Black Friday... apoc? Interest

[Torg]

I’m currently not playing much of anything - but I’m thinking I’ll be free for Black Friday this year.  For something 40k - large game - multiple players. 

Bring out your big toys - just big battle with some thin themes. 

Location, points and all that is all undetermined... so if your interested- let’s discuss and make some plans!

[Torg]

Maybe some kinda killteam tie-in as well. Lots of options 

[Chikin]

It might be a fun excuse to pull out the Hierophant again.

[happycamper]

I’m down.  We should do it somewhere with Beer

[Guest]

I actually have a reservation at GG for this. Already. Created a thread here:

 That said, I was actually thinking of cancelling. I had more "steam" when I started this and don't feel as up to running it as I was when I reserved it. I would appreciate having someone else organize it. Reservation should be in the Bar area.

[Chikin]

That sounds awesome with the 12' x 12' space. But I think it might work better if it was U shaped, so even slow things could cross the lines. 

[Ish]

Back in Michigan, my friends and I all found that multi-player Apocalypse games worked best on an “H” shaped layout. 

Two 6’ x 4’ tables make up each of the “uprights” on the H, with a fifth 6’ x 4’ table placed perpendicular to the others forming the center part of the “H”. The “gaps” are treated as impossible to move through but you could draw LoS across it for significantly long ranged shooting. 

We set up the tables to that the central bit was basically a grimdark gothic Pegasus Bridge, one half was your typical blasted gothic Space Stalingrad, and the other half was a Battle of Ypres trench warfare hell.

The “voids” in the “H” shape make it easy to reach the models on the table, the “bridge” makes a fun strategic chokepoint, and the distances to get from one corner of the “H” to the other makes maneuver important. 

[andy]

How would it work? Do players just bring all their LoWs, and then split into two teams?

[Ish]

28 minutes ago, andy said:

How would it work? Do players just bring all their LoWs, and then split into two teams?

Up to the individual organizer(s), but generally Apocalypse games are organized so that there’s an agreed upon point value, say 9,000 per side, and the players are split into two teams. Each team decides how they’ll split the points amongst themselves: Alice, Bob, Chris decide that they’ll each field 3,000; But Adam, Betty, and Cathy decide they’ll field 2,000; 2,500, and 2,500 respectively.

(Bringing Lords of War is fun, especially if you have some that spend more time on the shelf than in game... But I’ve had plenty of successful Apocalypse games where I fielded bog standard units. Just in really large numbers. Warlord Titans are tough, but putting a full Deathwing Company on the table — 108 Terminators! — can be equally good.)

[Guest]

The plan with the 12'x12' was:

2 teams set up diagonally from each other in the 12'x12' area. The 4'x12' gap in between is considered lethal terrain (can't land on it, but can travel or shoot across it if you have the range/speed). Victory is determined by control of 4'x4' sections at the end of the game. It's all treated as one game with the game ending based on time. Ties are acceptable, with no tiebreaker mechanic being intentional.

The reason for gap, aside from having players be able reach models, is that many apocalypse units have ridiculous range and have balance issues playing on normal size tables. Plus it allows flyers to really feel like flyers because they actually have room enough to be real flyers.

Anyway, could get the tables set up differently. And if players lack long range weapons/fast flyers, could add some sort of teleport bridge terrain features, though I really like the idea of using actual flying transports and having titanic ranges not always being in range. You know, a game where the basilisk having crazy range makes it a viable unit to field.

[andy]

Thanks @Ish -- that does sound like a lot of fun. I think I'd be up for it and I might be able to brute-squad a couple of others 

[Torg]

In the past - we’ve decided on the table after we figured out teams / sides and all that.  

Basically, gauging interest and possibly commitment. And - themes ... this usually boils down to just basic things. 

Game turns would be timed - so the game completes in the time we have allowed at the location.  Team captain would be responsible for keeping his team under the clock. 

Last time I did one of these (the year before last) we had 40,000 pits on the table I think.  Several super heavies - including my Eldar phantom. 

The trick of course is balance - we need opportunity for opposing super heavies. - because it’s just not “fun” to have a phantom Titan alone in Godzilla mode lol. 

- Pax - I was unaware that you had stared a post on this. - or I just forgot it.  I’m sure we could use the space if it works out. 

I am talking with someone about co-organizing the game.  Still trying to be more than just a big battle. (Dreams)

 

-d

[Ish]

The problem with 12’ x 12’ is that it’s going to be really hard to reach models towards the center of the table. At the extreme, it’s six feet from edge to middle at the nearest point! 

[Torg]

I’m not familiar with the possible tables at Guardian Ganes in the new-ish location. Last time we did Black Friday apoc at wow - in the big room with the huge table assembled. (Not sure on the dims).  But it wasn’t impossible to move around.  We played on that table more than once for Black Friday apoc over the years. 

Multiple groups of tables would be good - gaps for impassable areas is a good idea - think a group of asteroids... space stations. Allowing maybe 2-3 tables set up 16’x12’ ( two 4x8 foot tables wide by three tables deep).  

The gap between tables can be anything.  Looking to Ish’s example... a big H. You could have a one table (4x8) between the larger tables. Come to think of it - GW did have a book / realm of battle- forge world thing (war zone) ... that was an asteroid with a space station.  And some kinda giant chain between them.  I’ll look up the book for ideas tonight. 

-d

[Torg]

Ok - forgot that I had lots of this on a flash drive - anyhow, Warzone Pandorax is the one - perfect for multiple tables. 

[Ish]

I don’t like completely separate tables, since that just ends up being a bunch of separate small games instead of the one giant flustered duck that makes for a proper Apocalypse.

These things do require a lot of advance planning, however. 

