Jump to content


6th Ed House Rules - Apocalypse


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Inquisitor_Rubicon

Inquisitor_Rubicon

    Private

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:32 PM

This may be a bit late, with the rumor Apocalypse 2.0 around the corner. But here at the local group that I play most of my Apocalypse games, we talked about what we like and what we don't. the result is the following House rule set to bring the 4th Apocalypse game into 6th edition.

First, our belief is 6th edition rulebook was written for Apocalypse type games, and needs little updating for Apocalypse. But there are a few gaps that need to be filled. Forge World Apocalypse 6th ED Update fill all the weapons gaps and rules for Apocalypse Approved models. We also keep the assets from the Apocalypse book for game flavor.

Second, we looked at balance. We reviewed our past games, specifically games that were not competitive and vey one sided. From these games we looked at what went wrong for the losing teams. So we decided to tighten up the rules in areas that were abused, or could be abused.. We decided to replace the Apocalypse free for all force org for some restriction in the 6th edition force org chart.


Required rules to every player should know, and have ready,
“6th Rulebook”
“Forge World Apocalypse 6th ED Update”
All former Apocalypses named books (GW and FW, including reloads) are used only for Assets and Formations.

GENERAL RULES / COMMENTS:
  • Everything must be WYSIWYG
  • No Man land is 12” (Change from the 6th Rulebook’s 24”)
  • Seize Initiative is allowed in Apocalypse games
  • Time Turns not preferred.  (Apocalypse games are to be fun, not an exercise routine of rolling dice and moving models fast)
Force Organization Chart:
  • All armies follow the Force Organization chart detailed on page 109
  • For Each 2000 points, one additional Force Org Slot may be used.
  • Each Player can only have a maximum of one Allied Codex to fulfill Allies
  • Each Force Organization
    • 0-1 “Apocalypse Approved” slot
    • Player may replace all Free Asset for one additional “Apocalypse Approved” slot
  • Examples:
    • @ 6000 points per player, can have 3 Force Organizations charts
    • @ 6000 points can have an Allied detachment for each Organization chart
      • All Allies must come from the same Codex.
WEAPON RANGE:
  • Debated Topic in the Apocalypse Community, At this point, no changes to Range Distance.
  
UNIQUE CHARACTERS:
  • Unique Characters are defined as any Character that has a GW  IP Defined Name, and Exists Fluff and Legend
    • Can only be one in the Battle/Game.
    • Ie can only be one Typhus, Swarmlord, Abaddon … on the Table.
APOCALYPSE APPROVED MODELS:
  • Follow the Forge World Apocalypse 6th ED Update
  • Models can never Claim or Deny Objectives.
  • All “Apocalypse Approved” Models must begin the game deployed on the table.
    • Exceptions :Flyers and other Models with specific rules stating Otherwise
  • Gargantuan Creatures and Super Heavies must be greater than 50% obscured to benefit from Terrain & LOS  Cover Saves
  • Damage: Follow Damage chart in the 6th ED Rulebook
    • Ref Forge World Apocalypse 6th ED Update for additional details
    • 1st Shaken Result: Reduce Movement by half, including Assault dice roll
    • 2nd Shaken Result: May not move or assault in the following turn
    • Stun Results are randomized throughout the ACTIVE Weapon Systems
MODEL REMOVAL & DAMAGE:
  • All vehicle models are removed when destroyed and replaced with craters
    • If not crater is available there is no effect to the game
  • It is the owner responsibly to mark damage on their models
    • If not marked, then all damage in question are assumed to be correct.  
Strategic Asset:
  • Each team gets number of Assets equal to the Highest player Count of the two teams
    • Formation Assists are separate from this count
    • Each Team member must pick a MIN one asset.
    • Free Assets are limited to 0-1 per team.
      • Formation Assest do not count towards this limit
  • Flank March
    • Limited to a total of 10% of the Teams Point total (Includes Formations using this Asset)
    • Formation Flank March is limited to the models in said Formation
    • Gargantuan Creatures or Super Heavies can never utilize said asset
  • Disruption Beacon
    • Model entering from Reserves are not affected by any Disruptor Beacon only if they enter within owner’s Deployment zone  
  • Vortex Grenade
    • If a Vortex grenade touches a terrain, the terrain is removed from play.
      • Any model in said terrain follow the 6th edition disembark rule as a Vehicle exploding.
    • If a Vortex grenade touches a Vehicle, all embarked models are removed with said vehicle
  • Replacement
    • Gargantuan Creatures or Super Heavies can never utilize said asset
    • Unique Characters (i.e. Named Characters) can never utilize said asset

