PDA

View Full Version : Racial traits in Apoc/Forge World



Vandur Last
16-06-2010, 22:58
This is about what benefits and tendencies the various races get in terms of Apocalypse and/or Forgeworld models, including Flyers and Super Heavies.

I played in a huge Apoc game on the weekend and was a bit upset to see how many high strength shots the "Imperial" (Marines, IG, Navy and Titan Legion)side of the table was getting compared to the Eldar side. Im talking 8x S8 missile shots from one Imperial Flyer (Maruader?) and absolute buckets of high strength huge template goodness thanks to various IG Superheavies and a Warhound Titan.

After the game I was so annoyed at how few shots the Eldar were getting by comparison i started looking at other Xenos races to see who could match the Imperials for sheer firepower.
After realising that the Tau dont have any "D" weapons though im starting to realise that maybe its not so uneven as i thought.

In a way i can see that the Eldar punch above thier weight to a certain extent in that they dont get alot of shots like some others, but seem to have a higher proportion of D weapons, with templates no less.

SO basically im wondering what people think are the strengths, weaknesses and tendencies of the various races in terms of what they get in Apoc or Superheavy+Flyers games.

For example id say summ up the Eldar and Tau as follows, please feel free to correct or add to these:

Eldar: pretty low Armour, rely on speed and hot-or-miss tricks to survive, low volume of fire, good amount of D weapons

Tau: No land based Super heavies, relies on flyers and speed related formations, lots of regular high strength weapons

Lord Asgul
16-06-2010, 23:02
IMO I think that Apocalypse should only really be played with friends...occasionally big events but still mostly with friends mainly because it is meant to fun.

Vandur Last
16-06-2010, 23:06
Lord Asgul, I agree but im not sure how your comment is relevant to the topic.

Lord Asgul
16-06-2010, 23:14
I know that some armies apocalypse options are underpowered compared to the Imperial ones, if you play with friends you could create your own apocalypse datasheets and vehicles, which I don't think you can do in big events really because of random gamers refusing to go along with it.

Vandur Last
16-06-2010, 23:15
Now thats more interesting. What armies do you consider to be underpowered in Apoc and why?

Lord Asgul
16-06-2010, 23:17
Hmmm....the strongest is probably Chaos because of the whole getting what the imperium has thing. The weakest...Necrons and Dark Eldar mainly because of them being out of date, thus having very options in Apocalypse....

chromedog
16-06-2010, 23:17
Tau DO have S 'D' shots.
Try the A-X-0-1 titan killer's railguns (it was in the errata).

If your eldar aren't ALWAYS moving in apoc, they are dead.
Eldar titans should be moving to get their field saves. They are not the lumpen and unlovely machines of the human empire.
It's also easier to scratchbuild an imperial titan over an eldar one.

Lord Asgul is right though. Apoc has a number of issues that have to be agreed upon by both parties BEFORE a game is played. It is unsuited to pick up games. Last time I saw a game IN a store that featured apoc, it lasted for 2 turns (and that alone took 4 hours) due to the lack of organisation amongst ALL parties.

Lord Asgul
16-06-2010, 23:22
I played an apocalypse game that lasted a good 8 hours with 2 friends of mine, it was rather good with currys involved, you can't really do that at an event. Also the released datasheet tend to push you to one or two particular army builds IMO.

chromedog
16-06-2010, 23:36
The guys I play it with know their armies.
We've had 8-hour 6 turn apoc games WITH titans and massed infantry.

We also don't allow 'dick' units in the game (we have the same attitude to the VDR rules).
Apoc for us is about blowing stuff up while sinking beers. 40k has never been a serious game.

Lord Asgul
16-06-2010, 23:40
See that is how it should be...blowing stuff up with other stuff, getting involved in a massive melee in the centre of the map whilst blowing chunks out of that with more stuff, laughing as an unassuming champion kills your opponent ace-in-the-hole and generally just having fun

Vandur Last
17-06-2010, 05:52
Oh joy, no one had anything to say about the topic.

Thread Fail.

Markkoh
17-06-2010, 06:43
yeah I agree too

Hellebore
17-06-2010, 06:48
The eldar weapons tend to have overly complicated rules to give the appearance of 'advanced' but in practical terms end up with weapons that are simply worse than Imperial ones.

The eldar pulsar is an imperial turbo laser with less range. It's superior to the imperial one in EPIC, but in 40k eldar tech is almost always worse.

The new nightspinner is an obvious example. The eldar spend all this time and effort in creating one of the most convoluted barrage devices known - gravity clamp propelled monofilament, when an imperial steel shell with high explosive which is simpler to make and far far far far easier to fire does the same job only with a longer range, better strength, better AP and better AT capabilities (ie the basilisk or indeed half the guard tank weaponry).

In the end eldar weapon rules are just a facade to make them look fancy.

I'd rather use an imperial lascannon than a bright lance any day. So much for the vaunted eldar technological superiority.

Hellebore

Lord Damocles
17-06-2010, 10:13
Necrons: Necron formations become vastly more resilient than the sum of their parts*, although somewhat lacking in anti-armour firepower outside of super-heavies**.



*Try putting Warriors from an Undying Legion inside a Nodal Grid, within 12" of Pylon...
**But then you get the awesomeness of the Pylon :D

Baragash
17-06-2010, 11:01
It is unsuited to pick up games.

Seemed to work all right at Warhammer World for Battlefields the other week where the gamers were pretty much left to themselves. I played a 3.5 hour 3.5k game and a doubles 7.5 hour 6k game with no issues at all, and I didn't see or hear anything untoward on the dozen other tables that were also playing on the Saturday (I was too far away on the Sunday playing BM/CoD games to hear if it was the case on day 2).

