Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/24/2021 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Hey guys, I love that DW has been revived, but I see some huge mistakes made during development that will mean resistance to taking up the game by new players, and a lack of model sales for new content because of serious holes in the rules. Given the models are where the money comes in for the company, that one in particular is a huge problem. TL;DR Wording needs to be tighter and more consistent. Wording is important. Rules have inconsistencies and outright conflicts which make interpretation difficult (I’m looking at you generator wording now directly conflicting with itself. Intent is obvious, but in a game, you NEED to have as clear wording as possible for rules, otherwise players simply state “well it says this so that’s how we play it”). Lack of good standards within the game leave players with few tools to expand/contract games and have a level playing ground with pick-up games. If you’re using fleet composition to sell models, players just won’t play; Fix the game design. OK, for those actually interested in the game getting better, I’ve identified a few things that needs looking into (From my own experiences, obviously), and I’ll go through them below. Wall of text incoming! I’ve organised these three points in order of sequence (to make subsequent points make sense) not order of importance. Importance would be point 2, point 1, then point 3. 1) OK, wording needs shoring up (pun intended) big time. Currently, units hiding behind an underwater obstacle cannot be shot at if you cannot draw LoS, but for some if you can draw LoS, that iceberg doesn't stop your torp (yup, if you're target is small, that obstacle blocks you but if you aren’t, torpedoes are magic!). The wording for Generators continues to be contradictory (a unit may only replace one gun in total, but all models must replace… wtf is going on there? Don’t insinuate meaning, be clear). These kinds of things sound small, but again, if you have all the other table-top games to pick from, and you read this and go “well, I don’t really know how this works or that works, I’m not bothering to try it because they clearly can’t do a good job”. This is not an attack on the devs, this stuff is hard, but I expect better and I think working on this will go strides to improving the game, limiting confusion, and integrating new players more easily. As an example, I mean, Crown got a sub that has a hull saw that literally cannot ram anything that isn’t a submerged unit… Why? Why is this in the game? Its main weapon is a ram it basically can’t use, and a speed so slow it will never get into position before being blown away. What nations is so brain dead it would waste resources building something like that? And there are others like this, this is just an obvious one that jumps out at me as having no thought behind it at all. 2) OK, this one will be long because it is involved. Couple of things here need to be addressed but it circles around balance, style of game and intent. Firstly, I want to say, in general, awesome work with simplification of core rules. I think that was thrown out the window recently, but the early work was solid and well thought out. However, I think serious issues, especially as release goes on, were introduced through the over-simplification of some elements, and I think the devs are starting to (either consciously or unconsciously) see it as well. Starting with weapons, this is a huge problem. With no deviation between ships weapons, there are VERY clear winners in each category (mass1, mass2, mass3, etc) for what is a great ship in the ORBAT, and what isn’t. I think this primarily stems from a lack of options available to rules writers to give flavour and to balance. This was a huge mistake and I think it needs addressing now. It also means all ships must be offensive ships in some way, so support ships that aren’t offensive, are bad choices, end of story. I think the one exception is the Hypatia, (because sustained just means re-roll card all game) given its high offensive output and ability to spread obscured to nearby ships. Leading on from this, generators. Because the game is now highly aggressive, range band 3 is extremely deadly, and with weapons being overwhelming, virtually all generators are poor and not worth sacrificing offensive power. Shield generators (for example) were intended (in the old game, and I don’t necessarily want this replicated necessarily, just for context) to give protection as you close. Because MOST weapons were poor at long ranges, the shield generator was meaningful to stop that chipping damage as you closed. Now it is the biggest waste of points ever. If you want defence, always go shroud. It stops explosions, means devastating only does 2 damage, and generally makes your free 2 vp Battleship might not cede those points to the enemy. Some custom generators are decent, and they are meaningful, but the core ones are awful. I think this stems from extreme offence, and removes meaningful choice from players (look at my point above and hopefully dots are starting to join). Who wants +2 speed, or whatever nonsense the magnetic generator is doing with SRS (seriously, SRS are bad…)? All of these are trumped by shroud, because obscured is the single best defensive measure (outside of possibly the Empire Generator) so they aren’t options worth considering. I think that is poor, and stems primarily from a highly offensive game that leaves no room for defensive or utility choices. Aggressive game is fine, but it needs balance if you want other utility. If the players and devs can barely see the difference in factions that’s a huge problem, and I’ve seen the questions pop up in the forums. You can simplify rules and make factions have depth and difference between each other. This finally leads to ship design. One reason the old game of naval warfare was so successful is ship classes actually meant something, and had a head nod (not much, but enough) to historical designs, meaning designing ships within class intention was possible in the game, and players had some idea about why this smaller thing called a destroyer wasn’t as powerful as this big thing called a battleship. Because of simplification, this is not a concept in the current