Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

[Renegade Paladin]

Rough Riders. Though the Last Chancers are in there for some reason, which is weird because they aren't even in the Index.

Further: Several units have Infiltrators as an ability, but unless said ability confers immunity to being Out of Command (it isn't defined in the document; I suppose Apocalypse is going back to having universal special rules), it's going to be bloody worthless. (The aforementioned Last Chancers do have an ability that explicitly makes them immune to OoC.)

[druid91]

Y'know. I just realized that all the Imperium fortifications are unaligned and useable by anyone, but Tau Fortifications are Tau Only.

[LeSwordfish]

Rough Riders. Though the Last Chancers are in there for some reason, which is weird because they aren't even in the Index.

Further: Several units have Infiltrators as an ability, but unless said ability confers immunity to being Out of Command (it isn't defined in the document; I suppose Apocalypse is going back to having universal special rules), it's going to be bloody worthless. (The aforementioned Last Chancers do have an ability that explicitly makes them immune to OoC.)

Special weapons being missing is a strange omission to me, but I see the sense of it. You need to add your collection up as an apocalypse list though, R_P. The people need to know how big a force it is.

[Cheesegear]

Just a cursory read of Apocalypse Datasheets. None of it really means anything until we have the win conditions of the game, but a few thoughts spring to mind...

USRs seem to be coming back. Which of course means if you don't buy into Apocalypse, you don't know what the USRs mean. Which was one of the better things that 8th Ed. did. No USRs mean that everything you needed to play your unit was in its unit entry. So USRs coming back is a negative from me. No, scratch that. Abilities where the rules for the ability, are not in the same text that you find the ability, is a negative from me.

Granularity of units is...Bizarre. Sometimes it totally matters what your unit is armed with. But, the more options that your unit has in the Codex, the more likely it is that the design team just gave up, and called it '[X] Weapons' instead.
...On that note...Characters don't get ranged attacks. Which seems dumb. But I keep remembering that Apocalypse/8 is for casuals, so units can only be defined by single roles. Otherwise the game might be too hard... But then you've also got abilities where you don't give the text so you force those same 'casuals' to all buy-in to a game they'll barely play.

Company Veterans on Bikes are in Apocalypse! ...But, like, the Terminus Ultra, isn't? ...That said, Company Veterans on Bikes is the only Index unit I've seen that's made it into Apocalypse.

It's exactly as I feared; With almost all to wounds being static, just Math-hammer your entire list, especially as granularity and a whole bunch of stuff being genericised... Feels lame.

I appreciate that some people will be like
"It doesn't matter how you model your models. Everything is the same!" (Bust out those Captains with Power Fists and Plasma Pistols, amirite?)
But, others will be like
"It doesn't matter how you model your models. Everything is the same."

[Yaktan]

Not all characters lack guns. Tau characters have plenty of shooting. A fireblade has as many shots as a firewarrior squad. A crisis commander actually has more shooting than a crisis suit squad... (and both kept all their weapon options, aside from crisis squads all having to buy the same gun). Amusingly, the cheap and expensive options for guns mostly switched places; missile pods and fusion blasters are cheap, while burst cannons and flamers are expensive.

[Renegade Paladin]

What's really funny to me is that Pask's Knight Commander ability is just gottagofast.

You need to add your collection up as an apocalypse list though, R_P. The people need to know how big a force it is.

Yeah, I'll get right on that. I may have to build myself a Deathstrike now; they seem really good in Apocalypse. No vortex missiles, though, unless it's a Command Asset.

Edit: The volcano cannon and quake cannon are exactly the same. Come on, GeeDubs, I know you know better.

[LeSwordfish]

Yeah, I'll get right on that. I may have to build myself a Deathstrike now; they seem really good in Apocalypse. No vortex missiles, though, unless it's a Command Asset.

I added up my own list and it came to about 300PL, after the purchases i'm planning to make - Apocalypse has coincided with a handy tax rebate, and I figure another handful of Leman Russes and a baneblade would round my teenage dream list off nicely.

[Renegade Paladin]

I mean, I have 156 Power in superheavies alone, so I'm sure it's a lot. I'll probably sit down and do that tomorrow.

[Mystic Muse]

I'm going through my entire collection, trying to organize things, get everything built, and especially get rid of sprues of bits (keeping the bits, just getting them out of the sprues).


My "to be built" backlog has gone down significantly.

I've gotten rid of like 40 sprues by now.

I think I'll be able to condense things quite a bit once I'm done, and I'm really happy about that.

[Avaris]

Rough Riders. Though the Last Chancers are in there for some reason, which is weird because they aren't even in the Index.

Further: Several units have Infiltrators as an ability, but unless said ability confers immunity to being Out of Command (it isn't defined in the document; I suppose Apocalypse is going back to having universal special rules), it's going to be bloody worthless. (The aforementioned Last Chancers do have an ability that explicitly makes them immune to OoC.)

