our FLGS, we planning one in like 2 months so it should be more fair.

Noserenda
03-04-2009, 02:49
We've played a series with Great Crusade based narratives, generally a good use of a weekend, although it can be a struggle to get 8 or so dedicated skilled players in place for the whole time which has caused the defenders to suffer at least once.

Got another one planned for just before the TF weekend in May where we should have 7 fully painted and themed Legion/Imperial Army forces going at each other, Plus a sub player probably (Although that said ive got enough spare Alphas to make up half the numbers...) :chrome:

Vaktathi
03-04-2009, 02:52
The best games I've played in were the ones where things like Flank March were restricted (it just causes too many problems) and Superheavies are kept in check, i.e. nobody is showing up with a Titan where no superheavies exist on the other side. Showing up with a couple BB's is generally ok if it's a very large game (5k/6k+), but bringing 3 to a 3k apoc game is silly.

Creeping Dementia
03-04-2009, 03:33
I have yet to play a balanced Apoc game. In my area the games are usually Imperium=Win, because they have all the superheavies. Once some plastic things (along with the Stompa) come out for the rest of the armies then perhaps things will be more interesting.

Jellicoe
03-04-2009, 08:49
Only ever played Imperium vs commonsense opponents eg traitor guard, Tyranids etc. never mixed the two

Super heavies are limited (by wallet if little else) Tyranid superheavies are rather more vulnerable I find now that mass points have been removed and have died in almost every match

Only scoring units are troop units and there is normally a strong preponderance of these. Apoc formations are used but normally have little impact with exception of endless swarm for its regeneration effect as opposed to the running out of ammo rule which has yet to occur with our dice rolling!

Objectives are critical and challenging and with some mature players and fully painted armies this has all made for some really gripping games

Mojaco
03-04-2009, 09:14
I've played a handful of battles now, and generally they've been good fun. Our record is playing a 4th turn, but usually 2 or 3 is the norm :s
I've played one battle where only one side had a superheavy and it dominated, thus unbalancing the game a bit (the Revenant titan seemed so harmless with AV12, but when he got fortuned it just wasn't worth the effort of shooting him if 3/4 gets negated), but usually we have a good balance.

Doesn't surprise me to see flank march is banned here and there. We haven't (yet), but a Brass Scorpion coming in your rear just feels thoroughly wrong..

Kelpi
03-04-2009, 09:41
Its not terribly hard, you stick to a single army or at least logical allies. You both have the same amount of *crazy* units and you make an effort not to be a complete ******. Simple.

My last Apoc game was 6000 points with my Orks vs IG/Marines, I had my Scratch Built Pulsa Rokkit and Kitbashed Fighta Bomma, he had a Warhound and a Baneblade. Great game.

El_Phen
03-04-2009, 10:07
We haven't (yet), but a Brass Scorpion coming in your rear just feels thoroughly wrong..

:D

*Cue adolescent sniggering*

Mojaco
03-04-2009, 10:46
My choice of words was a poor one :D

BigBadBull
03-04-2009, 14:49
If by balanced you mean both sides have retarded amounts of legendary /formation/ super heavy's , yes. The thing most people forget is that only troops score....

So a deep striking Deathwing army actually is viable.

I've played a couple good games. If some one brings a super heavy flyer and tthe other players did not , it's going to be a long day.

Same with Endless swarms of Nids, Demons, or Orks. I'll pretty much pack it up when I see that crap. If I spend the time and effort to kill something , I don't want 120 gaunts coming back next turn...lame

galahad67
03-04-2009, 15:36
we have had 5 apoc games at our church hall. one lasted 2 days - the rest were 9-6 games.

We set a point limit per side ranging from 6k to 22.5k Most recent games are on the smaller scale to try and get them finished.

We match up on D strength weapons and super heavies to have equality.

Limit of 1 apoc strategy per player (my personal fave is careful planning) with an extra strategy if the sides are uneven.