[Torg]

Very true... completely separate is an issue. I’ve spent the last 15 minutes or so looking through the Pandorax Warzone - “ rescue the revenge” battle. 

Basically a long wide table - from large land formation to a “space station” / imperial gothic ship. - asteroids between. 

But - the wide / long table is split length wise ... allowing for different zones of play as well as ways to get from one end to the other - no split table.   It’s a Imperial v Chaos battle - but it can easily be modified for whatever we get to play. 

I’d be Eldar ... can do however many points needed really.  But Eldar can easily be on the Imperial side.  

Orks can be raiding... could be on either side ... could even flip flop throughout the game. 

Who can possibly commit to a Black Friday game ... how many points possibly and what factions?  We need to get a rough idea of what we’d be dealing with. - size and scope. 

-d

[Torg]

My next question would there be a reason to try and mix in some kill team?  In this particular Warzone battle - they have a small table or area for the Imperial ships battery control... if only one force controls this then that team gets use of the large guns of the gothic ship that shooting phase. 

Maybe this could be something to include- as just 40k - but the possibility for it to be killteam came to mind. 

-d

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Ish said:

I don’t like completely separate tables, since that just ends up being a bunch of separate small games instead of the one giant flustered duck that makes for a proper Apocalypse.

These things do require a lot of advance planning, however. 

Okay, logic of the table came about because I got a Reaver Titan for my chaos. Most of the weapons on the reaver have at least 72" of range, which is 6ft of range. Some longer, some shorter. I'd love to play with an actual 12'x12' but then you run into issues reaching the models, so having a gap of some sort is important just for the people that actually control the figures. Much of the game balance for things like the Reaver is in the idea that they aren't always in range with all of their weapons (unless I take the really long range weapon options).

Flying transport-wise, the Chaos Storm Eagle has 45" of base movement and another 20" when it advances. Most games, this speed is ridiculous, but in apocalypse on a 12'x12' table, that speed is what you'd need to get across no-man's land. That's pretty standard for flying transports.

The 12'x12' with gap that is diagonally split means you have minor deploy space on one big table and major deploy space on the other table, so essentially, both teams get to play a defensive battle and an offensive battle, with long range units and flyers being able to support both sides. And with objectives being 4'x4' sections, you would have to commit to both sides if you want a victory.

Just sounds really "epic"

But anyway, could do the tables however. Basically, I have 4 tables that are 6'x4' reserved in the back corner of the bar area. If you don't want a square, a T or L should be do-able, though I've played those and they just bottleneck - the gap denies the bottleneck.

[Torg]

Hmmmm a reaver Titan... something to shoot at with my phantom 😄

[Ish]

I’d recommend an “H,” “C,” “T,” “X” or even “O” shaped layout for the tables. 

H and C work, more or less, like I described above. For X or T you put a smaller 4’ x 4’ at the junction of the four or three 6’ x 4’ tables. 

The O shape involves crawling underneath the table to get into the void, but, most of the time you’re just on one side of the table anyway. Narratively, you could say that the void represents a hive-city spire, a fortress-monastery, or the like having the defenders on the inner side of the O trying to hold off the attackers coming from the outer rim.

[Guest]

Given the effort to play, I've only played apocalypse with a few table set ups. Done the "T" and just a normal table that's extra wide and long (rectangle). I have noted that width beyond 4 foot results in players unable to reach their models (I have long arms, not everyone does). My favorite, of the above, is the "O" but I also don't like the idea of players having to move under the tables in order access things. "H" or a "U" ("U" not shown above) would probably be the most fun and practical to execute. In any case, reserving more than 4x tables would mean changing the reservation, which might be possible, but is up to GG. 

The other idea, not mentioned yet, is to have a predetermined "defender" where you basically only set up a single side and then the "Offense" deep strikes or emerges from the board edges. This way, doesn't really matter if the table is parallel or otherwise even for both sides. 

Anyway, don't care too much. Main thing is to keep it fun and casual. Apoc just doesn't work if you try to make it compeditive.

My main concern regarding 8e apocalypse would be in players to choosing things like psychic powers, warlord traits, and relics BEFORE they arrive to play the game. Furthermore, I would strongly consider banning command points altogether, just for the purpose of speeding up the game. Maybe allow deployment related command point purchases, but having to deal with command points every phase (and then the relics that regain or steal command points) just bogs down the game. And apocalypse is really slow, even compared to normal 40k.

 

[Ish]

In my experience (from other games, not WH40k specifically) is that a “U” table tends to result in three separate games: the base of the U, the right-, and the left-leg each playing the opponent across from them and not getting that good “mix” that results in maximum carnage.

One way around this is to position all of the defenders in a fortified position that they must “defend at all costs” located in the center base a U or V, having the attackers start at the top of either flank and needing to break in. Tends to play out like the unholy love-child of the Battle of Helm’s Deep and the Normandy Landings.

[Guest]

I will note for apocalypse, just due to units and ranges, you'll have "seperate" battles going on no matter how you do it. Typically you have the main no-man's land battle for the center, and then you'll have smaller battles, with either DS units or transports, where they try to hit the backfield. It's just a factor of having the large table size and not every unit always being in range. 

We could go defense/offense, but it's tough to balance. The main thing is that 40k's offense is usually stronger than it's defense. And some of the best tactics for 40k's defense on D-day wouldn't work in real life (like just deploying so they have no legal places to deep strike...)

[Torg]

Thanks all for the interest- and input in this.  I’m currently working on arrangements with a location/ shop and doing other planning for an “apoc” big themed game.

Pax - I won’t likely be doing this at Guardian Games - so you have your reservation to organize or lend to some other gaming option for a big game. 

 

-d