edition, and that hurts dev flexibility, player choice and game fun. Battleships, with one or two exceptions, are nothing short of pathetic for example. Because of the need for protection, they have two guns, despite having twice the deck space of a cruiser. So, why take it? A cruiser squadron is a better investment in every way. Oh right, no flexibility to adjust guns, can’t play with ranges (same reason) and you HAVE to take one. I can see the devs kinda realised what was going on, and the ORBATS are getting super restrictive with how many different kinds of units a player will take in a battlefleet. That is a SERIOUS indicator your game design is not working, and it needs addressing. You won’t sell different ships if people don’t want to take them, it’s as simple as that. If you want to compete, and make cash, you need to make model variety important, or stop pretending the chaff ships are worth it and don’t spend dev time making them. Potentially devs can get around this with ship packs, and I won’t say that won’t work, but your players will quickly realise what you’re doing and likely won’t enjoy that feeling. This was a long section, but it highlights some really entrenched problems. I think it is a good time to fix them, both in approach and actual numbers, but it needs attention now, not later. 3) Finally, comp stuff. Now, this might seem like a section for people who go to tournaments, but it isn’t. This is important for all players. You can make them optional if you wish, but if you want new blood (i.e. more sales because old players will hang onto old models if possible), these need to exist. Standards help players unfamiliar with each other have agreed systems and baselines to work with when setting up a game, and give players an insight into how the game is balanced and what changes to those standards might result in. That’s not to say players can’t do what they want, but it means doing whatever you want isn’t the standard set. First off, terrain. How much terrain is expected to interact with the game and make all ORBAT choices as meaningful as possible (yup, referring to point 2 again). Is the game balanced to no terrain? If so, why is terrain included? I assume the intention is to have some (it makes tactics more involved which is good for player creativity and engagement), and if so, how much? It doesn’t need to be specific, but something like “20%-30% of terrain is encouraged for standard games” is a good line to set the expectation, but not enforce it (just an arbitrary number range I made up). What is the standard game size for 4x4? Is it 4000 points? If so, do you think it’s fun half of a players list won’t see the game? If not, how do players get around that? You could say” “duh, play on a 6x6”, but does that have some impact on ranges for example (I see Antarctica suffering heavily on a longer-range map like that)? Will close range units become useless and therefore never taken? Again, players can ignore this, but these core ideas are extremely important not just for players navigating unfamiliar groups, but also as a core game design baseline for how things work and are expected to work. There is no game that solves 100% of problems, and that’s why good games have these rules, because players know what the expectation is, and where stuff stops working, or might start getting a bit wonky. This section could be done last, but it needs to be done. OK, wall of text over. I’m super happy this game got resurrected. The original dev team (Spartan) understood real life naval warfare enough that it permeated the game in aesthetics and design, and I think that really brought players in (it certainly did for me who never even thought naval gameplay could be fun). They had serious issues with complex rules but the new guys correctly identified that and tackled it! Please don’t throw away non-rules concepts that gave the game life and depth, such as class roles, design roles, etc. These don’t have to be Historical either, they just have to make sense, and be intuitive enough to navigate! I want to see the current devs grow fat off a great game, and players loving the many things they can do with a fleet. Anyone reading this far, discuss and actually think on it! I think if this game is to succeed as a game, these points need to be addressed and have meaningful, not token, action given to them. Core problems proliferate through games with poor design and players realise it unconsciously or not. If discussion remains civil and not “oh, you just do this and magic happens!”) maybe the community can rally around and work this out. With Covid still looming the better the game is, the more likely it succeeds financially. I’d love to hear ideas, ponderings and objections, but make sure we are attacking ideas, not each other. The purpose of this post is not to hate, or generate friction, but instead to generate thought and discussion.
  2. 2 points
    Please help me to create point values overview of all posse boxes, 1.09 edition. No upgrades, just respect miniature itself. For example in Tribal Retribution Starter contains "1x Brave with Gatling Gun", so add cost for gatling gun for this miniature to overall cost of the posse. I started with my posse, Dixie Ressurection, which is 620 points. Add values in comments, I will update the overview regularly. EDITED: Now 3.0 points for boxes will be added POSSE / DETACHMENT BOX 3. 0 VALUE (1.09 value) Absolute Power Posse 770 points Amber Clade Posse 51 points (555 points) Armoured Justice Posse 470 points Confederate Rebellion Posse 495 points Dark Nation Posse 635 points Death from Above Posse 500 points Discordant Symphony Posse 48 points (430 points) Divine Intervention Posse 75 points (720 points) Dixie Resurrection Posse 64 points (620 points) Faithful of Castilla Posse 465 points Father of the Enlightened Posse 45 points (445 points) Forlorn Hope Posse 72 points (790 points) Galvanic Mysteries Posse 62 points (570 points) Hour of the Wolf Posse 605 points Infernal Investigations Posse 855 points No Surrender! Posse 65/64 points (alternative use of racket specialist) (642 points) Portal Vanguard Posse 70 points (695 points) Ranger Showboat Posse 720 points Secret Service Posse 83/84 points (Pinkerton as separate detachment) (810 points) Tainted Biology Posse 545 points The Bloody Espinosas Posse 640 points The Conquistadores Posse 640 points The Cowboys Posse 695 points The Deadly Seven Posse 915 points The Golden Army Posse 655 points The Regulators Posse 700 points The Wayward Eight Posse 865 points Tribal Retribution Posse 61 points (3x Kaga Brothers) (580 points (Kaga Brothers)) Viridian Clade Posse 50 points (630 points) Lynch Mob Posse 250 points Soul Hunters Detachment 72 points (710 points) Only God Forgives Posse 930 points Court of the Nazombu 670 points Dead or Alive 795 points Wrath of the Nautilus Detachment 755 points (with Rani as boss) Murder of Hellions 57 points (555 points) Pride of the Nekomata Detachment 93 points (845 points) Meat Grinder Posse 47 points Cerulean Clade 62 points (560 points)