Good point, will be interesting to see how that works. There are, of course, some characters with Infiltrate, but I don’t think every force gets them. Though even without that, they might not be as worthless as thought: they’ll still get at least one turn of activation, more if the enemy decline to shoot them, and turning up early and attracting attention away from the main army before disappearing again as the main battle gets going feels like exactly the sort of thing Infiltrators should be doing! A MSU detachment of infiltrators could prove really annoying to deal with, as every shot you make to attempt to put a blast marker on them is one that isn’t going elsewhere.

...On that note...Characters don't get ranged attacks. Which seems dumb. But I keep remembering that Apocalypse/8 is for casuals, so units can only be defined by single roles. Otherwise the game might be too hard... But then you've also got abilities where you don't give the text so you force those same 'casuals' to all buy-in to a game they'll barely play.

I think it makes sense for characters not to have ranged attacks for the most part, given that a unit of 5 rolls a single die to shoot: except in cases like Tau, a character’s gun is not worth 5 others. Would I prefer it if that squad of 5 rolled 5 dice, so the character could roll 1? Possibly, it’s a shame not to have buckets of dice here, but it makes sense as a design choice in order to keep the game flowing well. Granularity does not always equal good gameplay.

What IS missing is generic psychic power and other powerful attacks on characters. As is, there is little reason to take stuff like Librarians except as a target to use your psychic power command assets on, and that feels like quite a risk, depending on how targetting characters works: if you only have one Librarian, how many psychic powers do you put in your deck? They’re wasted if it dies, making psykers a prime target! Having a generic ‘smite’ ranged attack, and similar things for characters carrying big guns, would be good, we just don’t need the granularity of pistols.

As for the abilities not being on the sheets, this is ok by me. It would have to be a pretty toxic game group that doesn’t allow sharing of rulebooks in this regard, and it ensures units with similar rules act in the same way, rather than having to track them all down and errata them together. The big concern I have in this direction is the command asset cards: a lot depends on the balance of generic to faction specific cards, and whether some feel like automatic picks. If most cards are specific it would be possible for a group to share them out fairly easy, but if there are a lot of generic ones, with some being better than others, there will be problems and a perceived need to buy in by each player. One interesting approach that could be taken is for a game group to ‘draft’ their command assets: there are 400 available, with 300 in the base box, so with each player getting 30 there are plenty to go around. My gut says that you’ll want one set of command assets for every 8 players, and you’d need a sensible way of dividing them out, but a ‘strategem draft’ could be an interesting thing to do at the start of a game or tournament.

It's exactly as I feared; With almost all to wounds being static, just Math-hammer your entire list, especially as granularity and a whole bunch of stuff being genericised... Feels lame.

Genuine question, as I think I’ve gotten confused around your comments regarding Math-hammer: what advantages does base 40k/previous editions have regarding math-hammer and the prevention thereof? And what is the ‘best’ balance to have between Math-hammer and unpredictability? You’ve previously argued that not being able to reasonably predict the outcome of stuff is a bad thing: is that not just Math-hammer? I feel there is a distinction you’re making that I’m missing the nuance of!

From my perspective, while I understand that there is some granularity lost, I don’t feel it really adds that much to the game? In base 40k a weapon has 5 possible ‘to wound’ scores, depending on target. Apocalypse has only 2, so clearly less granular. But in practical terms 90% of the time you only have 2 relevant potential options in base 40k as well: either your strength is lower than target’s toughness or it is higher. There will be better targets for a weapon that is more than double your target’s toughness, or less than half, or the same, so is this granularity actually adding much to the game? Not to mention that, in using a d12, there is greater variety of scores available to Apocalypse weapons.

You absolutely can go too far in setting scores for weapons: AoS has this problem, as the to wound score is the same for any target and the weapon also gets save modifiers built in, but I feel Apocalypse might have hit a reasonable balance? There is some variation depending on what you target, and armour saves remain uninfluenced by weapon, so it is not fully in your control as the attacking player.

Also, Math-hammer relies on there being enough dice rolled to ensure you meet the bell curve, whereas Apocalypse doesn’t actually have many dice rolled, so becomes harder to rely on statistically (not saying this is a good thing, I think more dice being rolled to ensure players can have a reasonable expectation of success rather than being scuppered by one or two poor rolls would be better, but it limits the applicability if math-hammer)

I appreciate that some people will be like
"It doesn't matter how you model your models. Everything is the same!" (Bust out those Captains with Power Fists and Plasma Pistols, amirite?)
But, others will be like
"It doesn't matter how you model your models. Everything is the same."

Yeah: the big thing that seems to be missing is the chance for characters to be meaningful and characterful in their own right. There might be some chance through command assets, but as a centrepiece model it would be nice to have some more customisation ability. Then again, if I want a focus on individual models and their unique load outs, I’ll go play Necromunda

[Drasius]

Genuine question, as I think I’ve gotten confused around your comments regarding Math-hammer: what advantages does base 40k/previous editions have regarding math-hammer and the prevention thereof? And what is the ‘best’ balance to have between Math-hammer and unpredictability? You’ve previously argued that not being able to reasonably predict the outcome of stuff is a bad thing: is that not just Math-hammer? I feel there is a distinction you’re making that I’m missing the nuance of!

