Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/25/2018 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    Polaris

    Firestorm Painting Group

    Just finished 3 squads of nidus frigates, ahem I mean stinger escorts (But seriously the models are cool enough, I'm using them as nidus)
  2. 5 points
    Can't wait for the Firestorm Armada releases!
  3. 4 points
    Hive

    Firestorm Painting Group

    I should pull out my Relth fleet and do a full-fleet shot with them. I'm like less than halfway done painting them and tempted yet again to redo the whole thing. In the meantime, I finished my second set of objective tokens after recovering from illness. Now that I've got more objective tokens than I'll ever actually need, time to get back to the Directorate.
  4. 4 points
    Hive

    Warcradle Classics Bingo

    I know we all want that one model, that one figure we love so much, to be found amongst the molds that Warcradle has salvaged from Spartan. Well, now that the first wave of Warcradle Classics has been announced, why not put that anxiety and hope to good use? That's right! Let's make a game of it! I present to you today Warcradle Classics Bingo! The rules are on the tin, and there's no prize but the joy of bingo itself! I even filled out a board of my own for example use! How very generous of me! So come join me on this wild ride, I'm sure I'm not the only person with nothing better to do. Uh... Just remember, I think models with acrylic or metal parts are less likely to get released. I know I took a gamble with that on a couple of my choices, but you know, it's something to keep in mind. ALSO save yourself some trouble and just use names, seriously this took me way to long.
  5. 4 points
    Toxic_Rat

    Toxic Rat's Sorylians

    Here are some recently completed Sorylian ships, along with a Fleet Admiral:
  6. 3 points
    Wolfgang Jannesen

    Firestorm Painting Group

    I have seen it printed with a label device on bases and it looks alright. Speaking of which, the RNV 'Fields of a Thousand Dead' is pretty well through being repainted. Any tips or criticisms on glows? (My ships earn their names. Such as this thing wiping out a relthozan battlecruiser one turn and crippling a carrier beyond reasonable use the next)
  7. 3 points
    Warcradle Richard

    Future FA rules

    For all sorts of reasons, we are going to make Firestorm, our Firestorm. We have already suggested that the background will be changed to some extent. We are not doing it to upset you but to give the game a sound footing and a future with a growing player base.
  8. 3 points
    Pok

    The Beta Lives!

    I genuinely hope damage reduction of ad is a thing of the past. It slowed the game to a crawl, if i have to pick between aos or new dw, i will go for the one that plays faster. As for boarding, it was always a chore in dw, so im happy its more like FA 2.0 boarding.
  9. 3 points
    Texas_Archer

    The Beta Lives!

    A few things I see that change that I think made the game worse: 1. Range Band Change: This is the first thing I saw that I disliked. In my opinion having 4 range bands of 8" each was perfectly fine, and I personally saw no issue with it. Maybe they are trying to work it with WWX, but I dont see how you can play both systems at the same time. 2. Damage to ships: We dont know 100 percent how this will go yet, but if I have a Cruiser that takes 1 damage, will its stats go down or will it have the same stats until it is crippled? In the original, for every point of damage you took, your attack and defence stats went down unless you had a special rule. This made the game more strategic instead of what I see this being. 3. Generators and such: Having generators always on in the original game ( with an exception or 2) made the game more challenging from a tactical standpoint, and required less bookeeping overall. The fact that the generators had their own abilities that did not change the units base stats was great. Think about it for a second... Does having a Guardian Generator make me the armor on my ship thicker? No, it is a generator that reduces successes. In 2.0, if I fire and make 12 successes on a KoB BB with a critical rating of 10, but then he has 3 successes on his shield dice, then the total becomes a 9, and not a critical hit. This makes more sense to me. 4. Boarding: This one to me is a huge, almost game breaking change. In 2.0, a boarding action, if successful enough, could allow you to prize or derelict the ship, making it unusable to you enemy. I have seen numerous games where a smart and lucky boarding action has brought a player back to victory from sure defeat. I know a lot of people might have not liked the boarding rules, or thought they were too powerful, but once again, it is a tactucal and strategic tool in your box that anyone could use. 5. Nation flavor: This is another area where I see a lot has been lost from the game. Certain nqtions has certain weapons, abilities etc... For example, the Empire had long range fire starting rockets and the Russians had shorter range, but gigantic guns. Now I see the Crown has rockets, which they never had before, and nation only munitions, abilities have been stripped off. Way too much simplification. This is just a few. I feel like this game has been so dumbed down that it has turned into "Dystopian Wars for Beginners" and I'm waiting for the real rules to come out...
  10. 3 points
    Jed_I_Powell

    The Beta Lives!