  3. 2 points
    Well, new orbats were posted and it involves the generators being re-worded and now costing a flat +10 pt swap. Buffed Magnetic and Repulsion; weakened Fury and Atomic. Shield stayed the same. They changed some of the faction generators, and removed some generics generators as well. (Commonwealth no longer gets Repulsion Generators :sadface:) I am uncertain of what to make of the Shroud Generator. They also reworded it that the attacker can ignore the ship as the Initial Target. The rules haven't been been updated, but I speculate they are going to change how Initial Targets are chosen and maybe they are introducing screening. I will reiterate my point from an earlier post that I wish orbat changes were announced in some way. They don't have to go into detail, just a "Hey, we updated the rules to these factions".
  4. 2 points
    Hello, We are pleased to announce what we will organise our first V3 Dystopian Wars tournament in the south of France, in september the 11th and 12th. It will be a 4 games (2 saturday and 2 sunday), and 1000 pts. The T3 Tournament is up : https://www.tabletoptournaments.net/t3_tournament.php?tid=28061 The rules will be up in a few days. Good game to everyone. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Salut, Nous sommes heureux de vous annoncer que nous allons organiser notre 1er tournoi Dystopian Wars V3, les 11 et 12 septembre prochain dans le sud de la France. Ce sera 4 parties de 1000 pts, (2 samedi et 2 dimanche) . Le lien T3 est ici : https://www.tabletoptournaments.net/t3_tournament.php?tid=28061 Le règlement sera en ligne dans quelques jours. Bon jeu à tous.
  5. 2 points
    Sorry, but I certainly cannot agree assaults favour attackers. They get an average of about 7-10 dice (of course there are dedicated vesels getting more) and face an average of about 14 dice back. Sure, they get Exploding Hits, but given you need to win by 5 points to do anything of substance in victory? With 5 of the 60 V/V cards counting Explosions on defence and 10 more of them being rerolls, I would say that the odds almost always favour the defender.
  6. 2 points
    I would like to say that I think some great points have been made. I also am a huge fan of DW but have started running into one rules issue after another. That being said some of this is just opinion but some of it is just confusing, especially for new players. 1) Movement Step PAGE 18 gives to many ways to cheese extra turning radius out of the template. Its easy to pick points on the ship that are not flat and you can fudge extra turn radius, this is not even always a purposeful action. 2) Critical damage, getting a Catastrophic explosion actually seems to be not really as strong as some of the critical. why is this? 3)Defenses PAGE 23, In the explanation of defenses it states "Before the Action Dice have been rolled for an Attack, the Initial Target may declare it will be using its Defenses." it later says "each Model in the Unit within 4" of the Initial Target (and with the relevant Defense), adds +1 die to the Defensive action Dice Pool. This does not prevent those same models from being able to use Defenses themselves during the same Activation." Question: what is the point of having to declare you are using your defenses as there is no limit to you using them at lest that is stated in the rules anywhere that I can find. Secondly why would you even mention that the aiding another model in the unit does not stop you from using your defenses if there is no stated limit? 4) OPERATIONS STEP PAGE16, ":During Operations each Unit is able to perform a variety of actions Typically, units will launch fighters and bombers, submarines may set their dive-plans to go into deep running, or Aerial units may go into ta steep climb to rise up into the clouds." There are no rules for dive-plans, or flying into a steep climb, also there is NOT a variety of actions models can do. 5)ORBATS are a bit confusing the way they are doing all the Traits and Special rules. They need to clean this up. Simple things like removing the concept of special SRS tokens and just having it say that you get (4)Blitzen bombers and then give rules for the BB in the top , getting rid of the extream range special rule and just making a 4th range band all in all clean it up. 6)Dice, the whole Heavy Hit doing (2)hits is a little silly. You have a 1/2 chance to hit at all, a 1/6th chance to do (1)hit, a 1/3 chance to do (2)hits of which 50% of the time you get to roll an extra die. I do not understand the point of having the Heavy Hit do (2) hits. 7) Generators are super cool but I agree are kind of pointless. What good is removing (2) dice from a attack pool when they are going to throw 30+ at you. Seems kind of pointless maybe if it was 2 from the main weapon and 2 from each support but anyways, I'm just agreeing they are a little underwhelming but they are so cool conceptually OVERALL I think the game is fun but if we are going to pull new players in and their hard earned money it needs an overhaul. Massive balancing, reworking of a lot of the rules, cleaning up wording and adding all the content. My hopes are that once they drop the last (2) factions they will put out a 3.5 rule set. Or an ADVANCED play rules set. Fix SRS tokens from being just a lame weapon that doesn't need LOF and make them something more the models are great lets get them on the table flying around. The team has done a lot of great things I just hope they continue to move forward and clean up and fix the issues. It feels like I'm playing a Beta game that had a beta for 4 years.
  7. 2 points
    Warcradle Sam