Previous ed had vehicles with AV and everything else having armour saves, along withcertain AV's and T's granting immunity to small arms fire. Str4 vs T8? Can't wound, so it doesn't matter if you've got a billion bolter shots, you're not going to scratch the paint on that wraithknight. Same for vehicles, if you're trying to do anything to a Russ from the front with autocannons, you're going to have a bad time.

You also had at least some distinction between infantry being tougher against some weapons and vis a versa of some guns being better at pumping infantry. There was a tradeoff for maybe having to face down custodes in one game and guard in the next, and there was granularity to the T vs Str chart.

Granted, it almost always boiled down to "take lots of High RoF, mid str weapons and force saves/glance V's to death", but it had some nuances to it. Now it's just fire your thing at the other thing, because lol, anything can wound. In some ways it's better, in others, it's significantly worse. I've seen the hilarity of ObSec Land Raiders vs Scatbikes and the pure dejection of the pointy-eared turds face when he realised that his netlist wasn't going to be achieving anything because he didn't have doom.

[Cheesegear]

As for the abilities not being on the sheets, this is ok by me. It would have to be a pretty toxic game group that doesn’t allow sharing of rulebooks in this regard, and it ensures units with similar rules act in the same way

You can ensure that units act the same way. If a unit has Infilitrate, then it has Infiltrate. Give me the text.

rather than having to track them all down and errata them together.

Joke's on you then, 'cause they already did it.

From my perspective, while I understand that there is some granularity lost, I don’t feel it really adds that much to the game? In base 40k a weapon has 5 possible ‘to wound’ scores

There are six. Toughness 3 through 8. Except if Gretchin are in the meta, you can add Toughness 2, and using Might of Heroes on a Land Raider you can pick up T9.

either your strength is lower than target’s toughness or it is higher.

You've hit the nail on the head... With a fork. The difference isn't the strength of your gun - that remains constant. The difference is with the Toughness of your targets, and the number of units you can potentially face in any given game.

Now? There are only two units in the game; Infantry, and Vehicles. All Infantry have the same Toughness. All Vehicles have the same Toughness. Granularity is gone. This is exacerbated by the fact that the majority of weapons don't have points values. This means that all weapons are equal, and all's you have to do is pick the one with the best numbers. It's the signature failing of the Power Rating system. Why choose ****, if the good stuff is the exact same points?

There will be better targets for a weapon that is more than double your target’s toughness, or less than half, or the same, so is this granularity actually adding much to the game?

If you are firing at one target the entire game, no.
But you wont be, will you? If your goal is to fire at multiple different targets per game, then the Toughness of each of your opponents' models matter, because it's the Toughness of your opponent's models that changes. Now? All Infantry are indentical. Shoot at whatever you want. All Vehicles are identical. Shoot at whatever you want.

This is why the game is Easy Mode, and not tactical at all. Because it doesn't matter what you shoot at, because everything is the same.

Not to mention that, in using a d12, there is greater variety of scores available to Apocalypse weapons.

No there isn't. Everything is free. You pick the one with the best number. Variety is irrelevant if you don't attach a cost. Otherwise why not choose the best one, every time?
Remember why Power Rating is broken?
Remember why AoS was frittata'd at launch?

Points costs is a balancing factor. Without it? The game becomes a fairly simple Spreadsheet - find the correlation between X and Y.

The more variables you have to success - or failure - that's where 'variety' actually matters, as each individual weapon may have a higher or lower change to the variable - especially when you add in further modifiers like re-rolls to one variable, but not another, or your opponent has an Invulnerable, etc.

To hit, is the first variable. However, the majority of units in any given Faction will have the same BS, so that's rarely a factor...Except when comparing models between Factions. That will come in a week or two after nerds have had time to crunch every Datasheet. But, at the moment, it's unlikely that any given individual is focusing on more than one Faction on Day 1...On a weekday.

To wound, is the next variable. Apocalypse has changed this to be one value, or another. Given how simple Apocalypse is, each model/weapon is essentially pigeon-holed into a single roll. If you ever use a weapon where you choose to roll the higher value, you've goof'd. A good balancing factor for lower strength guns (especially in the S5-6 bracket), is number of shots. It's less-than-likely that your weapon will wound a T7 model. So you have more shots, so the Math-hammer checks out. Now?
A Heavy Bolter has the same number of shots as a Missile Launcher. That is, 1.
A Heavy Bolter has 36" range, a Missile Launcher is 48"
A Heavy Bolter has 7+/9+, a Missile Launcher has 7+/7+.
There is no reason, ever to take a Heavy Bolter over a Missile Launcher. If you do, you are stupid. You would be deliberately hamstringing yourself for no reason.
inb4; muh narrative.

The next variable, is AP. This used to be an all-or-nothing affair, your weapon either penetrated, or it didn't. However, in 8th Ed., AP has become a modifier. That is, something that changes the variable of the roll. AP is fundamental to the value of any weapon. As we know, Apocalypse has removed AP. That means that the variable is meaningless. The only value on the profile that matters, is the to wound, except as we know, there are only two values, and they're fixed values. So...Uh...Not variables at all.

