Changes for 2014.

Apocalypticon has been discontinued. Click here for all the details
User avatar
jae4x4
MiniWarGaming Zealot
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:39 pm

Changes for 2014.

Post by jae4x4 » Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:44 am

So reading through the comments on the you-tube channel and this forum I am going to suggest some changes in rules for 2014, whether they are taken under consideration or not is another story:

1 - Better Camera Work, glide cams and stabilizers. Less following explosions, and more following infantry battles and close combat (make the game more personal).

2 - The Apocalypticon modified super heavy explosion rule, is just stupid, the explosions kills more than the actual units do. I suggest on with the amount of points we have to fit on a 4'x2' the explosion can go a maximum of 2 d6, (with the modified +turn explosion). This is the reason I don't use Titans and superheavys, they are more of a disadvantage than an advantage. In following years you will see less and less titan. Which brings me to my next point.

3 - SCRATCH BUILDS. Where to begin, Apockalpticon brings out some of the best and worst made scratch builds I have ever seen. I think MWG should make a council (mix of players and co-ordinators) that votes on all scratch builds prior to the event. All scratch builds must be submitted (pictures) to MWG.

4 - Objectives. They should be actual objectives, not just little points on a table. For example - 2014 could be about a Imperial planet that is being invaded by Xenos, the Xenos are the scout wave and must destroy the planets Anti-Space/Aircraft guns so the main force may land safely. Each table has 1 AA gun on the Imperial deployment, it can not be destroyed, and can not fire. It must be taken by the end of the game by "entering" it and killing its crew and using melta bombs, or something internally to destroy it. This is just an example.

5 - Just use the new apocalypse rules. So its not the most confusing battle of all time.

6 - Flyers should have more mobility than a regular 40k game, 36" movement should be doubled to 72" so that flyers can better interact with/against each other. Having an unlimited flight range reduced to 36" in one year was hard on everyone it seemed.

Argun
MiniWarGaming Beginner
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:48 pm
Location: Anoka, Minnesota

Re: Changes for 2014.

Post by Argun » Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:26 pm

And don't forget a new table layout! With the way we've had it in the past, it's just not going to scale properly if we do indeed try to hit the 1 million mark.

User avatar
jae4x4
MiniWarGaming Zealot
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:39 pm

Re: Changes for 2014.

Post by jae4x4 » Sat Nov 23, 2013 2:56 pm

i agree, tables should have more T's in them allowing titans, artillery, and other ranged units to be out out no mans land, letting troops and vehicles to slug it out

frontalrhino
MiniWarGaming Beginner
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:27 am

Re: Changes for 2014.

Post by frontalrhino » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:17 am

when you say 'just use the apocalypse rules.' do you mean all of them cause in one of the other threads the spending of VP's and how they were earned seemed to be a bone for contention. my thought was just play it exactly how it says but be allowed to go into negatives because you are already limited to spending one per turn so even though you most likely will hit negatives both sides will do and if they don't they are missing out on a lot of fire power and safety. so it makes up for it. just wondered what you though cause your other ideas I agree with

User avatar
jae4x4
MiniWarGaming Zealot
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:39 pm

Re: Changes for 2014.

Post by jae4x4 » Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:01 pm

frontalrhino wrote:when you say 'just use the apocalypse rules.' do you mean all of them cause in one of the other threads the spending of VP's and how they were earned seemed to be a bone for contention. my thought was just play it exactly how it says but be allowed to go into negatives because you are already limited to spending one per turn so even though you most likely will hit negatives both sides will do and if they don't they are missing out on a lot of fire power and safety. so it makes up for it. just wondered what you though cause your other ideas I agree with
Play bare bones new rules, no spending vps, no stratigims (unless in a formation), no warlord powers, just like we always have

kernbanks
Silver Vault Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:41 pm

Re: Changes for 2014.

Post by kernbanks » Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:07 pm

I'm still on the fence with formation stratagems... for instance I will have 2 battle companies of space marines, that's two orbital bombardments. For me that's small potatoes as a dozen Titans bring far more firepower to the table but for areas of the board without such Titanic forces the difference of one squad making that battle company or not can seriously effect balance... and that's where my argument looses ground (how can a guy with a Titan Legion talk about balance???). This is Apocalipti-con there is no balance, models are supposed to die. But at the same time that rule book talks about stratagems as a way to bring balance and it is easy to see how powerful they are.