    missing parts

    Hi Frednoe44! If you head here: http://bit.ly/WS-Help-Desk the Warcradle Customer Service Desk will be able to help.
  8. 2 points
    Modification of the color scheme for the new CoA minis!
  9. 2 points
    Bumblefox

    HftP Covenant Fleet (in progress)

    And more progress with my Covenant fleet. The generators, like the turrets, are magnetized and swappable.
  10. 1 point
    I believe the scale change was between the old dystopian wars and the new version being released currently. Nothing has really been officially released about Armoured Clash yet.
  11. 1 point
    NeddyTheNed

    Introduce Yourself

    Howdy I am an old timer gamer but a newcomer to Warcradle games. I am just about to jump into WWX and am looking for opponents in and around Nottingham/Derby in the UK. I am going Union so give me a shout if you want to shoot-outl in Retribution! Ned
  12. 1 point
    c2k

    Dead Or Alive Posse Composition Question

    You are required to take 5 of the 6 individuals listed, but you can take all 6 if you want to. Its not the best wording, but it translates to "you must take all but 1 member of this posse, but you can take that last member if you want to".
  13. 1 point
    Thanks for answering! We've finally hit the state of the world where some small ships can pew pew at each other via the medium of dice once again, initial clashes aren't matching up with your experiences, still ending up with sufficiently decisive casualties on one side that VP's couldn't possibly swing it. Possibly there are some distinct meta differences? Our meta at a glance: *1000 points *4'x4' board *Randomised "Common Encounters" (I frequently default to calling this the "scenario" *3.5 players *Terrain is scattered randomly about the board with minor adjustments for sanity (i.e. off of other terrain, off the table, etc.) *Singular terrain set of 3 pieces of land (3"x6") 4 obstruction (1"x3") and a pair of reefs (2" circles) going off my memory *Most games effectively resolved in turn 2 by one of the RNG effects (Attack dice, the more pwoerful cards) with one side wiped by end of 4 Current gameplay meta: *Shroud generators are king *SRS do not achieve enough to justify taking them *Union has done poorly *Enlightened, Ottomans and Russians have specific fleets with proven ability *Cards are only played as Valour, Victory effects not being enough to offset scenario/casualty points
  14. 1 point
    IAmTheMainOpponent

    Ottoman ORBAT Error

    In the Ottoman ORBAT (V002) weapon profiles the regular Broadside and Heavy Broadside have the same attack stats, that doesn't seem to be inline with the intent of having different weapons?
  15. 1 point
    Поехали! I've taken the plunge and ordered some Russians - I'll update this once they arrive. However, for this fleet, I'm going to go a lot more real world inspired: I think the yellow and black will be a nice contrast with my green-and-red Empire fleet. Hoping to progress soon, Charley.
  16. 1 point
    Finally, an update! I'm on my way - here's my current progress (feat an old Dreadfleet surface I managed to scrounge up): I'll call these tabletop ready. Still got some work to do, in particular the turquoise and red could do with a highlight and I'm yet to use any metallic paints (these will be for the machinery and smokestacks). I also need to decide how to paint the rocket pods and generators, but this'll come later. I found the plastic ships a little tricky to assemble, but in the end pleased with the result. I think it's obviously a mixed fleet, but I like the flavour. Paints used: Citadel Chaos Black Spray Primer (will probably switch to either a lighter spray, or a brushed surface primer in future - I needed a lot of layers for the green and decking) Vallejo Model Color 70.823 Luftwaffe Camouflage Green - base for the green Vallejo Model Color 70.857 Golden Oliver - heavy drybrush on all green armour Vallejo Panzer Aces 311 New Wood - decking Citadel Shade Agrax Earthshade - over the decks Citadel Base Mephiston Red - red details (needs highlighting) Vallejo Model Color 70.840 Light Turquoise - pagoda roofs Citadel Shade Nuln Oil - over the roofs Vallejo Model Color 70.994 Dark Grey - basically everything that's going to end up metallic.
  17. 1 point
    Updated, next warrior nation.
  18. 1 point
    Watchers Cerulean Clade - 62 Cerulean Prime -15 Cerulean Vixen -10 Cerulean Vixen -10 Cerulean Nightmare - 12 5x Cerulean Infiltrators -15 Viridian Clade - 50 Viridian Alpha - 19 Chigoe Beta - 13 Locust Beta -12 3x Viridian Locusts/Chigoe - 6/6 Amber Clade - 51 Jocasta - The Amber Alpha - 19 4x Grey Elite Storm Myriad/Lancer Myriad - 16 2x Vermilion Sentinels - 16
  19. 1 point
    Order Divine Retribution - 75 Makara - 22 Siraj - 13 Vulana - 13 Haan - 13 Mithun -14 Portal Vanguard - 70 Elita Nura - 17 Aeron Bran - 10 Janna Salto - 11 Venatici Helios - 8 Noth - 12 Khaatan -12
  20. 1 point
    Hi folks, please help to update this to 3.0 :-)
  21. 1 point
    I do wish that there was a more open dialogue rules wise with the devs. I've played a lot of games over time, the one that held my interest the most consistently tends to announce rules changes and the thought process involved, it's be super neat to see something along those line on the announcement blog here.
  22. 1 point
    The rules are in the Empire ORBAT and a picture of the generator is on the DW site under Guides. https://www.dystopianwars.com/assets/dystopianWars/pdfs/guides/DW-Generator-Guide.pdf https://www.dystopianwars.com/assets/dystopianWars/factions/orbat/Empire-ORBAT-v103b.pdf
  23. 1 point
    Omenbringer