MISSIONS AND DEPLOYMENT:
  • Ideally should be pre-arranged and design to tell a story
  • However, In the event of a pickup Apocalypse games, Follow 6th edition for deployment and missions.
    • Double (Plus one) the objective count.
SCORING:
  • Follow Rules in the 6th Ed Rule book
  • Controlling Objectives on page 123
  • Standard Game Objectives are worth 3 points
  • Additional Objectives
    • Slain Warlords stay where they fall and become an Objective
      • Worth 1 Points when Controlled
    • Model with the “Apocalypse Approved”  becomes an objective when killed
      • If Model Goes Apocalyptic it does not become an objective
      • Worth 1 Points when Claimed
SPECIFIC MODEL RESTRICTIONS:
  • Limited to 0-1
    • Ork Plusa Rokkit
    • Deathstrike Vortex Missle


#2 Globalsmack

Globalsmack

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 351 posts
  • LocationDetroit, Michigan

Posted 19 December 2012 - 09:31 PM

So you dont allow formations?  They break the force chart.

What about two guys in your group who think all codex units in an apoc game is broken?  :)

#3 GreatEscape_13

GreatEscape_13

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • LocationPittsburgh, PA

Posted 19 December 2012 - 10:23 PM

I don't care for the "extra force orgs" approach. Apocalypse has been about plunking down a bunch of cool models and seeing what happens. The force org is for balancing, particularly tournament play. If there were to be an Apocalypse tournament, then maybe I could support specific organizations by points numbers. But I wouldn't want that to be for all games.

Why the timed turn hate? It's not draconian, but if you cannot finish a turn in a reasonable amount of time you need to evaluate whether Apoc is for you. Nothing kills the game more than one (or worse two, even worse if their troops are in melee) slowpoke. Yes, it's for fun. But fun for all might necessitate sticking to a schedule.

Way too many objectives with all the Warlords and Superheavies becoming objectives themselves. That seems chaotic and absurd. I think for story reasons in the game that nominating one commander to be an objective per side, or specific vehicles that are objectives (only one Warlord titan? that would be a fine objective if destroyed). But it cannot be "all".

Only one of each special character in the whole game can work for certain times, but it may upset others. If two Salamanders players show up, and both want Vulcan to make their army work, who gets him? Better to limit it to one of each special model per player-army.

The awarding one Apocalypse approved per force org can be better managed by just aligning sides to match superheavy count. That way you can go really heavy in one game, or really light in another. Up to the players to keep things in line.

I think these rules are okay if players are taking the game really seriously--as if winning or losing really matters. I don't care to play Apocalypse competitively--give me other games for when I want to be competitive. So the need for a ruleset that makes it more competitive isn't my cup of tea.

Best.

Andrew

#4 Inquisitor_Rubicon

Inquisitor_Rubicon

    Private

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 11:16 PM

View PostGlobalsmack, on 19 December 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

So you dont allow formations?  They break the force chart.

What about two guys in your group who think all codex units in an apoc game is broken?  :)

Name a Formation that would not fit into a Force Org Chart when most games players have 2-3 force or charts?

#5 Inquisitor_Rubicon

Inquisitor_Rubicon

    Private

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 12:08 AM

View PostGreatEscape_13, on 19 December 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

I don't care for the "extra force orgs" approach. Apocalypse has been about plunking down a bunch of cool models and seeing what happens. The force org is for balancing, particularly tournament play. If there were to be an Apocalypse tournament, then maybe I could support specific organizations by points numbers. But I wouldn't want that to be for all games.

These rules are so all players have the same mind set. Some Games change these rules. Example have a game planned 10K Ork on 10K Imps. The Orks horde in this game in not restricted by the FOC, Imperial (Me) will be.

We found that the FOC will help certain players more than hurt. Recent game a player brought all not scoring units.  What happen the opponents ignored him and focused on the other troops for the win. Game became grossly unbalanced. Same is true for the reverse, a play can break the game with Elites and Heavies. What we accomplished here is some balance to the large game. The last two games played with these rules have resulted in 6 turns of nail biting suspense. No team had the early edge and both teams had to fight for every point scrap.




View PostGreatEscape_13, on 19 December 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Why the timed turn hate? It's not draconian, but if you cannot finish a turn in a reasonable amount of time you need to evaluate whether Apoc is for you. Nothing kills the game more than one (or worse two, even worse if their troops are in melee) slowpoke. Yes, it's for fun. But fun for all might necessitate sticking to a schedule.

