Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Me and my freind had a huge apocalspe battle recently about 11000pts a side, it consisted of about 4 players per side and was a huge let down in my opinion, after about 2 weeks preparation it wasn't that good, dispite my team winning, (well done erk for holding that flank) anyway the point of this tread is that after the battle, lskin and me decided that the battle was not quite up to our expectations beacuase of the big teams, i was wondering has anyone else had this problem or is that apacalspe is genarlly not that good, we were thinking about having another closer to the date in easter to make up for this big let down any ideas on the team suggestions or how to improve it genrally?
Mine sofar have been played with 2 people at max per side and only then it's with friends who know their armies and each other, that way we won't get drawn into meaningless discussion if something can or can't be done or if people are cool with it.
the game we had was with my entire gaming club and the degenarated into throwing dice at each other, next time will it better for 2 a side like you suggest?
I think the main problem was that most gaming clubs have small sub groups that can't always get on with each other, best is to keep it to people who have the same mindset on the game as you, so don't take players who only play to win or people who whine about every little detail or rules laywers or people who just don't care and show up with a plastic/metal army.
IMO it's far better to have less enjoyable people than a lot of annoying people, so I'd say give it a try with just a few of your best mates and see how it goes.
Thanks for the ideas, I think I'll orginise a 2 player a side about 7000 points for the upcoming hols, heres a list of the people in my club what they've got and any annoying things about them, see who you pick try and have realistic teams like no chaos and space marines on the same team ect (if you pick someone who has 2 armies a side could use them)
Me- you can see my armies at bottom- somtimes a little competatve (Ive got to say somthing bad about myself)
Lskin- 3500 eldar- genrally cool
Erk- 1500 tau and 1500 space marines
Brother- 1500 necrons- sometimes annoying or childish
J. - 2000 tyrannids- very annoying, argues everthing
Z. 3500 eldar- last time he didn't show up but most of the time hes O.K
A. 3000 space marines- genaraly cool/ somtimes childish
S. 1500's space marines J's brother somtimes annoying/childish but is genrally wants to keep the game moving (unlike his brother who just doesn't stop arguing) J. will be upset if we invite S but not him
Ja. 2000pts guard - genrally fine,
Jo- 500 imperial gaurd- genarlly fine
M- 750 necrons - genrally fine
So as i said who would you pick,
Well I'd definetly pick lskin and S, as for his brother well it's his own fault if he keeps argueing about everything ( sorry to be rude ), apocalypse is about having a fun and relaxed game, not about argueing, rules lawyering or cheating.
A. also looks good you guys but keep an eye on him should he deciede to act childish.
Those would be my first pick.
I was thinking of pitting me, erk and A. against lskin and Z. for a fun about balance approach, then if Z. drops out my brother can join in and erk can give his army to there side, J. would hate me for the rest of his life if if i ivited his younger brother and not him, so i really don't want to do that, waht do ya think, (its a big thing organising isn't it)
I'm not a real fan of letting a person that argues about just about everything be in a game I want to enjoy, I see that it's not an easy way but you guys do have to do something about otherwise he'll keep on doing it for the rest of his gaming career or he might just grow out of it.
Here are a few ways that might help reduce his argueing I hope
1. before the battle starts you all discus the various things that he might want to argue about such as cover, LoS and such so it's clear to everybody, after that there will be no more discusions on that.
2. make it clear to him that constantly argueing isn't helping the game to be fun ( you might have to step on his toes )
3. if you claim something can or can't be done then show the rules or otherwise keep the mouth shut
4. play with fully written armylists and WYSIWYG to reduce debates on what a unit has or can do.
5. make agreements on what strategic assest are good to use, for instantce ban combining carefull planning and flank march if you think it will cause problems for the game
And yes I agree, organizing an apocalypse battle isn't easy, takes a lot of time to play a 8+ hours battle and we hardly ever get to finish them but it's all worth it seeing that bit pile of models on the table.
I get's even better when the armies are painted and there's great scenery on the table.
I had a game of apocalypse a little while back, it was 24000 points a side, with 8 people each side. So we got about 3000 each, give or take. It was the best game ive ever played. Granted, there was alot of sitting around, and each turn took like 4 hours, but it was still a great game.
In my local games shop, the members usually get along really well, and we didnt have many problems in our game, except for the odd rules dispute, but youll get that in every game. I agree with what Dreachon said, there may be some problems, but in the end, its well worth it IMO.
W00t 200th post!!
Space Wolves (Under Construction) | Circle of Orboros (Under Construction)
Wow, you guys had trouble with 8ppl in the room? We had about twice that at one point. We played with several tables in my friends backyard (yes, you read that correctly).
Basically, we wrote up a dossier that each player got. Each team had a Defense Minister or Warmaster who acted as supreme general and referee. Their say went for everything: if you had a rules dispute you went to your man and he looked at it. If his idea was a bad one, then his opposing counterpart would work it out with him. Whatever they agreed on went. No rules problems.
Within that we broke it into squads, with a leader for each. It created a pyramid and a very unique game experience. The overall commander would give the subcommanders a broad mission that he wanted accomplished, they'd pass it on to their generals, who'd take the tactics to the field level. It was really cool. Of course, everyone had an army on the table regardless of their position within the ranks.
The turns do get really long with Apoc. though. This game started at 8am and didn't wind down until about 12:30am the next morning.