    Version 3?

    Chronologically, the 1st edition of the game would have been the Outlaw Miniatures rule set. It was a fairly different game but if you are interested you might be able to find one with a web search. The 1.09 edition that War Cradle published would have been the 2nd edition of the game. I am hopeful that the 3rd edition will be more of an update than a dramatic reinvention of the system. Also hopeful that this means we will also see some models that were either out of print or never printed.
  24. 1 point
    I'm going to caveat this post by saying I'm annoyed that I saw VERY similar stats across nations on this topic, and found it easy to generalise. This swings back round to my OP about lack of substance differences between nations, and it seems it also extends to something like boarding. Very disappointing. There were two actual standouts: Prussia was solid at boarding, Antarticans weak as all merry hell (please avoid boarding if you can... acknowledging they are mainly a mid-short range nation). But yeah, very little differences otherwise. In assaults it might be good to avoid too much difference, I don't know. It would likely be something I accept if the rest of the game didn't have the same issue. OK, I've sat down to look at Assaults across the different factions and in ~70% of cases assaults are a bad idea. There are a whole bunch of caveats in this topic, because what opponent you assault and when has a pretty drastic impact on how likely you will be to cause damage. Generally, a rule of thumb is unless you are Prussian, specifically a mass 1 unit that is still full with voltaic weapons, don't assault capital ships. It's got to be the one thing capital ships are actually good at doing (sadly because boarding is one of those rarely used tools because it is tactically opportunistic in nature, outside of a Prussian lightning assault unit using speed to close) but ultimately, the math speaks for itself, they are insanely hard to overcome when boarding, even when crippled. Cruisers are more achievable for a dedicated boarding group with full vessels, but when looking at averages for roles, a capital ship will struggle to overwhelm a cruiser meaningfully without repeated boarding attempts and being slower there is basically no way to keep that 4" range easily for more than one turn. Other cruisers are extremely high priority for gunnery fire when closing, so are unlikely to be at full strength when finally manoeuvring every ship into 4" of another cruiser (which feels pretty weak given you can be sure you're giving up good firing arcs just do do a few points of damage.... however if the unit has a decent combined broadside this might be viable as a way to kill a cruiser). Destroyers probably overall have the best chances of both boarding other destroyers or other sized vessels. Even here, they are barely scrapping in a point of two on average (except against another destroyer they will average kill it comfortably if all 6 are in 4 " of it but good luck manoeuvring into that mess of a formation). Again, Prussians with voltaic weapons on average have a much better time of this and I could legit recommend as an action you are intending to take in your planning. Whether you have +1's or +2's from rules can skew your unit into decent territory for boarding (pack hunter or lightning assault are two examples). Overall, Assault is quite weak, but opportunistically potentially OK. The issue is partly the on-paper numbers of dice... Citadels are just so high that the base pool plus support plus your highest defence dice pool is just way too high to meaningfully overcome unless you got the whole squadron in range. Even a destroyer is rocking an average of 11 dice in defence plus support ships... This hits the tactical problem of it's actually really hard to do this in the field. You SHOULD be prioritising maximal range firepower. That's not to say that opportunities don't present themselves to squeeze out a bit more efficiency through a boarding, and I encourage that kind of adaptable tactical thinking, but the units best suited for boarding get pretty clustered around a target and unless you are VERY careful in your planning (and even then, the chaos of a human making unusual decisions will regularly throw you) you'll be blocking shots through your own models a lot of the time. However, this all assumes the most optimal opportunity for attacker and defender. There will be cases where your full cruiser squadron is passing a lone cruiser and not firing in those arcs (as an example). Here, assuming you didn't interfere with your gunnery, it MIGHT be a good idea to board it with all three cruisers (one main, two support). You're dice are still VERY close to the line, and it's a risk. in raw numbers in the cruiser category (ignoring the Prussians for a moment) the Commonwealth and the Empire had some of the highest average numbers in cruiser assault dice, and that average was 12... in defence, across the board, you can expect cruisers to be somewhere in the 13 dice category in the are alone and un-crippled. That's doable but risky, especially when factoring in card options. You know what you have, but not your opponent so if you don't have a re-roll card in hand, it's pretty risky and honestly, it feels dumb to blow a re-roll card on a boarding action like that unless you are desperate (I've done it in desperation, still feels bad, usually means I'm losing badly too so it's unlikely to ****** me the game). Now there are occasionally times when you can make a unit look great at boarding on paper (the cryo cruiser for the Russians comes to mind). Beware angling towards that given how rare boarding is. I would always recommend look at the output of