In Apocalypse mode of playing - no, there are not. They just use all their existing forces with superheavy vehicles and the like and some new rules like D-strength for superheavy and so on and play. Very funny, very epic.
Yeah, it's an interesting rule set, and definitely for players who are looking to field like, 5-6 years worth of collecting models on a single table. My favorite (Of course personally) is 'Nids vs anything, because I have literally been collecting Tyranids for over 10 years, and... well I have 10 years worth of 'Nids. Although I have never fielded any sort of Apox game, since I have no place to in my home, and my friends live no where near me :ghost:
I do agree that shooting needs FAQd. I don't see an issue with shooting into combat, but wounds should be allocated randomly then... evens it hits opponents, odds it hits your own men in the combat. Shooting whilst IN combat is silly.
My main gripe so far is multi unit combats are very messy and an initiative step would clear this all up. For example, I was playing my Sigmarites against Khorne, I had one unit of 5 liberators in combat with the Khorne Lord, then a further single one man liberator left over from a previous unit. The previous unit had also had the Khorngoth beast whatever its called in combat. My five man unit makes its attacks... Then his turn to make attacks back. Since the beast was in combat with the other unit, and that unit had been split in combat with the Lord, he could make the beast pile in to the combat, then attack with both his lord and the beast. And it just felt messy and unclear. Blaergh.
I don't think it's silly. It's different, and you could change the rules to suit your view (I've seen nothing about difficult terrain yet, but I haven't looked at the Terrain WarScroll) of how it should work. But personally I feel like as long as everyone is playing with the same rules, it shouldn't be too bad. It might be bad, I'll have to see some armies like Wood Elves which are known for their shooting, maybe that makes it very bad.
But if you look at it like this, a dedicated shooting army or uint get's their attack once every full round, and dedicated melee get their attacks once per player turn. So Melee is winning out vs Shooting units when they finally close the gap, and more than likely doing severe damage to them despite the fact that they may still be able to shoot.
Besides have you seen Lord of The Rings? Clearly Legolos attacks with his bow even in melee, if that's not proof in favor of this, I don't know what could be.
Also for the Melee situation, I am a little unclear here in your example. You had two units of Liberators (One of which was one man) and they had a Lord and the Monster thing in combat? And somehow they were close to each other or something? But when you do combat, as far as I've read, you go back and forth between players rolling per unit fielded. So he would never get to attack with both the Lord and the Monster
at once. But if you're just confused that the Monster gets to attack at all, I mean, as long as it was within 3" of something when it got selected to attack, I don't see the confusion.
Simple paint images may help clear this up, if it's not too much trouble?
Those things are not worthy of FAQ off the bat. Those things are what has changed drastically. None of those make the game functionally impossible to play, they are simply observations of "What I don't like that changed". To address a few of them:
– You are not told to agree with your opponent what size battle you want to play (unlike 8th edition)
Well we also are not encouraged to continue breathing, but I take that in stride as well. If a player can't understand concepts that children develop in early life, such as the fact that if you aren't being friendly, you won't make friends, well they won't have players to play against. And balanced fights can be fun. Have you heard of being the Underdog?
– Unit sizes are either 1 or 1+. Taking a lot of 1-model units typically gives you a pile of free champion upgrades.
– Models in the same unit must be no more than 1″ apart. This is measured model-to-model and not base-to-base, so it might be closer than you think.
— I put down some Night Goblins and it turns out they have to be within 0.5″ of the guy in front to be in formation.
– It says that unit that end up out of formation must reform the next turn they move, but doesn’t actually explain what that means, or what happens if they can’t get back in formation.
Well, I think most players will take for granted the concept of formation and the unit coherency to be together. As far as the unit distance measurements, the game is pretty loose by it's nature (I think I've heard some people flipping out about that anyways), so anyone who tries to say "Uh your models aren't within 1 inch of each other" when they are fractionally larger gaps, well see the first response.
– You measure to and from the model, not the base. For extra reach, model your troopers with arms and weapons outstretched.
This is honestly the largest piece of fiction that has come from the concerned parties. The rules state "No part of the model may move further than the model’s Move characteristic." Anyone who pretends they can move a unit sideways a full distance and "Pivot" on the spot to swing their mighty sword arm out a distance to further their charge range is both wrong, and an dolt not worth playing. Nothing about the model effects the "reach" of them, because by default you are measuring from the same spot every time, it's only in the imagined trespasses of non-sportsmanlike players that this comes to light.
– Pile-in moves can leave models who haven’t fought yet stranded and unable to fight as they are suddenly more than 3″ from their enemies.
Once again if you simply look at the rules.. "When you pile in, you may move each model in the unit up to 3" towards the closest enemy model. " Every model in the unit is going to be piling in, not "the
models within 3 inches". So again this is an imagined trespass caused by over active imaginations failing to read. When you look at a brownie, if you came into it thinking you were going to find sh$t, you're going to have a hard time not finding sh&t even if it's not there.
It's honestly embarrassing how unthoughtful people are being. We're gamers, you know, those people who have to use critical thinking to deploy armies and utilize tactics? But we can't bother to actually read, or form opinions that are not
slander and
doom saying? I mean even the title of that Blog Post is simply designed to stir hatred and fear, and make negative impressions on people. For things that are both lies, and not issues. None of the things mentioned needs FAQed, they simply are different than what we have had in the past. If you want to launch a Witch Hunt, then sure we found someone who is
different when we went looking for our friend. But are they about to kill us? Probably not. This is just blindness, fear and irrational thoughts coming to the surface. Try considering some things, and once you've actually decided that yes, things are different (See: not broken or in need of FAQ) from the game we once knew then, yes you can feel free to not play.
And as far as Loyalty and "GW is screwing me over". That is something that can't be contested, because they never made a promise to provide what you are looking for. They have always maintained they make models not games. And they have always sucked at making rules. This is just them making the lightest possible rules in hopes they don't f#%k it up again.