Played several Time turn Apocalypse games, not one I enjoyed. It is not about finishing turns. It is more about savoring the moments, not breezing over the dice rolls in a rush to the next. Playing in time turns I am focused purely on my units and my actions, missing out on the other half of the action. Missed a lot of epic moments only to hear about them after the game. Time turns seem to remove the fun from the game and makeing it an unfulfilling.

View PostGreatEscape_13, on 19 December 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Way too many objectives with all the Warlords and Superheavies becoming objectives themselves. That seems chaotic and absurd. I think for story reasons in the game that nominating one commander to be an objective per side, or specific vehicles that are objectives (only one Warlord titan? that would be a fine objective if destroyed). But it cannot be "all".

Good point here, honestly have not had any issues. Recent game was 2 on 2 and only one warlord fell. (Shrike taking out Aboddon, epic should not have happen moment). So far this has worked very well.



View PostGreatEscape_13, on 19 December 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Only one of each special character in the whole game can work for certain times, but it may upset others. If two Salamanders players show up, and both want Vulcan to make their army work, who gets him? Better to limit it to one of each special model per player-army. ".

Agree, but have not had an issue “let”, and this is with a Space Marine player that rolls with 4-6 Unique characters..


View PostGreatEscape_13, on 19 December 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

The awarding one Apocalypse approved per force org can be better managed by just aligning sides to match superheavy count. That way you can go really heavy in one game, or really light in another. Up to the players to keep things in line. ".

See your point. Most games are story driven, so teams are prearranged. As for super heavy count, this keeps in line for balance.

View PostGreatEscape_13, on 19 December 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

I think these rules are okay if players are taking the game really seriously--as if winning or losing really matters. I don't care to play Apocalypse competitively--give me other games for when I want to be competitive. So the need for a ruleset that makes it more competitive isn't my cup of tea. ".

Not about competitive, more about players breaking the rules to win. These rules are a result of one side games. Games that are typically fun for one side. Great if you are on that side, but when the other side lost by turn one. And the treads are being blown off for under them not fun.
In the local group here we played one game without these house rules and the game was ugly. The Traitor Guard brutalized the space marines. It was to the point the Traitor Guard had to pull punches and ease up. Not fun for either sides in the end. The game following these rules, same players, same armies.. Was fun from turn one to turn 5. Several epic moments. Both teams were in the game til the end.


All game group dynamics are different; our group just fells a balance approach is needed to stop some abuse, or the temptation.And more so to know what to expect, less debating, more playing...  Just like every game, we all sit down to win, it is the goal. But it is not fun when the win is easy. So we felt that we needed to tighten up the game a bit.

#6 Globalsmack

Globalsmack

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 351 posts
  • LocationDetroit, Michigan

Posted 20 December 2012 - 01:37 AM

10 lemans in a 3000 point game?

Most of the rules are fine in a small group.  The Marine special character limit is the biggest issue that can come up.  No other codex relies on a character to unlock theme rules.  If you dont have those mix of armies in your group then it doesnt matter.

A flaw to you scoring rules is this.  Why would 100 terminators from dark angels count as scoring but 100 terminators from a blood angel force not?  Thats balance, thats fair?  Remember that Apoc is playing with your models.  As our groups intermingle i find that players tend to focus on blaming others for losing and not their own tactics.  Knowing your audience is a big issue.  If you are playing joey newb you just dont bring the hard stuff.  If you are playing with a hard core vet with a huge model collection is telling him he can only have two super heavies the intent of apoc?  In the world of 6e hull points Superheavies go down like butter in a microwave.

When playing with outsiders just ask what they are looking for.  I've made arms negotiations before games with players.  :D Something along the lines of we aren't bringing any super heavies but you can bring as many as you like unless you bring a phantom, then we will bring something.  ;)

And rest assured, 3 hour shooting phases are not fun for anyone except the shooter.

#7 Aurenian

Aurenian

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 499 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 04:46 AM

I think timed turns are pretty much essential to getting a reasonable number of turns played. It's too easy to dawdle along talking to people if there is no limit.

But it doesn't have to be really tight. You could plan for 1 or 2 hour turns if you want to take it easier. The important thing is having a deadline so that you use the time efficiently.

Most of the other restrictions I agree with. Although in my own gaming I'm leaning toward no formations or free strategic assets as part of army construction. I'd rather have extra rules and tricks be part of the scenario and firmly under the GM's control.

