Is there ever going to be an apocalypse?

[Christian Møller Hansen]

With all the formationshenanigans going on at the moment is there really any need for a new apocalypse ruleset?

i don't really mind, but then perhaps they should do a "bareknucklesfighting" version of 40k and really try to push that in fx competitions, fx, no formations or special detachments and everything have to be battle forged??

i've been playing for decades and really feel sorry for any new gamers commin' to the game with no relations to an actual gaming milieu,, it must be flabberghastingly insane to get just a glimpse of how to create an army and what actually makes sense on a competitive level,, speaking as a parent with kids wanting to play the game (non-english speaking ones but learning!) i can really see the troubles they are heading into,, they have no idea where to start and where to go armycreationwise (and **** it if i'm ever gonna teach em!),, me and my mates started with rogue trader and really got going with 2nd edition, and it was hard,, kids nowadays have an insane amount of distractions (we had the ****ing supermarket) and getting them to sit down and understand a rulebook and an everlasting amount of armybooks and additional special formation/detachment rules really knocks the air out of them, and most can't be bothered,,,, i really wish that GW would push a two-way approach,, one with all the crazies, and one without,, the one without would do fine for tournaments and to introduce new player (there's no better way to introduce a noob than to bring em to a tourney and have them see it all in action), and the one with all the madness would suit experienced players the best,, what's your take on this?? did 40k suddenly/slowly become apocalypse? is there really a need for apocalypse games? is the way the game is heading a good thing for starting players?

oi oi

-C

[Mr Mystery]

It's a sandbox Galaxy, with a gaming structure to match.

FoC is just one way, albeit the one most gamers are familiar with.

There's nothing making formations, fortifications, super heavies, gargantuan creatures et al in any way compulsory.

A newcomer to the game can soon figure out what works for them. Unbound gives total freedom. Buy what you like for the army/armies you like, and you can field it without bother (barring stuck up opponents who have confused their legitimate preference with THE RIGHT AND ONLY WAY). FoC offers a mix of flexibility and structure. Formations offer the most structured way into the game, especially with the new 'Getting Started' sets which can be used as a force in their own right.

When I did most of my gaming in store, I took what I wanted to play with for random pickups, and then negotiated with would-be opponents from there. So I might well pack 1,500 40k or 3,000 Warhammer, but when it came to the game itself, I could be playing any sized game up to those limits (even if I had a game pre-arranged. Opponents can be late, no-shows, forget a case, have grabbed the wrong case etc).

There is no right or wrong way, and there never was. The key is to best match the needs of the player with the least options.

Got a newcomer who is just setting out? That's cool. Ask them if there's anything in particular they want to face, or indeed not face (say, an Imperial Knight army). Perhaps they've got a shiny new unit they really want to put through its paces. Maybe they want to get a better handle on fighting off the big stuff. Do your best to meet their requirements. There's no point roflstomping them. You've not proved owt (unless you're the sort to show how well 'ard you are by punching five year olds) by flattening a NooB with your finely tuned army and tactics, and all they'll take away from the game? A bad experience.

Help them to learn the ropes. Keep the game short and punchy (not an extended snooze fest as you micromanage the exact distance between each of your models. Newcomers don't need that!)

Perhaps your game is against a more seasoned player. Well, cool. Now discuss the preferences of both players. Most of the time this is easy, as few players are actually dicks. But be prepared to meet in the middle, and both parties need to be reasonable. Packed your Wraithknight, but your opponent isn't too keen? Discuss it. Maybe this time the Wraithknight stays in its case, but next time he's fair game. Has your opponent brought nothing but allied formations, and you've gone strict FoC? Well, c'est la vie. If you really don't fancy taking them on, then decline the game. As mentioned above, so few gamers are actually arseholes you won't have much of a problem.

Who knows, next time you could be the underdog. If your opponent has a tournament coming up, and has written something suitably nasty, there's no harm in taking a drubbing.

In all cases, make sure you'll have time after the game is done for a post-battle chinwag. Just played a NooB? Give them tips. Perhaps they missed a glaring weakness. Played your average gamer? Compliment each other's play and painting and that. Be friendly. Just got your metaphorical teeth kicked down your throat? Ask your opponent for tips.

Compromise, compromise, compromise. If you've gone armour heavy, and your opponent is fielding an anti-infantry horde, see if they would like to rejig their list, maybe proxying stuff like Heavy Bolters to be Lascannons.

Why?

This isn't a game intended to aggrandise the victor. It's a social game. But most importantly, it attracts Nerds, some of whom may only have this hobby as something they enjoy (especially true of the yoof). So just be nice and play nice. Everybody plays to win (unless it's a training game for newcomers, when the aim is to get them up to speed). Whenever you win, think about your least favourite loss, and the behaviour of your opponent. I'd bet good money it's the latter part of that which really soured things.......and then don't fall to that sort of behaviour. Ever

[Hokiecow]

GW needs to do something to help make 40K have an easier barrier to enter. I see they want AoS to be that first step but it's not 40K nor does it scratch the sci-fi itch some may have. GW needs to simplify the what's needed and make a simpler version of the game that teaches the basics. It's possible that they believe that the GW stores are meant to teach new players.