No limits on the formation add-ons - we do list all that is on play or yet to be used on a large white board in the hall. Awareness is the key to preventing a game changing strategy. And the Imperial navy and Eldar air force are around to bomb the daylights out of outflankers.

There are usually 5 of us so its been 3 on 2 but we just added a 6th player and are looking at adding another 2 or 3 to the group.

Coffee is set up by the first person arriving.

Pizza is a rotating responsibility. My turn on April 10th.

No swearing (c'mon gamer's are supposed to have a vocabulary that enables the use of language without resorting to that)
No Alcohol (Alcohol and church do not mix)
No smoking (I've played before in that kind of environment - it's not very pleasant).

The most important part is to focus on having a good time.

We have even gotten the teenager to accept that Apoc games are just for fun and that his manhood(?) is not going to be impaired by the results. That was a tough sell - some folks are just naturally win-at-all-costs types.

Kirasu
03-04-2009, 15:56
All of my groups apoc games are balanced, fast and fun..

Basically tho it required a lot of work, I redid all the assets to make sense and be balanced.. You get bonuses for having LESS super heavies..

However the rules dont matter the main thing is you get the RIGHT people.. I dont let problem players play in my games, and my friends dont want them anyway..

Arguing is right out, so is anything that makes the game run slower

I use a modified roll system for large CC battles that speeds it up drastically, also you only take difficult terrain tests if more than 25% of your vehicle moves through terrain.. Friendly vehicles can move through your own infantry and you can push your own vehicles out of the way via 4th ed tank shock rules.. (same applies to enemy vehicles).. This is to ensure no traffic jams slowing down the game

We dont use true LOS, nor do we use 5th ed wound allocation.. Everything is based on speed

To keep things interesting we generally only deploy 1/3rd forces, then 1/3rd on turn 2 and 1/3rd on turn 3.. That way the turns dont take an absurd amount of time

Yarick Zan
03-04-2009, 17:38
Well one thing I have noticed in my store is that no one plays to win at all costs. It's more about the fun you have, and the fun the other players have. Sure we have titans and stuff every now and then, but we usually balance them by table. We have 2 very large 10x4 tables we play on, so room is not really an issue.

Also what's nice for me as a Tau player about Titans is they die just as easily as a horde of Leman Russ tanks.

Though I did make it my objective one time to build a Barracuda out of a Devilfish I had lying around. That thing was quite annoying, but it eventually went down. *Grumbles about Hydras*

Wook
03-04-2009, 19:25
Most of the Apoc games I have played have been balanced, I play with various friends, and we either play these at our own houses or hire a space for the event. Games run by a shop tend to be a bit more chaotic, but in fairness to my local GW store they tend to theme them fairly well, restricting people to certain races or formations. I have played in a several very good Orks v the Imperium, which worked fairly well.

Most of the games I have played have been between just two armies, Eldar V Orks for example. Whilst it is acceptable to have units from several imperial armies together on the battlefield, when you have squads from 20 different chapters, it can look and play rather poorly. Where as A couple of companies of space marines, some support formations, a Titan and Imperial guard forces, comprising of infantry, a tank company and some supper heavyís on one side and an a single army on the other works very well. Alien armies should not fight on the same side, no mater, and the excuse it always feels forced. Eldar and Dark eldar will fight together, as they still see each other as kin. Chaos lists can be used together, and the imperial guard can fight with Chaos and Tau with good reasons. Imperial formations could be used with orks representing the losses to the greenskins of large numbers of imperial vehicles, Iím thinking of situations like Armageddon here. The imperial, formations would need to be converted to be orky these are orks who have nicked imperial tanks, not space marines and guard fighting with the Orks. Tyranids and Necrons are unlikely to ally with anyone. I have never felt that there need to be any restrictions on formations or supper heavies as these are what make the games special, the stratagems should also not be restricted. Most stratagems have very easy ways to counter them. I have only found time for two large games this year, the first was a 17500 game of my orks against a friends eldar over 3 days, we had no restrictions other than the armies we were using so no allies and this worked very well. The second was a 4000 point game I had just finished my stomper and a fried had just got the Shadow sword. We agreed the points and that we would each use the new models, apart from that there were no restrictions. We finished the game in an evening and it was very enjoyable.

I would suggest to people that if they wand balanced games the way to do it is to sit down and decide the story first, this will decide the armyís that can be used and if you are going to take particular units. Then decide where you are playing, and how much time you have, this gives you your points limit. Any other restrictions are unnecessary as the story sets the backdrop for the game. Turn up and play does not work for large games.

RichBlake
03-04-2009, 20:11
And by balanced, i mean force planned well in advance and both sides using forces that, whilst complimenting each other actually need no explanation as to why they are allied together.

Do you limit the amount of 'big stuff' that each side has?

Do you use formations, with complementing units?

Or

Have you just turned up with whatever you fancy and been lumped in a side that looks, plays and feels odd (like Necrons allied with Eldar, allied with Orks)


I've only actually played one and it wasn't organised by me (sadly). It was left up to the guys at my gaming club and organisation isn't there "thing". What happened was spread over three 6x4 boards (making it 6x12) was about 50,000+ points of warhammer models. To top it off deplyoment was straight down the middle of the middle board giving each team a 6x6 square to deploy in.

The first thing we did wrong is over reach ourselves. While 50,000+ points of models looks awesome (I'm in the process of stealing the pictures to share on here) it was a tad unwieldly. Also with so many players when individuals got bored or couldn't be arsed anymore it left a burden on others.

Additionally Flank March should have been restricted, but probably not banned. Disruptor Beacons however should definetly have been banned.

It was OK, it was an Imperial win 5 to 1 but that score doesn't represent the battle too well. Despire a scout company and a battle company of Blood Angels using flank march our opponents only lost three of their objectives on the last turn. Also if the game had carried on past turn three the 6 'Fexes (was 7, i killed one) that landed behind my Imperial Guard lines would have probably wiped me out.

Next week I'm planning on doing a simple 4K Guard vs Space Marines game. Mainly to prove to the SM player that Apocalypse can actually be fun, it's basically just objective based 40K with cool toys.

By nature disruptor beacons are useless, flank march will be banned (probably) and I'm taking a Hellhammer and I've given him my transformer tank super heavy (he wants to use the Stormlord, fill it with 2 Dreadnoughts and 10 Terminators...).

Superheavies aren't overly powerful, but one side having one and the other side not doesn't so much as unbalance the game but makes it a different game for both sides.



We have even gotten the teenager to accept that Apoc games are just for fun and that his manhood(?) is not going to be impaired by the results. That was a tough sell - some folks are just naturally win-at-all-costs types.

As someone who recently technically stopped being a teenager (I'm 20) if that was supposed to be a ageist comment I find it a little offensive (though I'm willing to accept it may have been made in jest). Even 2 years ago I was more organised and mature then plenty of "adults" who play the game.

If you didn't mean to imply that he had that attitude because he was a teenager then apologies for jumping the gun a little, though you should probably be more careful how you phrase things in future :p

LonelyPath
03-04-2009, 20:51
I do love how people always try to balance Apoc games or remove/ban assets because they seem to powerful and overwhelming to the enemy, but Apoc is supposed to be like that. it's throwing everything to the wind and playing a kill or be killed game where balance isn't the focus. I've played most games like that and loved them all and only 1 balanced game and loved that just as much. But I'd hate to be forced to play 1 of the other all the time, I'd may as well play regular 40k on larger scales (like adding more troop/elite/fast/heavy slots), heh.

As I said in the first page of this thread myself and a few others are planning another balanced game set in the Siege of Caliban towards the end of the Horus Heresy just to have fun. We're working on some special rules and effects to mirror what is also going on off table throughout the rest of the siege and we expect it to be great fun. Since it's DA vs DA there won't be much in the way of superheavies and we're on the brink of banning them from this game, instead relying on what's in Codex DA. After that we'll run it again without all the balancing elements for more fun and to throw in some forces that wouldn't have been present since they weren't around then. We're all pretty like-minded and always enjoy messing about with things to be what-if situations.

@ RichBlake - I've found that no age demographic is worse than another, I've found players with bad attitudes and egos in just about every age group. Teens are no worse than any other, but there are alot of teens in the hobby and they are the most prolific in a public sense, so they do tend to get ost of the stick. Sad, but true. It's simply a case of the few spoiling it for the many :(

tartarus1222
03-04-2009, 21:09
Apocalypce is just so annoying in my store. You think its going to be great then all the little kids turn up with their 500 pts and you end up with a game with 2 hours per ********** phase.

RichBlake
03-04-2009, 21:21
I do love how people always try to balance Apoc games or remove/ban assets because they seem to powerful and overwhelming to the enemy, but Apoc is supposed to be like that. it's throwing everything to the wind and playing a kill or be killed game where balance isn't the focus. I've played most games like that and loved them all and only 1 balanced game and loved that just as much. But I'd hate to be forced to play 1 of the other all the time, I'd may as well play regular 40k on larger scales (like adding more troop/elite/fast/heavy slots), heh.

As I said in the first page of this thread myself and a few others are planning another balanced game set in the Siege of Caliban towards the end of the Horus Heresy just to have fun. We're working on some special rules and effects to mirror what is also going on off table throughout the rest of the siege and we expect it to be great fun. Since it's DA vs DA there won't be much in the way of superheavies and we're on the brink of banning them from this game, instead relying on what's in Codex DA. After that we'll run it again without all the balancing elements for more fun and to throw in some forces that wouldn't have been present since they weren't around then. We're all pretty like-minded and always enjoy messing about with things to be what-if situations.


I don't think you should dismiss the idea of balanced Apocalypse games, it is very possible to make Apocalypse balanced, however it's also supposed to be more fun. The problem there is you need both players seeking fun to achieve it.

Necromunda and Inquisitor are "fun" rather then "competitive" games but they rely on all the players seeking a good game rather then a win. Nothing wrong with wanting to win of course, courses for horses and all that, but if you're level of enjoyment is driven by tightly fought games and victory over your opponent these "fun" games may (note may) not be your cup of tea.

That said I think it's possible to balance Apocalypse, it's just instead of outlinging everything properly and carefulyl balancing it and testing it against rule lawyerism like has happened with 40K GW have said "Yeah we trsut you guys to go away and have fun".

Foolish perhaps? :p



@ RichBlake - I've found that no age demographic is worse than another, I've found players with bad attitudes and egos in just about every age group. Teens are no worse than any other, but there are alot of teens in the hobby and they are the most prolific in a public sense, so they do tend to get ost of the stick. Sad, but true. It's simply a case of the few spoiling it for the many :(

Off topic but: True there are a lot of teens in the hobby so perhaps they get a bad deal.

Generally though I find the older players in the hobby are the most likely to prejudge people based upon age. That's nothing limited to 40K though, older generations always criticise the younger ones!

At my gaming club the age demographic is generally below mid twenties, with the odd exception. Personally I'd love to see more people at my club, regardless of age, as I'd love to see it grow!


EDIT: Why do people keep making insults based off age? Even with "little kids" with their 500 points each surely that would speed up the game? If I'm handling 4000 points of Guard I'm pretty sure I couldn't move the army and roll dice for it as quickly as 8 people could...