    Being new to the Dystopian War game the Beta rules seem good... I like the version of the Guts and Glory cards being picked up in this game as well... makes a nice symmetry with WWX... Tho would like to the see the DW deck of cards not be the same tan color as the WWX decks... maybe a nautical blue... (reserve the Armored Clash dual deck a green)... Will definitely be printing the proxies and giving it a go with my Navy Vet friend soon!
  11. 3 points
    DWars2 was similar to firestorm, possible even more crunchy! Obviously the slight change to the dice with the new symbolic lay out. SRS in Dwars 2 were a nightmare, they were their own units and often led to activation spam. More reminiscent of FSA1. The change to them being deployed over the course of a turn and then all resolved at once is an interesting one. I can certainly see the appeal. Do you activate carriers first and either sent bombing runs or protect ships? do you go second and look for a gap in the defences or send fighters to protect ships with lots of bombers threatening them? Allows a collection of low wing capacity ships to effectively co-ordinate together. I'm looking forward to rolling out my Latin Alliance medium carrier conversions! The flippy-stat card I would expect to be ported in to FSA3. less crunch to wade through with regards to ships damage and working out how this AD etc etc. If this could be an indication of how FSA3 might be going than its not going to be the end of the world. I would hope for a more thematic movement system, weapons rules etc to flavour it FSA rather than just Dwars in spaaaace! The fixed weapon stats interest me. Allows you potentialy remember the weapon stats rather than needing constant checking and allows for a quick glance or verbal communication between players. Instead of "hey, these guys have a 3/6/5 and these guys have a 2/4/8 and this guy has a 15/12/6," its a common terms of "these have a standard gun battery, these have a medium rail gun and this guy has a Macro scatter cannon" Those mean something to everyone very quickly, much like saying "Boltgun", "lascannon", "AC/20" or "M4 Sherman 75mm". Could easily be Faction specific too, the Dind kinetic weapons have more AD or whatever than Terran equivalents. Doesn't have to be a pure cross-factional all encompassing weapon list. The cards are an interesting way for weapon swaps and upgrades though I feel they might need variable points costs or limited applications/swaps. I'll see during testing. But could certainly be a route for weapon variability. Have a standard cruiser rail gun stat for the Dind but then destroyers have the upgrade that makes them extra long range whilst a Velite has the upgrade card that gives them Scatter. The good thing is that the response is generally positive. People are excited that DWars is on its way back and no one is having a total melt down. It still looks to retain the flavour of DWars, with less crunchy stuff and faster game play! I agree with Pok. Pleasantly surprised!
  12. 3 points
    Space Cat

    Space Cat

    Hello, I am Space Cat. I enjoy galactic conquest and crunchy space lizards. I do not like space cucumbers. Looking forward to the new edition.
  13. 3 points
    your leviathan is a beast of a ship, made out of resin it could be a murder weapon in Clue (off the table I mean )
  14. 3 points
    Ahem, first releases appeared today, a newsletter with more details tomorrow. We have multiple waves in the process so numbers should grow quickly.
  15. 3 points
    Hive

    Escort accompaniment restriction?

    I'm going to throw this down here- page 31, core rules While there's no point where the rules specifically tell you you cannot take say a cruiser squadron of three Isonades and a Ladon, the way the squad minimums and maximums in the profiles are written implies that the squad is chosen by ship type, filled out with that ship type, and then exceptions might be applied. If accompaniments are bought as squadrons with modified sizes, then no. The process would be pick the squadron type from all possible Escort types, then fill out that squadron, and then count it as part of the lead ship's squadron. As for a why not, I agree that it probably wouldn't be gamebreaking, yeah? But it would also be that much more to keep track of. Now I know Terran players will yell at me because it just plain doesn't happen, I know the Terran Heavy doesn't mesh with their standard Cruisers, but there's an entirely possible squad of two Cruisers led by a Heavy and accompanied by a Shield Cruiser. That's three ship types in one squad, and though the Heavy contributes to this by not being a team player, you've got to imagine how awkward that squad could be even if the Heavy meshed well with its standard counterparts. Three different weapon loadouts, three different defensive profiles... There's nothing broken about it, but its just that much more of a hassle, particularly when one of the big recurring complaints about FSA is the math of linking, and when taken in context I think there's a reason why with this exception you don't see a bunch of squads able to take more than two varieties of ship. This is of course just my thoughts on the topic- I was surprised not to see something in the FAQ about squads of the same class but different profiles, but hey, I guess that didn't really get to come up until System Wars and Taskforce added some alternatives.
  16. 3 points
    Hive

    Firestorm Painting Group

    So @Polaris made a thread about the objective set, and it got me thinking about the set I painted a while back. I decided I liked what I had done on the individual pieces, but not as a group. So I decided to make them more consistent. I decided that I wanted to try and make them look like holograms on a hologram deck- @Ryjak's terrain is pretty popular, and I was thinking I could get them done in a style that would look good both on that terrain as well as regular terrain. I have a second set I never painted which is also near done now in the same style.
  17. 2 points
    varnos

    The Beta Lives!