X-Wing does a great job by having a simplified set of rules. Both my 7 and 10 year old loved playing the simplified rules. My oldest had moved onto the full rule but can play the simplified when his younger brother wants to play.

I'm doing a system engineering project and after interviewing a few kids on what would make them play more or their friends play more and the biggest answer was "make it easier to understand". They're confused by all the various rules and rules sources.

[Alaric]

Personally I think Apocalypse is there strictly for when you wanna use "ALL THE TOYS!! ALL OF EM!!" and that's aboot it. Basic 40k can pretty much fill any void needed with the current rules:low points to high points.

[Nightwolf]

Games Workshop really wanted to sell the big kits and the bundled formation boxes, but Apocalypse as a supplement was only partly successful at this task. By merging these things into regular 40K they have opened the doors completely on army list construction.

You now have the freedom to buy and use whatever model's of theirs you want.

[SnakeChisler]

As has been said marketing wise GW have shifted from producing a game to producing models then thinking up rules on how to sell them.

In fairness opening up the game with 7th edition was long overdue and moving to progressive objectives.

It does leave you with a thorny headache though what to allow (or not) and how far to push the envelope in general club games and requires far more negotiation than we have previously been used to.

The Luddites among us (including the comp scene) are still balking at Maelstrom but its here to stay and its the future of 40k so they better get used to it as the new formations / armies make kill points next to useless at factoring a winner.

We still run Apoc games and generally no one wants to play with super heavies on club nights mostly because it degenerates into run away from the scary big thing.

[Path Walker]

Formations are the solution to having a smaller entry point to the hobby. I wouldn't be surprised if 8th did away with the Combined Arms Detachment altogether, its a relic and a hold over to the "old" way of building armies with a Forge Organisation Chart. Formations can be fluffier and "sub-optimal" units viable again with special rules and mean that you no longer need an HQ and 2 troops minimum to field an army.

Tomorrow I'm playing with the Mechanicus that I have painted, a Tech-Priest Dominus and 6 Kastelan Robots, under the FOC, I can't use that as an army. With Formations, I have the Cohort Cybernetica and can play the with the models I like!

Look at the new "Getting Started" armies, each comes with a formation meaning the box you buy can be used as is, that's exactly what GW should be doing for new players and at a pretty good price.

[Charon]

The Luddites among us (including the comp scene) are still balking at Maelstrom but its here to stay and its the future of 40k so they better get used to it as the new formations / armies make kill points next to useless at factoring a winner.

Maelstroms is a double edged blade to me. While I do like the idea in general it is poorly executed and needs a lot of houserules to not just announce a winner by the first draw of cards. Games that replace finished objectives with new ones are especially snowbally.
The race specific objective packs are just lazy designed. This was an opportunity to weed out objectives that cant be fulfilled by certain armies and replace them with new ones. Instead they went the easy rout of "we just replace the first 10 and still make it an objective for DE to cast a psi power while we take away grab objective cards from this fast army without any psyker".

[grimmas]

I concur with Path on formations. They're an excellent way of introducing the starter armies to new people and allowing them to play a legal force.

On the subject of Apocalypse I'd like to see it done more throughly rather than just being 40K with really big stuff. At the first Golden Daemon awards (not Games day they were different back then) I went to one of the biggest attractions was a game of Space Marine played with 40k miniatures. It was awesome. I'd think something that streamlines the rules to allow really big games it the same time frame as a standard game would be great. I'm not sure Space Marine or epic rules would be entirely appropriate though using WoTR style unit bases could allow something similar. I feel easy of dealing with infantry in Apoc needs to be looked at to allow the game to flow. If it still uses the same models I can see GW doing the rules.

[Arkhan Land]

Formations are the solution to having a smaller entry point to the hobby. I wouldn't be surprised if 8th did away with the Combined Arms Detachment altogether, its a relic and a hold over to the "old" way of building armies with a Forge Organisation Chart. Formations can be fluffier and "sub-optimal" units viable again with special rules and mean that you no longer need an HQ and 2 troops minimum to field an army.

Tomorrow I'm playing with the Mechanicus that I have painted, a Tech-Priest Dominus and 6 Kastelan Robots, under the FOC, I can't use that as an army. With Formations, I have the Cohort Cybernetica and can play the with the models I like!

Look at the new "Getting Started" armies, each comes with a formation meaning the box you buy can be used as is, that's exactly what GW should be doing for new players and at a pretty good price.

I love using the Cohort, it is THE BOMB.

anyways onto the point, I think its definetly cool to get to see these units re-buffed, more formations would be cool to truly get all the oldies but goodies into play, but also perhaps to sort of ofset the general defecit that we see on some units in terms of their usefullness through their USRs. ide love it if they did some smaller ones too for a littler games. or possibly create some sort of standard set, competetive force armies that represent the opposite, a set of well researched and plotted choices for maximum equality similar to chess almost but done through formations