Kirasu
03-04-2009, 21:38
Honestly I find the teenagers A LOT more fun to play with than the over 40 adults (No offense to anyone).. I started 40k when I was 13 and now Im 27 and over the course of those years the 14-20 crowd is generally more tolerant when things dont go their way, are willing to learn to be better and to try out new strategies than the older crowd

Atleast at my store and those Ive been at the older the crowd is the more they expect their games to play out a certain way and get upset when their armies dont perform which makes them less likely to continue playing

Read my battle report for ideas on running an apoc game smoothly and balanced.. You dont need to remove ANY assets however you also shouldnt trust GWs assets because THEY PLAY 40k DIFFERENTLY.. Objectively look at each and see how they've screwed up your games and balance them accordingly

Apoc is meant to be crazy but it also needs to be FUN.. and unbalanced broken junk isnt good for that

LonelyPath
03-04-2009, 23:17
I don't think you should dismiss the idea of balanced Apocalypse games, it is very possible to make Apocalypse balanced, however it's also supposed to be more fun. The problem there is you need both players seeking fun to achieve it.

Necromunda and Inquisitor are "fun" rather then "competitive" games but they rely on all the players seeking a good game rather then a win. Nothing wrong with wanting to win of course, courses for horses and all that, but if you're level of enjoyment is driven by tightly fought games and victory over your opponent these "fun" games may (note may) not be your cup of tea.

That said I think it's possible to balance Apocalypse, it's just instead of outlinging everything properly and carefulyl balancing it and testing it against rule lawyerism like has happened with 40K GW have said "Yeah we trsut you guys to go away and have fun".

Foolish perhaps? :p

Off topic but: True there are a lot of teens in the hobby so perhaps they get a bad deal.

Generally though I find the older players in the hobby are the most likely to prejudge people based upon age. That's nothing limited to 40K though, older generations always criticise the younger ones!

At my gaming club the age demographic is generally below mid twenties, with the odd exception. Personally I'd love to see more people at my club, regardless of age, as I'd love to see it grow!

EDIT: Why do people keep making insults based off age? Even with "little kids" with their 500 points each surely that would speed up the game? If I'm handling 4000 points of Guard I'm pretty sure I couldn't move the army and roll dice for it as quickly as 8 people could...

I have played a balanced Apoc game and greatly enjoyed it and planning another, so I'm not dismissing them. They are fun. However, the rule lawyering and so forth are creeping into Apoc here and there, it's that which I' mostly on about. Sorry for not being clearer ;) Balanced games are mentioned in the Apoc rulebook itself, so it is in the design, but it's not the be all and end all, just like battles where you bring everything and kick your feet up. Personally I enjoy gaming in general so I'm easy either way, but when people start going into vast detail and hording over every last aspect of things, it does start sucking the fun out for me.

I agree entirely with the the older gamers more likely to prejudge people, I'm in my 30's now and been into the GW hobby for 23 years (doesn't seem that long) and I judge people on how their attitude as things go, not going "gah, great a kid, how horrible!" I was one of those kids once and I can't understand where the judging came into it, it was nothing like that when I was their age, at least not for me. I also play histociral (not WH Historical but others) wargaming and I do often get callded Kid by older gamers, but that's their way since I'm younger, no offence meant behind it, I imagine some could take offence though, lol.

The club I ran years back had form teens to early forties, but the teens filled most of it. We had a few bad attitudes pass through, but they seemed to come from all ages and walks of life, so it's mean to insult someone based on their age and the actions of maybe 1 or 2 you've met of a similar age :(

Chaos and Evil
04-04-2009, 00:00
Ever played a balanced Apocalypse game?

Not a chance.

But then, a balanced tactical gaming experience isn't the point of Apocalypse; The point of Apocalypse is wacky-fun.

A1TEC
04-04-2009, 00:10
When I played we had a set points and also the mission selected before hand.
We chose to limit the super heavies to 3 per side.
It seemed to work well and each side complimented eachother.
The was an IG and SM army verses two craftworlds of Eldar.

Bodysnatcher
04-04-2009, 00:10
Generally apocalypse works well if you have roughly equal points on both sides. And all players know what they're doing.
Nothing worse than someone on turn 3 of a massive game going 'How does rapid fire work?'

Demonrich
04-04-2009, 00:21
I've played a handful of battles now, and generally they've been good fun. Our record is playing a 4th turn, but usually 2 or 3 is the norm :s
I've played one battle where only one side had a superheavy and it dominated, thus unbalancing the game a bit (the Revenant titan seemed so harmless with AV12, but when he got fortuned it just wasn't worth the effort of shooting him if 3/4 gets negated), but usually we have a good balance.

Doesn't surprise me to see flank march is banned here and there. We haven't (yet), but a Brass Scorpion coming in your rear just feels thoroughly wrong..

The reason the revenant seemed so tough is that you cannot fortune a super heavy ;)

schottenjaeger
04-04-2009, 04:52
I like the new apoc rules, frankly; compared to the old megabattles I've been in, it runs much more smoothly. That said, I agree that Flank March is a little OTT, and broken levels of superheavies are a bad thing.
On the other hand, I can't even participate in "bring all your stuff and get bizzay" games - I've got a full Preceptory of sisters (about 5k, give or take, mostly grunts), a full company of marines plus a cavalry auxilla, far too many Elfdar, and enough Inquisitorial troops to end a subsector, plus the superheavies...

The most fun I've had thus far has been a 2e-style "strategem" game where every player gets a card, based on points played, that gives them an objective in addition to the main ones. I.E. "1000-point force: choose and assassinate one enemy Independent Character or destroy one enemy Superheavy Vehicle to earn one Objective Point (you must notify a referee of your choice in writing by the end of the Deployment Phase)." Makes the game a lot more fun for the players with 500 or 1k on the table, since they can accomplish something, and it keeps the big boys on their toes.

Also, having a referee or GM around makes life a HELL of a lot easier for the players, IME.

As to the age debate: a newbie is one thing, and they come in all ages. But they tend to be young, on their first army, and there to have fun and show off their army. I love newbies.
Jack-mules, on the other hand, also come in all ages, with much less tendency to youth, and are there to show off their "skills" - which are only rarely as great as they think.
After a dog's age running demos and tourneys in everything from Magic to Pokemon to 40k, the rule has pretty much held...

Basically? In a store I've never been to, I'd rather play a "kid" than almost anyone else, because we'll likely both have fun. It's not that older players are automatically going to be less fun, or that the kid is automatically going to be more so, but if I'm going to waste 2-3 hours on a random draw from both wells, well...

Ddraiglais
04-04-2009, 05:48
Since my friends and I tend to be fluff nazis, we play Apoc with armies that make sense. IG/SM/Inq, Chaos/IG, Eldar/DE, Eldar/IG, etc all make sense. We allow for some stretching of fluff. IG/Nids could be done if the IG were a genestealer cult. SM and CSM could ally if we called the SM army renegades. We also use Apocalypse for modelling excuses. I'm still throwing around the idea of a beastmen/mutant army using Ork rules. Basically we find ways to make things fit, but the fluff has to be there. I'm not sure if that's balanced or not, but that's how we do it.

As far as SH go, it's whatever you can fit into X amount of points. If I want to show up with six reavers, then that's what I'm bringing. If someone wanted to field Legio Ordo Sinistar, then they could if they had the models and could fit it into that sized game (of course a 50K point game might take a while). :)

Imperius
04-04-2009, 14:05
I think IG vs IG Apocalypse kicks ****. We both agreed to automatically put our guys into close order drill, In the new Codex we are going to play with that one doctrine still.
We used a Platoon Coherency rule, where every squad had to be within 12" of another.
Baneblades and Super-Heavies were restricted to only shoot their main cannon every two turns they can, I.E. if you moved that turn it does not count towards your timer.
There was no objectives, a game that big would simply make it overly complicated and thats not neccessary when the first thing you want to do anyway is fire your tanks.

So yes, we do use formations, we limit 'big stuff' but we havent really allied with anyone....

marv335
04-04-2009, 17:04
the best apoc game I've played was an organised re-fight of Rynns World with a massive Ork force assaulting a large Crimson Fist force that was dug in.
there were also small contingents of Black Templars and Imperial Fists on the table.
The worst was a free for all where people just brought what they wanted and put them down wherever they could find space.
awful game.