The balancing factor for all of this, is points. A Heavy Bolter isn't...Anything. Not really. 3 shots, S5, AP-1. But you know why people take it, over a Missile Launcher? Hellfire Shells Because a Heavy Bolter is 10 Points, not 20. If you made a Missile Launcher 10 Points...Or, perhaps more accurately...Both of them cost 0...As I said, if you're taking a Heavy Bolter in Apocalypse, you are dumb. Depending on what Supercharge does, it's also possible that taking a Missile Launcher in Apoc, is also dumb, because why isn't everything you own, Plasma?

Now, compare these values to the Power Rating. There are now only two things that change:
1. Power Rating of the unit wielding the weapon, and
2. The fixed dice values of your To Wounds.

That's two axes; X and Y. Stats isn't really ever easier.

[Avaris]

Heavy Bolter versus Missile Launcher is a good example: I hadn’t spotted how blatent the advantages of one gun over another are! I’m not sure I’m convinced by the argument over the different toughnesses mattering all that much: most opponents will have only a few toughnesses available, so I very much see this as a lot of complexity for not a lot of gain. But I am convinced that more routes to differentiate weapons would be good: number of shots works fairly well for that. It doesn’t work in Apocalypse as written, but reducing units to a single shot feels like a simplification so far.

I feel like my ideal ststem would have Apocalypse’s approach to turn order and saving throws, but 40k’s for number of attacks and weapon stats (I can take or leave strength and toughness). Might try and house rule up a system sometime, with something like ‘if your AP is sufficient to reduce save to nothing, shot causes a large blast marker, otherwise small blast marker’

Edit: what’s annoying is that, from a game design perspective, the heavy bolter versus missile launcher SHOULD have been easy to design around: all you need to do is have a consistent rule to apply to all heavy weapons, something like ‘the most versatile weapon is 7+/7+, then for every point it improves in SAT it should get worse in SAP, or vice versa. So a versatile missile launcer is 7+/7+, a heavy bolter 6+/8+, a lascannon 10+/4+ or whatever. So then there is a genuine choice between flexibility and specialist choices. Another vector for variables would also be good, and I think number of shots is best for that.

[Cheesegear]

Heavy Bolter versus Missile Launcher is a good example: I hadn’t spotted how blatent the advantages of one gun over another are! I’m not sure I’m convinced by the argument over the different toughnesses mattering all that much: most opponents will have only a few toughnesses available

Because you're only thinking in regards to a single Toughness value, in regards to a single opponent.
Saying 'There's only three options, higher, lower or same.', is incorrect, because how you should be thinking is 'Higher, lower and same, all at the same time.' ...Unless you know who your opponent is going to be, and you know exactly what they'll be playing.

Death Guard are a good example because they have two different T-values and different armour saves in the same army.

A Poxwalker is T3, or T4 with Typhus. Boltguns are 2 shots (with Bolter Mastery), S4, AP-, and free. Meanwhile, a Heavy Bolter is 3 shots, S5, AP-1, but 10 Points. Which is better?
Meanwhile, a Deathshroud Terminator, is T5 with a 2+ save. Now which is better?

Same day, now your next opponent in gonna be Custodes/Guard. Some of the army has T3, some of the army has T6.

If you have multiple people in the meta, and you can't afford to buy a ****-ton of bits and carry seventeen different army lists at all times to hot-swap models in and out, what you glue to your models, matters. Unless you're also shelling out for magnets on every model. This is one of the reasons that people hate WYSIWYG because there will be times where what you've glued to your model is either sub-optimal or even totally useless against the person you've decided to play. It's also what people like about WYSIWYG since that's the whole point of it - no confusion.

If you have one opponent, who doesn't use Allies...Sure, tailor hard. Beer and pretzels in your mate's garage once a fortnight. It's always him, and he always runs the same list 'cause his missus wont let him buy new toy soliders. It's really not hard to beat that guy.

I feel like my ideal ststem would have Apocalypse’s approach to turn order and saving throws, but 40k’s for number of attacks and weapon stats (I can take or leave strength and toughness).

And yet from what I'm hearing, you're buying into Apocalypse anyway.
"This isn't what I want, but I'm buying it anyway, 'cause the alternative is nothing."

So, here's what I'm seeing, just off the first page of Space Marines:

A Tactical Squad with a Plasma Cannon is PR5, and has 7+/7+. A Captain is PR5, and a Lieutenant is PR4.

Let's go for PR100. A Battalion, is thus PR24. So, in PR100, I have 3 Captains, 3 Lieuteants, and 15 Squads that wound everything on 7s, no matter what I'm shooting at. Now, bear in mind that I'm assuming Supercharge is beneficial. Otherwise Missile Launchers.

But Cheesegear, 7+ isn't even that good. You know what? You're right. That's what I get for only looking at the very first page.

Company Veterans are also PR5, but they have SAP 6+, now I switch my Tacticals to Lascannons, giving them SAT 5+. Both are PR5. However, now that I'm spending my PR on less Troops (but same amount of units/models), I need less HQs.

Now it's more like 2 Captains, 2 Lieutenants, 8 Tacticals with Lascannons, and 8 Company Veterans with Special Weapons. Although I could possibly make it 4:12, or some variation, depends on how the meta shapes up.