the unit over a game, not in a single instance (unless that instance is insanely decisive in nature). It's very very very easy to craft a scenario where a unit may be good, but think if that scenario is likely, easy to engineer on the table and regular in games. If the answer was no to most or all of those, that means it's probably not a good tactic or unit (depending on what you are assessing). There were some genuine standouts in the Prussian navy, and they can consistently board safely and reliably (that second one being the most important). I think boarding needs some tweaking, but the mechanic itself is actually really good, and gives a sense of fire and steel when you roll up next to a unit and give them cold steel. If it was a more reliable tool I might try and reach for it outside of opportunistic scenarios. I'm lucky, I've played a lot of my games as Prussians, so I knew the feel of assault well from their angle, and they are legitimately good at it... but sometimes manoeuvring into position can be a mess and result in problems with gunnery.
  25. 1 point
    You may have heard the rumours of something big happening for Wild West Exodus and we’re excited to be able to reveal them to you. Make sure not to miss the release of this highly anticipated product as we finally show you a new trailer, going into detail of what exactly this next big thing is. Since the release of the Wild West Exodus: Gunfight at Red Oak Starter Set many people have been asking when the next Two Player Starter Set will be announced and we are happy to share with you the Wild West Exodus: Showdown at Retribution Two Player Starter Set! As the Enlightened force, led by the morally bankrupt scientist Gustave Eiffel, arrives in the town of Retribution the mayor is desperate for aid. However, who should answer the call but Nikolai Tesla, the hero of the Union! This meeting is far from a coincidence and as the stage is set for the epic showdown it is clear this is all part of Eiffel’s plans for vengeance. This town certainly ain’t big enough for the both of them… Ideal for new players and veterans to the game alike, the Showdown at Retribution Two Player Starter Set is a comprehensive introduction to the savage Wild West of the Dystopian Age. The Starter Set Contains two forces, the full third edition rulebook, a quick start guide and more. We hope you are as excited as we are here at Warcradle Studios to see these gunslingers duel. Coming October 2021 Want the latest updates about Showdown at Retribution and to be notified when it’s available to order? Make sure to sign up to our Mailing List. View the full article
  26. 1 point
    It can't. The reason it works like that for the attacker is every hit above 4 deals a damage according to the table. It says at 4+ Counters "The attacker takes one hull point", but doesn't say anything about subsequent counters.
  27. 1 point
    They aren't free upgrades, they are considered in the points cost of the unit, it's just not an option for additional points. Your ship would be cheaper without it built-in. The repulsor is just awful. Sacrificing minimum 1/3 of your firepower to skim? Sure, you might 1 game in 10 surprise someone, but you just wait for it to be over terrain, play the card to shut down generator and it goes boom. It's something you can keep an eye out for in your hand when your opponent lets you know what they have. If they avoid that then why bring the repulse generator? It's not just the points, you also lose the firepower. Fury is actually OK, I will definitely pay that. Assaults are reeeeeeally risky. If you fluff your role they can blow up your ship, and citadels aren't exactly low numbers of dice... You want only overwhelming force in my opinion, the risk of taking damage if you fluff your role is way too high. Hell, every success after the 4th over your opponent does a point of damage, so if you guess wrong you can have your ship crippled quickly. The irony being lightly crewed ships like destroyers and such usually end up being better borders than ships with much larger crews...
  28. 1 point
    Yeah they are mass1 units, so you can whittle them down easily enough. About half of the current nations have twin-gun mass 1 units available. We play on 4x4, 3x3 is friggin tiny. We always play with terrain. 3 land, 3 varying mass obstacles and 2-3 dangerous waters. But with no guide from the devs, hard to know if that is too much or too little terrain. Terrain massively changes which units are more or less effective. In my mind, as per my OP, it should be really clear so everyone has the same standard. You can always play with less or more, but with a baseline you should be able to see what kind of effect that will have on the playability of units. Right now, I have no idea if units are balanced towards open sees, or thick island fighting...
  29. 1 point
    I also dunno about blundered. you can be in closing range by turn 2 easily enough with just about anything. If you have the better of activations you can force your opponent to move his navy all first then respond with your heavy cruisers. If you have a good initiative card that basically means ~20" of movement before your opponent can react to them. That's plenty of movement to get into closing range. I've kinda seen two major tactics so far: 1) is border edge hugging with extreme range weapons or very powerful long range weapons to maximise time outside of the enemies strike zone, and standard move up the board. Because the RB's are slightly longer, I have found it to have a huge effect on getting people into optimum range bands and time those strikes. Even a battleship moves 8" a turn, nearly a whole RB by itself.
  30. 1 point
    The seeker torpedos is simple maths, and it easily is getting that many successes. They have 24 dice in rb 2 (with 9 inch movement that should be achievable pretty easily). You get exactly 4 of each roll of the dice. so 4 explosions, 4 heavy hits, 4 singles, etc. You ignore obscured because of homing and re-roll blanks. So before re-rolls, you have 20 successes. you get 8 more dice (4 from explosions, 4 re-rolls of blanks) which is another 6ish successes (one heavy, one explosion, one single plus probably another heavy hit or explosion so closer to 27 successes). It's not very hard to achieve that many successes, and Diogenese have a small attack pool... It's more worrying seeing ~24 dice or so with sustained, because if you aren't rolling heavies or explosions, you just re-roll and aim for extra dice. you can really ramp up the damage quickly. 20 successes nearly sinks a cruiser so small pools like that are great for that kind of thing. Taking a Brandenburg as an example, 28 successes cripples it (4 through the armour, 2 extra from double citadel, has 6 hull points before cripple). Not very hard to hit that cripple level. It's why I think Capital ships are so rubbish. Enormous point sink for ~ 1.5 cruiser damage output (assuming no generator) and very easy VP's to your opponent. Their just... not meaningful. As above though, one or two exceptions to that rule. You average ~3 counters on a Brandenburg (which has a decent SDV of 7) so it's not hard to break through and get those 28 successes needed (not counting escorts because they are so trivially easy to remove if it's important to cripple it. 1/4 of its hitpoints and a crit is also a good result). You will have even more chance if you save your command re-roll or re-roll card for it, depending on the situation. Lots of ways to stack up those explosions. As far as spotter goes, it's a nice skill, but you paid ~250 or more points for it, which feels like a waste. Sustained is nuts strong as an ability, but it doesn't seem 250 or more points strong to me for the one, maybe two squads that have it (usually with smaller pools of dice in a lot of cases like gustavs and the like... but I think gustavs where great until shroud took over). Remember, only models firing extreme range weapons get that rule, and only for that weapon. Now if it gave sustained for any model shooting at that target with gunnery weapons... then I'd agree to using SRS. If you use them as air defence, again, it's a ****-tonne of points to do so... and you can just not shoot that target and instead shoot the carrier. If the carrier is protection itself, sweet, you shoot rockets elsewhere and hit it with guns, it's not hard to subvert that problem. On crits, given the amount of cards and rolls you get to repair them, I've had 4 games of 30 where they were annoying. Lots of cards to insta-repair crits or disorder so not a huge issue if you get them. an attack run of 8 SRS is 16 dice minus counters. For the same points, I can get 35 gunnery dice at the same range and no counters... I don't see the attraction, the maths just isn't there. Now, If people want to use X ships, friggin go for it. My concern isn't enjoyment, that is subjective and doesn't necessarily revolve around balance (although I find people who use bad units tend to complain that their favourite unit sucks). Circling back to my initial post, there are clear winners and losers. SRS are definitely losers as far as I can tell. They don't output good damage, their flexibility is so weak it's actually not helpful, which is rare in a tabletop game... usually flexibility is king, and their protection only works effectively against an opponent who wants all missiles (or other air weapon). The Templehoff is one of the cheapest fleet carriers and you could instead buy pretty much 3 bluchers which will be way more effective, and won't lose effectiveness as quickly as damage mounts.
  31. 1 point
    I also want to highlight that waiting for the rules doesn't bother me. I'm not going to get into the specifics of whether it was the best business move to beta, because I truly donb't know, I have nothing to base that on, so I trust Warcradle did the right thing by them. I also don't expect this to be perfect straight out of the gates. I can see the team making this game are dedicated and genuinely honest about their intent to make a great game. I have no concerns here at all. But I can understand the pressure constant social media apply's to teams today; the sky-high expectations of quality, timeframe and cost, resulting in unrealistically achievable goals for the designers. I just want to say I'm happy to wait, and more than happy to discuss. Perhaps my words above are too harsh, or perhaps they are right on the money, I can only highlight what I perceive to be as systemic problems that concern me... But I don't want them to sound like I'm just bashing the designers who are "idiots" or "people who can't see the simple truth". This stuff is bloody hard work, and I acknowledge that. I'm happy to wait for good content, as a fan to the devs, I've seen good attitude and intention, and that counts for WAY more than it may seem.
  32. 1 point
    First of all, I did not play a game of DW3.0 yet, so I can't tell what it feels like. But reading the rules and ORBATS, I do not see great differences between the factions and their available weaponry and shooting seems to be much more deadly than in older editions of the game. But this is just a concern I have from reading the rules... What I don't understand in your remarks is the ramming and the torpedo shooting thing. Why can't the subs ram a normal ship (s. "Ramming" on p.29)? And how can you shoot your torpedoes over land (s. p.34 "Land:")?
  33. 1 point
    Captaincandle