#8 Big Jimmy

Big Jimmy

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 09:02 AM

View PostGlobalsmack, on 20 December 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

A flaw to you scoring rules is this.  Why would 100 terminators from dark angels count as scoring but 100 terminators from a blood angel force not?  Thats balance, thats fair?

Yes, yes it is.  People think that "scoring" means "warm blooded body."  It doesn't.  The point of a scoring unit is "This units job is to hunker down and hold this point."

That's not what terminators, or havocs, or psycher battle squads, or pathfinders are supposed to do.  These are tools, these units have a very specific purpose and it's to "fuck the other dude up." Not to hold a location.

Tac squads, infantry platoons, DE Warriors, fire warriors.  These squads are designed to sit and hold a point.

When you take Mr The Kantor, or Belial (sp) the fluff and the roll of your squads has changed.  Kantor represents a force who has lost it's tac squads, vets are what they have left.  So sterngard now have to hold down the fort after taking it, they can't leave that job to scouts or tac squads to continue.

Belial represents a force in which terminators ARE the basic squad, and in an army that includes him they become the swiss army knife of the force.  Now they can shock, they can drowned a unit in fire power, or they can hold a point.  That has been designated their job.

Some of the units people allow as scoring are just laughable.  Bikes are scoring?  You're telling me that you have a monsterous steed of steel between your legs, and it was given to you so you can babysit the ammo crates those orks are after?

Troops are units that are trained to secure a point, set up a perimeter, prepare it for extraction, take cover and engage the enemy if neccisary, but above all else hold that point.  The units in other force orginization slots have no business there, they should be doing what they were designed to do.

#9 Aurenian

Aurenian

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 499 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 12:06 PM

Also directly comparing BA and DA terminators is a bit misleading.

Sure, BA can't take scoring terminators. But they can take scoring assault marines and Sanguinary guard. Also they can bring their terminators in via flying assault transports and have a sanguinary priest hanging around giving them feel no pain.

You don't compare codex balance on one unit in standard 40k. Why is that different in apoc?

#10 Darog

Darog

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • LocationMoscow

Posted 20 December 2012 - 08:04 PM

Good, but I do not like too much homeruling, our FAQ is just one A4 sheet and is more balance, you are too cut melee army.

#11 Gertjan

Gertjan

    Master Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 80 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, the Netherlands

Posted 21 December 2012 - 06:36 PM

Well, ofcourse these rules are supposed to support how you guys play your Apoc games and if they work for you, all the better. I find especially trhe whole foc thing a bit restrictive. Apocalypse mroe than anything else is about having fun and just dumping on the table what you want to, not what is required as in normal games. Part of the appeal is the ability to go bonkers with your army selection. Ofcourse you should take the other side into account when choosing things like Titans etc, but to just squeeze everything into a fixed foc style is counterintuitive to me. Especially since you play with FW stuff, you say use standard foc which gets expanded. Problem here is that a IG player just chooses the armylist he/she wants to use: more tanks? use the armoured list. More flyers? Use the elysian list etc. etc.

And it does go against quite a few formations, what if you want to deploy a heavy weapon formation, according to the codex it's not possible. Is it allowed then as it operates wholy outside of the foc or dissallowed because of that?

Just agree with each other beforehand, and be a sport about choosing your list, always found that the gentleman's agreement works so much better than hard rules.

On timed turns, I'm completely with you, we don't have them either, and it has worked out well so far, it keeps it a bit relaxed. Even if you set a very loose limit some people do tend to have this "we must hurry up" attitude they would otherwise not have, even if they can easily do a turn within the set limit.

#12 Globalsmack

Globalsmack

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 351 posts
  • LocationDetroit, Michigan

Posted 22 December 2012 - 12:58 AM

Ive always found silly that in an environment that is made to have the big toys and formations and not be limited to codex units and force charts is constantly tried to be fixed so it limits these things.

The point of the Master of the Deathwing is that he can bring more than 3 units of deathwing.  Where do we get the room to make this happen and for it to make the most sense, the troop slots.  We can make all of the fluff we want to support out stances but just look at it from a pure rules stand point.  Case and point is the codex in question was written where troop just meant more slots.

If you want to get fluffy, elite special op units most certainly will take and hold a key location until the grunts arrive to fortify and maintain the area.  In the limited scope of a 40k game we are not talking about prolonged garrisoning of objectives.  

It will be interesting in an APOC 2.0 book to see how they address it.  My guess is whatever drives sales will be the answer.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users