This is how stupidly easy list-building becomes. Just like pre-General's Handbook AoS, and all Open Play games.
You need two weapons in your list. Whatever wounds Infantry on the best, and whatever wounds Vehicles on the best. Now, because this is post-5th Ed. 40K, and it's also 8th Ed., I'm just going to assume that GW still has broken Objective control, so also cheaper is better, because that means you have more.

Sure...Let's play 200 PR. I just double everything. Now I have 32 PR5 squads on the board. It just keeps going up.
The biggest downside to this, however, is that my opponent only has to rely on SAP scores because I have no Vehicles. Which either means
a) They're doing exactly what I'm doing, and thus the game is broken, or
b) Everything that they own that isn't the best SAP for the least PR, is wasted points.

X axis, meet Y axis.

But let's say I need something with 'Destroyer', just in case.
Well, GW finally got around to digital copies. I Ctrl+F for Destroyer, find the thing that costs the least PR, and remove that many PR5 squads.

Now, I'm sure there's finesse to this, this is only Day 1.
But I'm going off the premise that 'hordes win games' as the core of my list, because I have no reason to believe that that wont be true.

[LeSwordfish]

inb4; muh narrative.

Mocking a point doesn't make it invalid. A game being easy to math out and "solve" does not make it bad if the usual cultural expectation is that you won't do this. I don't know how to make this point that this game simply isn't intended to be analysed in the way you are doing. "muh narrative" is the point of the game. It's like Power Level: of course you can break the system, it's trivial to. The system is simply designed in the expectation that you will approach it from a different direction. "Solving" apocalypse doesn't make you a genius. It makes you a ****.

[Cheesegear]

"muh narrative" is the point of the game.

I can break the game and still tell a story. A Guard Brigade is backed up by a Knight Valiant and his two Armiger friends. It's fluffy as anything else, and it's still a good list.

In my above example, that's pretty much just a Reserve Company of Space Marines.
The real question, and what makes you ****, is whether you have that, and are willing to put it on the table. Better yet, if you didn't have it, then went out and specifically bought it.

"Solving" apocalypse doesn't make you a genius.

Of course it doesn't, because it's a trivial game. That's my point.
The game isn't worth playing, if you're trying to play tactically...Because tactically, there's only one right choice.

So, going back to the start, I can say, that Apocalypse wont be for me. It's not enough for me to say "I don't like Apocalypse, it's a dumb game." Same as me telling people I don't like their paint job. You can't just say things. You actually have to form your opinion based on something.

Otherwise, someone will say "It's not a bad game, you're a bad person."
"If you don't like what we give you, you never wanted the product in the first place."
(Y'know, blame the player, not the game. Blame the consumer, not the product.)

So, I have to outline why I think it's a bad game - because it's trivially easy to break if you even remotely think that way.

If you want to forge a narrative, there are a million ways to do that. But, if Apocalypse is the way you want to do that, again, like I've said from the start, there's now a supply.
But, like I've since...Ever. If you play the game for narrative, I can counter with Stormwind Fallacy - I can forge a narrative and still have a good army list, and so can you.

If you want to play for fun...Well, we had this argument a while back. You do you. If it's fun. Play it. How can I stop you if it's what you want to do?

[Avaris]

Because you're only thinking in regards to a single Toughness value, in regards to a single opponent.

I understand your points around toughness, but I still think you see the assessment it necessitates as more important than it actually is.

It undeniably makes the game more complex, but greater complexity does not necessarily equal a better game. It needs to be well targetted. To my mind, the variations In effectiveness caused by strength/toughness are unnecessary baggage for games at the scale we’re talking about: it adds complexity, but not enough value to make it worth it. I would far rather see that cost in complexity and processing time used elsewhere.

Apocalypse definitely has missteps in complexity where it has gone too far: number of dice rolled is one where I think the simplification is too much. But strength and toughness are not IMO.

And yet from what I'm hearing, you're buying into Apocalypse anyway.
"This isn't what I want, but I'm buying it anyway, 'cause the alternative is nothing."

I mean, yes: despite there being space to improve, my assessment remains that Apocalypse is a vastly superior system to base 40k. The use of detachments helps with many problems I’ve seen with alternating activation systems (having wildly different numbers of units between players is a problem), and the use of d12s is an elegant solution to rolls to wound and to save.

The big problem I have is the number of dice rolled, as it creates more vulnerability to random chance and losses part of the appeal of large games for many. But it is clearly a sensible approach for streamlining the system and allowing the game to finish in a reasonable amount of time.

List building stuff

It saddens me that you’re probably right about this being the best approach to playing Apocalypse in a tournament setting, though it feels easily fixable: place restrictions on force composition and how often a given unit can appear in a force, like the rule of 3 in 40k, or something else. It’s not insurmountable by any means.

[LeSwordfish]

I can break the game and still tell a story. A Guard Brigade is backed up by a Knight Valiant and his two Armiger friends. It's fluffy as anything else, and it's still a good list.

Yeah, but you set out to break the game and then worked backwards to a narrative. Some people do the narrative first.

Of course it doesn't, because it's a trivial game. That's my point.
The game isn't worth playing, if you're trying to play tactically...

Then don't do that. Duh.

So, going back to the start, I can say, that Apocalypse wont be for me. It's not enough for me to say "I don't like Apocalypse, it's a dumb game." Same as me telling people I don't like their paint job. You can't just say things. You actually have to form your opinion based on something.

No, you're just conflating what you like in a game with what's objectively good.

(Y'know, blame the player, not the game. Blame the consumer, not the product.)

Someone tries to sell you checkers, and you complain at them that it's not chess. That's not their fault. They weren't trying to make chess.

So, I have to outline why I think it's a bad game - because it's trivially easy to break if you even remotely think that way.

THEN DON'T

But, like I've since...Ever. If you play the game for narrative, I can counter with Stormwind Fallacy - I can forge a narrative and still have a good army list, and so can you.

But I don't want to make a good army list and then forge a narrative around that. I want to start with the narrative first, and then not care very much about the rest. That's the expected way of doing it.

How can I stop you if it's what you want to do?

You can't, but can you please god recognise that something might just not be designed for you? And having done that, move onto the concrete action of stopping whining about how it doesn't fit what you want.

[Cheesegear]

It undeniably makes the game more complex, but greater complexity does not necessarily equal a better game.

Maybe not. But it does mean that your choices matter more.
This is where we could go around in circles. How can a game be fair for both players, but both players want or have very different playstyles, but the game has to be easy to play, too.

Apocalypse definitely has missteps in complexity where it has gone too far: number of dice rolled is one where I think the simplification is too much. But strength and toughness are not IMO.

Which is Age of Sigmar, where everything wounds everything on single values. The difference is that Apocalypse has two values.

So, we're at an impasse:
a) I think two values are too few (not even talking about AoS' one), and
b) You think four values is too many.*
...and neither of us are responsible for development.

*The vast majority of weapons can only go [3+ to 6+], or [2+ to 5+]. The only guns in the game with all five dice values [2+ to 6+] is S4. 2+ vs. Gretchin, and 6+ vs. T8.

I mean, yes: despite there being space to improve, my assessment remains that Apocalypse is a vastly superior system to base 40k.

...Not at launch.

The potential is there, maybe. Same as how I didn't buy into AoS until General's Handbook...I'll buy into the game when *I, personally* believe it's worth buying. If that happens, great. I'll be on board. If that doesn't happen because people didn't buy into Apocalypse...Then I didn't waste my money, either.

The big problem I have is the number of dice rolled, as it creates more vulnerability to random chance

Agreed. Randomness isn't tactical.

But it is clearly a sensible approach for streamlining the system and allowing the game to finish in a reasonable amount of time.

Quality for speed. I think I said that a few days ago. Agreed.

It saddens me that you’re probably right about this being the best approach to playing Apocalypse in a tournament setting

Which is probably why it wont be a competitive game until the issues are fixed. So, I'm pretty sure that that's good news for everyone.
It's not ever going to be competitive, which means that most people like me who at the very least think that way, wont play it. However there are still going to be some ****s who play a non-competitive game, competitively anyway, against seals who don't know any better.
If it does become a competitive game, it will be because the game has been improved (like that time AoS has Points introduced).

place restrictions on force composition and how often a given unit can appear in a force

Force restrictions in Apocalypse? ...Now who's not playing in the spirit of the game?

You can't, but can you please god recognise that something might just not be designed for you?

I am recognising it. In real time. You're watching it happen. That's literally what I've been doing.
And after two or three days, I'll stop. Same as every other time I've complained about something...Except for Guilliman being 400 Points. I'll complain about that forever.

[Avaris]

You can't, but can you please god recognise that something might just not be designed for you? And having done that, move onto the concrete action of stopping whining about how it doesn't fit what you want.

In fairness to Cheesegear, I have been asking what he dislikes about Apocalypse, and he is upfront in acknowledging that it isn’t for him. I believe he’s wrong in it being much simpler and less tactical than base 40k, and wish he didn’t present this as objective truth, but it’s not really fair to dismiss him as whining (just as it’s not fair to dismiss those who like the sound of Apocslypse as casual or narrative focussed)

[Cheesegear]

Someone tries to sell you checkers, and you complain at them that it's not chess. That's not their fault. They weren't trying to make chess.

It's more like, I asked for Chess to be played faster, and instead of making speed chess, with timers, they doubled the move value of all the pieces, and Queens, Bishops and Rooks can move twice.

Sure, that's one way of doing it. But it's certainly not going to be for everyone.

[LeSwordfish]

In fairness to Cheesegear, I have been asking what he dislikes about Apocalypse, and he is upfront in acknowledging that it isn’t for him. I believe he’s wrong in it being much simpler and less tactical than base 40k, and wish he didn’t present this as objective truth, but it’s not really fair to dismiss him as whining (just as it’s not fair to dismiss those who like the sound of Apocslypse as casual or narrative focussed)

Sure. Sorry, I'm being rude. But I'm getting very tired of having to explain that people like different things every few months. I remember it happening both with the sisters codex and with Kill Team, and I'm sure at other points too.

[Avaris]

Which is Age of Sigmar, where everything wounds everything on single values. The difference is that Apocalypse has two values.

So, we're at an impasse:
a) I think two values are too few (not even talking about AoS' one), and
b) You think four values is too many.*
...and neither of us are responsible for development.

*The vast majority of weapons can only go [3+ to 6+], or [2+ to 5+]. The only guns in the game with all five dice values [2+ to 6+] is S4. 2+ vs. Gretchin, and 6+ vs. T8.

That’s not quite the impasse I see: the fundamental difference is that you are thinking in terms of variability in how they are interacting with targets, whereas I’m thinking in terms of variability in the results on dice rolled. From my perspective, you only have five values, whereas there are probably 10 or so in the D12 system.

Now, my belief is that 10 possible results, with each weapon having two options available dependent on target, is enough variability to make weapons uniquely differentiated. Sadly, as the missile launcher vs heavy bolter point illustrates, this hasn’t been executed as well as it could be, but my principle that there is excess complexity in the strength/toughness equation versus the amount it actually matters remain. I want that complexity and variety to be elsewhere! (Like no. Of attacks)

Force restrictions in Apocalypse? ...Now who's not playing in the spirit of the game?

I’m not sure what part of my support for a detachment based system gave you the impression that I believe lack of force restrictions to be the right choice for Apocalypse!

Sure. Sorry, I'm being rude. But I'm getting very tired of having to explain that people like different things every few months. I remember it happening both with the sisters codex and with Kill Team, and I'm sure at other points too.

I can’t disagree with that! Liking different things is fine, I think we all recognise that, but I think we all get guilty at times of presenting out views as objective fact.

[Cheesegear]

Now, my belief is that 10 possible results, with each weapon having two options available dependent on target

However, the the instant you choose your weapon during list creation, the possible results - or, rather, the metric for success - becomes fixed. Once you put down your models onto the table, your weapons now succeed on one or two values.

Potentially, yes. From a game design and improvement standpoint, yes. It's bizarre to me that a Heavy Bolter isn't say, 5+/9+. Like, it's weird to me that a Heavy Bolter has no improvement over regular Botguns aside from range? Maybe a Heavy Bolter is supposed to have two shots? I dunno. The Heavy Bolter sticks out to me and it seems really bad. But, given that a Heavy Bolter is found across all Imperial Factions and a few Chaos ones...7+/9+ with one shot...Is a thing.

However, I have to point out, that 'Room for Improvement', doesn't actually show me anything. Like getting a 70% on an essay. You could have done better. But you didn't. Maybe next time you can pull a 75% or 80%...But for now, this time, you didn't. You'll get an 80% when you improve, but not now.

I can’t disagree with that! Liking different things is fine...

The problem is that my example, 8 Tacticals and 8 Veteran Squads. That's just the 1st Company with elements mixed from a Reserve Company. That's what it's for. You can fluff anything in 40K. That's why the Universe is turned up to 11. Do whatever narrative, you could probably find a reason for it...Probably. But I do except that hard-gaming the system isn't nice. I wouldn't play that list anyway. It'd get hard-countered by Melee, right? And any army that has a lower PR-per-unit that I do, will beat me at the same game, right?

What about an actual Battle Company? Sure, it's theoretically sub-optimal. But the fact remains that it's entirely a bunch of low-PR Infantry Squads. It's still playing the game, as it were, and it's definitely based around a hard narrative - what's more narrative than a Battle Company!? In Apocalypse!? But regardless, if my opponent puts any SAT on the board (it doesn't even have to be efficient, it just has to be any weapon where SAP is worse than SAT by any amount), they've still wasted their points? Is the idea that if I don't put Vehicles on the board, I'm not playing fair? That can't be right? No Green Tides allowed?

Does what I like make me a bad person 'cause it's good (again, see Guard Brigades or Tzaangors and Daemon Princes...Or Wraithknights in 7th Ed.)? That's not fair.

...Then we go back to players having arbitrary restrictions and only playing against lists they like. Uhh...'Kay? You gonna give me list of what you say I'm allowed to take before I show up? Or do I show up with my army list and then you refuse to play me because of something I couldn't possibly have known beforehand? Am I only allowed to play Highlander? Like, Highlander is a thing, and it's still game-able. There are still bad choices to make, even in Highlander.

You can always just cynically take the second-best unit in your book. GW is unlikely to nerf it, and you can always respond to your opponent "At least it's not [best unit in Codex], eh?"

I just don't know how I wouldn't club a seal play Apocalypse, even by accident. The only good games I'd have would be against players who think like I do and are - unlike me - actually willing to slam that down. Except due to what I've seen so far...It'd turn into a game of rocket tag pretty fast...And that's not what I think is fun.

So, c'est la vie, I guess.

EDIT:
My other favourite is everyone who gets on [Unit] 'wagon after it gets buffed. See, they liked the model, but couldn't justify the purchase. But now that it's buffed and/or good, they can justify the purchase.
No, wrong. You have to buy it when it's bad and a potential waste of money. Otherwise you aren't OG, even if you do genuinely like the models.

[Avaris]

Potentially, yes. From a game design and improvement standpoint, yes. It's bizarre to me that a Heavy Bolter isn't say, 5+/9+. Like, it's weird to me that a Heavy Bolter has no improvement over regular Botguns aside from range? Maybe a Heavy Bolter is supposed to have two shots? I dunno. The Heavy Bolter sticks out to me and it seems really bad. But, given that a Heavy Bolter is found across all Imperial Factions and a few Chaos ones...7+/9+ with one shot...Is a thing.

I’ve actually worked this one out: it’s that you’re paying a premium for an EXTRA shot. A tactical squad with a heavy bolter gets both the bolter shots it used to have, and an extra shot from the heavy bolter.

Clearest example of this is storm bolters on Sisters of Battle Fast Attsck option. A storm bolter has worse stats than a bolter, but a unit of 5 Sisters can have 4 of them, so 4 shots, versus 1 from if they just had boltguns.

However, I have to point out, that 'Room for Improvement', doesn't actually show me anything. Like getting a 70% on an essay. You could have done better. But you didn't. Maybe next time you can pull a 75% or 80%...But for now, this time, you didn't. You'll get an 80% when you improve, but not now.

Our difference is that we grade base 40k differently. Apocalypse hasn’t got a perfect grade, but I grade it better than 40k (or hope I will once I play it!)

[Cheesegear]

I’ve actually worked this one out: it’s that you’re paying a premium for an EXTRA shot. A tactical squad with a heavy bolter gets both the bolter shots it used to have, and an extra shot from the heavy bolter.

Ah...That makes slightly more sense. But then wouldn't it get an extra attack from the Missile Launcher as well?

Apocalypse hasn’t got a perfect grade, but I grade it better than 40k (or hope I will once I play it!)

...And that's fair enough. I don't know you, you don't know me.
If your meta gets on board with Apocalypse, go team!
If mine doesn't, that doesn't affect you. Cool beans.

So if you want to play Apocalypse, and I don't? That's totally fine, 'cause we don't exist in the same space.
So we both win.

[Avaris]

Ah...That makes slightly more sense. But then wouldn't it get an extra attack from the Missile Launcher as well?
.

Yeah, it doesn’t completely work. It’s why a heavy bolter or storm bolter compares slightly oddly to bolters, but missile launchers are still better. Losing dice has lost some granularity: taking a heavy bolter is better than taking nothing, as you get an extra shot, but still worse than a missile launcher. Ideally there would be space for the heavy bolter to have 2 shots, but that would be making it equivalent to 10 marines with boltguns (or 5 rapid firing), which feels wrong.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Welp, the Necron detachment box they give is pretty much worthless in Apocalypse. First off, the Cryptek can't affect anything else in the Detachment, or even keep up with it because there's not Cloak option in Apocalypse! So immediatley they'd all get out of range of the Warlord. Suck.

Secondly, it's a mix of Tomb Blades and Wraiths. Now individually, neither is TERRIBLE in Apocalypse. Both are SITUATIONALLY better than Tesla Immortals, which are still the top-tier unit in the Necron roster as I go through it. HOWEVER, you can only do one of either Aimed Fire or Assault a turn, so you maximize your power by specializing detachments: some shooty, some slashy. I'd rather have a detachment of 9 Tomb Blades OR 9 Wraiths and a CCB in either case, and then add on more Tomb Blades or Wraiths as I have points.

Then you have the Ark: Ghost Arks suck: they can only heal Warriors EMBARKED in it, and only minimum-size warriors. So you're going for the Doomsday Ark always, which (depending on what Destroyer does), is still only an average of 1 blast marker per salvo at a vehicle with the main gun: I'd rather have 15 Tesla Immortals firing! I guess advantage is that it's presumably better against Superheavy, and has longer range?

Edit: I'm putting together an Apocalypse Guide to Necrons. It's pretty easy. So far it's a single unit of Shieldguard with a Cryptek and a whole lot of Tesla Immortals with CCBs. Luckily Tesla Immortals most players already have in droves.

[LansXero]

For us, New!Apoc means we can play 4 vs 4 more often without it taking so much prep time. We never expected any balance from those games, and we dont now.

For anything other than that, its a pretty trashy system. A high buy-in cost for cardboard is a huge red flag for us, as its not like we're hurting for tokens / cards to use instead.

We like the hidden order assignment, as thats always trolly. We dont like how clear cut 'best' options are, but since we dont do WYSIWYG for wargear (only for minis) everyone will always have whats best so it doesnt matter. But target selection is a huge part of 40k thats missing twice in Apoc: you cant neutralize priority threats before they act, so you dont need to be able to assess them properly, and whatever you shoot at with any given weapon yields the same result, so no point on positioning for optimal firing lines. No need to make sure your small weapons are in range of guardsmen instead of the custodes bikes, they'll hurt both on the same roll. No need to play keepway with your T3 units, since they are just as vulnerable as anything else in your army. So overall its way blander, which is fine for larger scale games (like 300 pts or so) so they end in a reasonable time, but bull**** for regular 40k scale as the time saved wont be enough to justify the sharp drop in quality of the experience.

[LansXero]

Welp, the Necron detachment box they give is pretty much worthless in Apocalypse.

How does it stack up, useability-wise, for 40k?