I just can't emphasize how much I hate the Strategic Asset FLANK MARCH. Not many formations have it - but a Masters of the Chapter of other High Command can easily pick it.

So long story short... I'm all for no picking assets to keep the craziness down, to include high commands (how the hell can anything flank around 1000's of kilometers of front, through all those support troops, and then end up at full strength right behind my line of battle???). Or, swing wide the other way and allow a certain number per board to increase the crazy fun.

Just as an FYI, I am painting up my Masters of the Chapter just in case and you can sure as hell believe if I get FLANK MARCHED a Predator Assassin Squadron or Land Raider Formation will be returning the favor.
~Kernbanks

User avatar
jae4x4
MiniWarGaming Zealot
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:39 pm

Re: Changes for 2014.

Post by jae4x4 » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:06 pm

I think it is rather stupid, over powered, and just defeats the purpose of having fun, this is why you need to cram the back of ur table full of guardsmen and other expendable units.

frontalrhino
MiniWarGaming Beginner
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:27 am

Re: Changes for 2014.

Post by frontalrhino » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:23 pm

just cause we haven't touched on it, unnatural disasters yay or nah? or maybe a modified version/ controlled by one particular person. also I like your no strategic assets but goes back to making some of the new formations a bit neutered, as they don't give specific ones. just more victory points to spend on them, masters of the chapter as an obvs example

Aegis
Gold Vault Member
Posts: 943
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Welland, Ontario
Contact:

Re: Changes for 2014.

Post by Aegis » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:52 pm

Unnatural disasters, I hope, are a nay. There is just way too much going on with that one to keep track of on that scale.

Flank march, I am torn. On one hand, I do not mind it so much as it can be combated very easily. Additionally, as someone who plays a predominantly infantry based army, it gives me a chance to get some of my stuff into the thick of things.

On the other hand, flank marching some stupid scary death star units can definitely ruin someone's experience. Personally, I am for keeping the house rules on flank march (including the rules regarding scout allowing it) to stay, but perhaps limit to a certain amount of points, or the formation that has it.
Former MWG Leland, now just regular, old Leland. Now with more grump!

To see what I am working on, check out my Facebook page at its new address Aegisbrand Studios or just search for Leland Martel

User avatar
MasticatorDeelux
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:49 pm
Location: Jacksonville, North Carolina

Re: Changes for 2014.

Post by MasticatorDeelux » Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:59 pm

Honestly, we've done just fine without strategems in the past. I'd just as soon not have to deal with them this year, either. Yes, some formations grant them and all that but time is already finite without having to travel around the snake of a table to place your models. (Unless we can stay longer! That'd be nice, too)

1. Warhound Titan formation from Pandorax (2 of them)
2. Let them die gloriously in the name of the Emperor
3. Replacements!
4. Flank March the titan Formation into the enemy's flank.
5. Cry, Laugh, Take Photos
10k Ork Waaagh, 30% painted
11k Black Templar Crusade, 99% painted

kernbanks
Silver Vault Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:41 pm

Re: Changes for 2014.

Post by kernbanks » Thu Nov 28, 2013 8:49 pm

MasticatorDeelux wrote:Honestly, we've done just fine without strategems in the past. I'd just as soon not have to deal with them this year, either. Yes, some formations grant them and all that but time is already finite without having to travel around the snake of a table to place your models. (Unless we can stay longer! That'd be nice, too)

1. Warhound Titan formation from Pandorax (2 of them)
2. Let them die gloriously in the name of the Emperor
3. Replacements!
4. Flank March the titan Formation into the enemy's flank.
5. Cry, Laugh, Take Photos
Totally forgot that one... but Titans must deploy. Guess I just need so many superheavies I physically can't deploy them all... then i can flank march a pair or 3 pairs. And behind anyone who flank marches (i would just give that other player total control of them). Hahaha...that should beat flank march onto the nay list. The warhound / reaver manufactorium will be in full swing over christmas break.
~Kernbanks

Argun
MiniWarGaming Beginner
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:48 pm
Location: Anoka, Minnesota

Re: Changes for 2014.