@Vandur Last:
You haven't really given us a solid idea if the sides in your post were of equal points value (which I appreciate isn't the same as "balanced"). Obviously if one side has loads more toys, they're going to have loads more ka-boom ;)

MajorWesJanson
17-06-2010, 11:15
The new nightspinner is an obvious example. The eldar spend all this time and effort in creating one of the most convoluted barrage devices known - gravity clamp propelled monofilament, when an imperial steel shell with high explosive which is simpler to make and far far far far easier to fire does the same job only with a longer range, better strength, better AP and better AT capabilities (ie the basilisk or indeed half the guard tank weaponry).

Except the "vaunted Eldar technological superiority" means that this is not convoluted for them. They use gravitic manipulation as their basic means of transportation after all. Thir hand weapons take a solid block and shave off monomolecular dicsc from it and use gravity? to propel them at lethal velocity. With a rotary version of that shaver, a solid cylinder can easily be converted into floss instead of discs, fired in clumps, and left to drift down onto the target. It is mildly persistant as well, which cannot be said for explosive shells. Sustained fire and/or multiple units can blanket large areas with the stuff, making ground hazardous, rather than making craters and providing ready-made fox holes.

They could probably use the same slugs as the larger shurikan weapons, simplifying ammunition problems. A standardized slug of metal is a far better object from a logistics standpoint than explosive shells on top of that.

As for the game rules, they are game rules. Imperial weapons may be more damaging on the tabletop, but Eldar fight more with manuever and speed. denying movement options to enemy units lets you pick them apart and concentrate your specialists more easily.

Of course this is probably just another topic to bring up the usual rant about "Eldar weapon inferiority." :rolleyes:

destroyerlord
17-06-2010, 11:29
@Vandur Last:
You haven't really given us a solid idea if the sides in your post were of equal points value (which I appreciate isn't the same as "balanced"). Obviously if one side has loads more toys, they're going to have loads more ka-boom
This is a really good point. Your first post almost sounds as though you were playing codex eldar vs imperial titans/superheavies. Did you have any eldar titans, or maybe a scorpion or two to balance things out?

Vandur Last
17-06-2010, 18:53
I didnt mention points values because they werent an issue. If you notice i did say in my OP that Eldar have a decent amount of D weapons. We had some Scorpions, flyers and a Titan.
My issue was more with the fact that the Imperial warmachines were each getting a relatively massive amount of shots. A Single Marauder can put out more S8+ shots than a whole Codex: Eldar FOC, bar Warwalkers.
This is why i was pondering whether Eldar relative abundance of SD makes up for having about a quarter of the volume of fire of the Imperials, thus this thread about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various armies in Apoc.

@ Hellebore: I pretty much agree with this sentiment.
@ Majorwesjanson: What about a OP that says Eldar have more D weapons seems like an attempt to complain about Eldar weapons being inferior?

@Lord Damocles: yay someone responded to the OP.

Noserenda
17-06-2010, 19:02
You also forget most of those S8 Shots are in fact single shot...

Sildani
17-06-2010, 19:25
That's true, Hellstrikes are one-shot.

The thing is, the Eldar don't get that option at all. The Eldar equivalent (sorta) to the Marauder Destroyer is the Vampire Hunter (D! sorry...). The Vampire costs... a lot, has twin-linked pulsars, a missile launcher (Dark Reaper launcher quality) and a scatter laser, all at BS4. Nice.

The Marauder has: three twin-linked autocannon, one twin-linked heavy bolter, one twin-linked assault cannon, the option to carry bombs, better bombs, or incendiaries, and up to eight Hellstrikes, all at BS3. Nice, again. I THINK it's cheaper than the Vampire as well.

Now, my beef is not that Eldar weaponry is inferior - I happen to think that short range is an inbuilt, purposeful disadvantage to prevent the Eldar having everything. No, what I take issue to are the NUMBER of weapons that the Eldar have. That Marauder has about 15 discrete weapon systems, which thanks to its status as a super-heavy, can all be independently targeted. It can affect about 15 separate units. That's just tremendous. The Vampire can affect three, of which only one will probably be seriously affected (and granted, it'll be deader than a doornail).

The Baneblade has about eight or nine weapon systems. The Scorpion has two. The twin-linked pulsars are utterly deadly, but that's still just one dead unit, unless your blasts cover multiple units, which is entirely possible, even probable. But it's not guaranteed. The Baneblade is guaranteed to cause problems to seven enemy units. It can simply threaten more per turn.

Finally, all those different guns allow the Imperial tanks to continue being a threat to be feared even after a couple "weapon destroyed" results. If the 'Blade has its battle cannon and demolisher cannon blown off, it still has two lascannons, three twin-linked heavy bolters (or possibly double that), and perhaps an H-K missile. The Scorpion's done. It has to try "damage control" to get its pulsars back... but then it's not moving and not getting its Titan holo-field save. So it's a huge Falcon without holo-fields. Ulp!

I suppose I'm trying to say that I'd like the Eldar to have a greater volume of fire than they do now. One lucky shot and a very expensive Scorpion just became a paperweight. You need multiple lucky shots to remove a Baneblade's effectiveness, and while it's whole, the Baneblade/Marauder can threaten more of the table than the Scorpion/Vampire can, and thereby influence tactical decisions.

Ozendorph
17-06-2010, 22:17
Daemons and Nids are similar in that most of their Apocalypse-sized units are Gargantuan Creatures. As such, they tend to be more durable and reliable than Super Heavies, and almost universally out-perform them in close combat. On the flip side, they aren't generally as destructive at range and lack Str D ranged attacks.

Greater Daemons (imo) are awesome for their points in Apoc - particularly the Thirster and LoC due to speed. The combination of good invul saves, Eternal Warrior, 4-5 Wounds, and excellent CC ability spells major trouble for Super Heavy units.