    Faction playsyles

    Well, not even the guns are meaningfully different. I'm pretty against the over-simplification of guns for this reason. That and Battleships are utterly pathetic which really makes me sad... Well, Russians have railguns which are OK, and all ships get to minus 1 dice from attacks (completely useless but it's a little flavour). They have one of the extremely few capital units that is actually good which is the fortress. Antarticans use sustained weapons which are extremely powerful because you just get re-rolls all game, whereas every other nation has to rely on a card. Wavelurker is situationally useful, but not very. If you want defence, take a shroud generator because it is the only defensive tool actually worth a damn. They have the one other good capital ship in the form of the Hypatia (which is weird because it WAS terrible in cycle one release). They play a lot closer range than other nations, but don't really suffer in long bands either. Alliance have hilariously over-costed skimming generators and heat lances. Sorta have some protection against torps. Crown love torps. they have a guardian generator, but given the shield generator actively hurts you (you could be using those points on almost literally anything else and it would be better) it's worthless. Oh, and Subs that have hull saws but can't ram surface ships... Union are good at gunnery and missiles both. Actually a mostly decent team, but have only played about 4 games with them. Almost my lowest with the different factions (I haven't played sultanate and only 1 alliance) Sultanate are a mix of crown and alliance (again, simplifying weapons completely removes the flexibility to play with gun stats and range bands). Have a portal ability which is complex and only very rarely good. Empire DID have an uber powerful generator for a bit but thankfully got nerfed. haven't tried it since nerf. Have a token flamethrower which admittedly can be useful if your opponents fluffs bad and gets a pact destroyer squadron in range of it, but otherwise you probably won't use it. Probably the most balanced cruisers. Some units can re-deploy after setup which is bonkers powerful. Prussians SEEM cool but they pay some damage in guns for voltaic which is garbage because shields are useless anyways. Would rather the damage for what it's worth. Also have confusing fleet compositions. Probably the most filled-out faction but below average in performance. Decent at boarding but boarding is pretty difficult to set up now, again, unless your opponent is happy to just give you the situation. Their custom generator is OK because it makes the shrouded. All nations have truly truly awful SRS. Played a total of maybe 25 games now, and have never seen them even remotely useful. For some reason carriers need to be attack ships, and given that planes have 2/3rds the flight range of guns you need to get your carrier dangerously close to use SRS regularly. Long range sorties basically take it out the game because SRS only get 3 total sorties (with the first one being double ADV so not really worth counting) and they won't do much anyways. I am writing a breakdown right now of some serious game issues since release, so this is an ultra-short description. Some game things are really good, but there are some problems that really hurt the game a lot in my eyes, but the devs seem to only deal with the loudest people on FB so I don't hold out hope of meaningful and balanced criticism getting through to them. Give the different nations a try using proxies and see what you think. The devs need new players coming in but seem to be pandering to older ones. The release is acceptable with issues, but I think there are some really consistent mistakes in wording and thought that is going to mean new players will find a game less "in release" than this. I want the game to succeed, but I don't like it's chances. An example of rules problems is shroud is the only worthwhile defensive tool. Because you will be taking this a LOT, it means secondary effects have huge implications. for example, some weapons (a surprising amount) rely on devastating to generate damage... but shroud counters that rule completely so it's functionally useless (because your base-pool is often a bit too low). It also means the core mechanic of the game (exploding dice) actually isn't a mechanic you will interact with anywhere near as much. Lots of ripple effects not really thought through. Also, the names are dumb. Two nations basically have the name empire and Commonwealth is going to make people keep thinking of real-life British and colonies. shoulda just kept nation names.
  34. 1 point
    NStephenH

    General forum clean-up

    Would it be possible for the 1 through 2.5ed content to be either moved to a different section or locked? Just to avoid confusion. The rules section in general is full of pinned topics for these earlier editions of the game. Thanks!
  35. 1 point
    veloran

    [DW V3] Veloran's Fleets

    All my prussian ships are done :
  36. 1 point
    veloran

    [DW V3] Veloran's Fleets

    i just finished my Tempelhof Battlefleet : Tempelhof-Blitzen Fleet Carrier : Toten Heavy Destroyers : Konrad Support Carrier all the models in my Tempelhof Battlefleet :
  37. 1 point
    NStephenH

    Dystopian Wars Rules Answers

    Can this thread be closed and unpinned and replaced with a dw 3.0/warcradle 1.0 thread?
  38. 1 point
    veloran

    [DW V3] Veloran's Fleets

    My commonwealth Fleet Rurik Frigate : Sineus Fast Cruiser : Norilsk Heavy Cruiser : Borodino and a Khatanga Heavy Cryo Cruiser
  39. 1 point
  40. 1 point
  41. 1 point
  42. 1 point
  43. 1 point
  44. 1 point
    Blaze

    Weapon Qualities: Sustained

    Got my answer from reddit
  45. 1 point
    vonHymack

    Empire of the Rising Sun models

    Check here! The topic is in French but in the attached doc you can find the previous version pics of the models! https://forum.laforgeludique.fr/discussion/1693/dystopian-wars-correspondance-des-figurines-en-v2-v3
  46. 1 point
    Phant Mastik

    First impressions

    As far as I can remember, the faction differences were addressed by the players during the BETA. This should have been enough time to manage it. Getting the models out first, is just a cheap excuse.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.