Post by Argun » Thu Nov 28, 2013 9:35 pm

Personally, I'd like for titans and whatnot to NOT all be on the board first turn. But, I know someone will disagree with that, so here's what I suggest: 50% of all available superheavies that one brings MUST be on the field, starting with formations. Single superheavies have the option of staying on the board, or in reserves on the condition that they are the first things in from reserves.

User avatar
MasticatorDeelux
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:49 pm
Location: Jacksonville, North Carolina

Re: Changes for 2014.

Post by MasticatorDeelux » Thu Nov 28, 2013 9:59 pm

I understand where you're coming from, but I'd just as soon have everything on the board turn one. Granted if you can't fit things, you can't fit them. I remember a while ago that it was brought up that superheavies might only be able to fire at other superheavies turn one. I'd be okay with that.
10k Ork Waaagh, 30% painted
11k Black Templar Crusade, 99% painted

Aegis
Gold Vault Member
Posts: 943
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Welland, Ontario
Contact:

Re: Changes for 2014.

Post by Aegis » Thu Nov 28, 2013 10:14 pm

I think the super heavy targeting priority is the best compromise. After all, it does make sense that a titan would be targeting the other titans/superheavy hunters as a matter of target priority.

Now, speaking as someone who only has three super heavies, one of which is a flier, I am definitely benefiting more from this...
Former MWG Leland, now just regular, old Leland. Now with more grump!

To see what I am working on, check out my Facebook page at its new address Aegisbrand Studios or just search for Leland Martel

MWG-Owen
Gold Vault Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:42 pm

Re: Changes for 2014.

Post by MWG-Owen » Thu Dec 05, 2013 2:41 am

jae4x4 wrote:So reading through the comments on the you-tube channel and this forum I am going to suggest some changes in rules for 2014, whether they are taken under consideration or not is another story:

1 - Better Camera Work, glide cams and stabilizers. Less following explosions, and more following infantry battles and close combat (make the game more personal).
Expect this year for the Cameras to be totally different.
jae4x4 wrote: 2 - The Apocalypticon modified super heavy explosion rule, is just stupid, the explosions kills more than the actual units do. I suggest on with the amount of points we have to fit on a 4'x2' the explosion can go a maximum of 2 d6, (with the modified +turn explosion). This is the reason I don't use Titans and superheavys, they are more of a disadvantage than an advantage. In following years you will see less and less titan. Which brings me to my next point.
Addressed in the next answers.
jae4x4 wrote: 3 - SCRATCH BUILDS. Where to begin, Apockalpticon brings out some of the best and worst made scratch builds I have ever seen. I think MWG should make a council (mix of players and co-ordinators) that votes on all scratch builds prior to the event. All scratch builds must be submitted (pictures) to MWG.
I will be going over them all. Basic idea to think about. The silhouette of your titan must match that of the actual model. Most if not all units that do not have a model (or are very expensive) have an image with the outline of the model compared to a normal model. Match that outline.
jae4x4 wrote: 4 - Objectives. They should be actual objectives, not just little points on a table. For example - 2014 could be about a Imperial planet that is being invaded by Xenos, the Xenos are the scout wave and must destroy the planets Anti-Space/Aircraft guns so the main force may land safely. Each table has 1 AA gun on the Imperial deployment, it can not be destroyed, and can not fire. It must be taken by the end of the game by "entering" it and killing its crew and using melta bombs, or something internally to destroy it. This is just an example.
Perhaps...
jae4x4 wrote: 5 - Just use the new apocalypse rules. So its not the most confusing battle of all time.
Almost certainly. Most rules from the new rules will be used. Explosions for sure. That said, debating about the use of points and assets and the unnatural disasters.
jae4x4 wrote: 6 - Flyers should have more mobility than a regular 40k game, 36" movement should be doubled to 72" so that flyers can better interact with/against each other. Having an unlimited flight range reduced to 36" in one year was hard on everyone it seemed.
Perhaps. Though unlikely.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest