Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, tis I, VeryIntelligentShadeOfTheColourBlue, and I have created this page to be a guide to how 40k plays on an apocalypse scale. However, such a task is not a small one, and hopefully those of you out there who read this will work on this page as well, allowing me to spend more time on writing Angry Marine stories.
- Stupid question- given that Apocalypse is effectively an extension of the "anything goes" ruleset of Open Play according to Chapter Approved 2017, can there really be tactics for it? The absence of any kind of points limit suggests that the winner will simply be whoever owns the most Titans. --Newerfag (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
VeryIntelligentShadeOfTheColourBlue (talk): It's not a stupid question so don't worry, its a very sensible question in fact. Apocalypse as it stands is incredibly simple compared to matched play, you could have your armies be battle forged if you want but as it stands they only say that you compare power points to see which force is the underdog, and thus gets to choose their preferred deployment zone. I could add a bit on how to play apocalypse using matched play rules but it would a short section (being effectively matched play with a higher points limit) and probably not appropriate for this page. I intended the page to provide context for all the under loved and underused super heavies out there, effectively doing what I've been doing with the adeptus titanicus page (which I've finally almost finished) but for all the factions in one place.
I will also probably copy and paste I've done for the titans into the apocalypse page for the imperial titans. Also, what unit (around T5/6) would you recommend to add to the comparrison table, the titans table will be the standard one is use when doing the maths for all the guns.
- I still don't see much point in even making a tactics page for it given the CA ruleset; it'll always boil down to "spam a metric fuckton of your most broken units until the other guy ragequits", removing any element of tactics in favor of who has the most money. If you want to build on tactics on how to use superheavies for each faction, better to go directly to the corresponding faction pages and improve them there. Right now Apocalypse is a complete farce that is the exact opposite of anything balanced or even playable in its current state. --Newerfag (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
VeryIntelligentShadeOfTheColourBlue (talk): I agree with you to an extent, despite apocalypses lack of limitations it still contains nuisance which can be worked with and around when choosing your army, if it’s just two sides throwing their entire ciollections at each other then your entirely correct, but if people are thinking about the army they put together, then things start getting far more interesting (as opposed to just awesome). Even if that point doesn’t stand, I still think that there should be a page that compares all of 40k’s super heavies, very little is understood about them, people thought that the warlords S30 cannon was good, it’s only until I recently did the maths on it that it becomes apparent that it’s overpowered and has too few shots to compete against its other weapons. Likewise, nobody has done the maths on the eldar Titans, people just see them as weak and overcosted but their guns are still brilliant and have a fair bit of range too them (their chapter approved price increase was unnecessary however, and thanks to that they may now be too expensive for what they do).
If you still think that an apocalypse tactics page is still unnecessary then I would appreciate your advice on how to change it to something more appropriate, like a lords of war tactics page, and thank you for making some edits to the page even if you think the page is unnecessary, you’ve helped make it look that bit tidier, which is always appreciated.
I’ve sent a question to gamesworkshop about using points in apocalypse, with any luck it’ll appear the the march errata.
- Well, each faction page already has a section on their Lords of War and write-ups for them which could stand to use some expansion. I suggest you look at that while you wait to hear back from GW (and possibly Forge World, as I suspect they may revise the stats originally given in the Indexes and I recall seeing that they were looking for feedback- however, they also asked for results of units in actual play rather than merely crunching numbers). Also, keep in mind that comparisons will fail when the superheavies being compared have entirely different roles and options, because otherwise it'll be misleading.
- As for nuance, its existence is dependent solely on the honor system. Unless every player agrees on a set of guidelines in advance, there is no room for anything that would involve thinking beyond "how OP is this unit, and how many of them can I afford to buy?" It is the anti-tactic, plain and simple. --Newerfag (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
VeryIntelligentShadeOfTheColourBlue (talk): How about a compromise, as it stands the page is useful because it allows me to consolidate all my maths, and we know that an errata is supposed to come out this month. So, I suggest that we leave the page as be for now and I’ll just keep adding to all the tables, if the errata comes out and they include a bit on apocalypse saying that you can use normal points or something to the equivalent, then the page can stay as is. If the errata contains nothing of such use then I’ll deconstruct the page and move each piece of maths to its relevant tactics page (although I’d like to find a home for the introduction, I’ll probably just use that as the intro for the general apocalypse page). Does that sound fair?
It does, though with your permission I would like to move it to your user page. That way you can keep using it without cluttering anything and it can be brought back on the unlikely chance GW says anything. --Newerfag (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
VeryIntelligentShadeOfTheColourBlue (talk): That’s a better idea, it’s a lot easier to write comparisons when they’re all on the same page, hold off on it until we get the errata, maybe GW will be kind and bless us with something useful.
Should we rename this page?
with the preview for the new Apocalypse looking to play a lot different than normal 40k with high point lists, with large changes to units and gameplay, should this page be renamed to something else?
- I was thinking about doing that; the rules are so completely different that it can't really be called part of 8e any longer. --Newerfag (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
VeryIntelligentShadeOfTheColourBlue (talk): Potentially, a tactics page for lords of war (for when playing non-apocalypse apocalypse). Alternatively the entire page is just redone. Personally after seeing how drastically different apocalypse will be I’m in favour of making this tactics lords of war, it still fills the roll of explaining to people how to use lords of war effectively, it would just need a slight rewrite.
My main thought is that I wouldn’t want all the maths I’ve done to this point to go to waste, but at the same time apocalypse will change so much compared to normal 40k.