    Good to see you back, James! Yeah, submarines seem a bit funky in the current version of the rules, and LoS seems too easy. Here's my feedback, submitted through the portal. Excuse the essay, I tried to keep the individual points short: The Good Crippled status: This seems like an excellent start to reduce calculations. I’d hope for more things to change in a crippled stat line than just the “wheel” stats, though. I saw some gained MARs such as deep running, which is interesting, but I’d love to see their weapon systems affected somehow, as that added a lot of strategic depth. Maybe add a 3rd weapon value so that when a unit is crippled, 8 lead 4 support shifts to 4 lead 2 support AD? Less turning templates: okay, so we could do with less turning templates. Having to shift around templates could be a pain, especially for newer players. AA/CC assist: it always felt a bit stupid to me that the giant flagship 1” away from a model under fire could not support that model. This is nice. It does encourage clumping though… More on that later. Carriers & SRS: Boy, I thought it wasn’t possible, but this actually seems like a nice fix. I am slightly sad that the 100+ SAWs I painted might not all be used anymore, but this feels like a WAY less cluttered form of the rules, and I do still like the way it feels… Which is more than I can say of its predecessor, the fleet action rules. The new defense AD: I am patently against special dice, but I am starting to turn around to the idea of favoring the attacker by limiting exploding dice. I am slightly sad at the potential removal of the “little die that could”, though. End of turn critical cleanup: That was a really nice change. We used to have to move lots and lots of markers whenever a ship moved, and removing the critical effect tokens at the end of a turn really limits that. Nice stuff. The new card/VV system: I like the cards. The STAR cards were an atrocious thing, and the newer cards of 2nd edition were… Okay? This feels like the concept has been integrated a lot more fully into the game. The whole “playing this thing is victory points for the other player” was very counterintuitive, and I’m glad they got rid of it. I would suggest that it be possible to flush cards though, which is not in the rules yet, to avoid being stuck with a dud hand. Rerolling 1s: Really nice. Everyone likes rerolling, and this is a far better alternative to the +/- to hit. Doing away with +/- to hit numbers: Like I said above, I’m glad those are gone. Adding up different modifiers from different parts of rules could get confusing quickly, especially since things like primary guns vs small models were very prevalent in games. I understand that obscured is still in the game, but as long as that is a single, specific effect, I’m fine with that. More on that below though… Redistributing fire to other models in squadron after kill: I think I like it? Nothing as frustrating as throwing too much fire at a single target due to luck of the dice, then wasting your precious dice. Not without mixed feelings though, as it removes an element of gambling out of the targeting strategy: Do you REALLY WANT TO KILL IT DEAD? Or are you willing to play the odds and hope for above average rolls across the board? Improved/expanded upgrade system: This system feels like it has the potential to be amazing for opening up possibilities for list building. I hate how changing weapon systems plays with the readability of stat cards though, more on that below. Bombs: I liked the change of bombs as a 360 weapon system, but changing it to a frontal 10” attack actually makes sense. I approve. Cleaning up the Ramming section: This is a really nice change, although I have some reservations about the interaction with disordered. It feels like one of those finicky details you need to remember. Still feels good all-in-all. Allowing units to simply move backwards at half speed: I am… tentatively in favor? I can see the potential for cheese if artillery units arrive on the scene, but until then, it does away with the incredibly cumbersome full stop and 2” backwards movement. I would addd an option to forgo movement for turning though, to compensate for the slightly more rigid movement of naval units in this version. Integrating initiative with VV cards: That’s just nice. Adds a bit of tactical thinking where there was simply chance, before. The Bad Repeating the boarding assault phase multiple times: I hate it. Simply hate it. This means we have to repeat the same thing 4-5 times for a corvette squadron. Please just allow one boarding action per squadron, it’ll speed up the game for the better, I promise. Why not add a support number for Fray like you folks did for weapon systems? No degradation of carrier cap / weapon systems: The carrier cap should degrade according to the rules but the stat cards don’t allow for it yet. Combine that with the lack of degraded weaponry and you get something that feels like it isn’t crippled at all once it reaches half health. Play with a crippled gun line, or removing weapon systems, or anything that increases the feeling that you can pound specific ships to reduce their firepower. How Deep Running works: To be honest, halving the effectiveness of enemy fire but completely negating your own seems like a very bad deal. Include with that the fact that most submarines, uh, can’t go deep running until they’re damaged? That feels wonky. Line of Sight: Okay. I see how you want to simplify the line of sight rules, but the combination of any-to-any-point LoS, removing weapon hardpoint specific LoS makes line of sight trivial. This is nice if you want to simply throw dice, but it feels not at all nice if you want something were positioning matters. There are few things in this beta that I really disliked, but this is definitely one of them. Additionally (and this really should deserve its own point, but I’ll just put it here), having your own squadron mates not block line of sight might reduce some frustration in the maneuvering phase, but it absolutely encourages tiny clumps of ships. I crossed the T on someone’s ships by having all 4 of my frigates stacked side by side shooting through each other. PLEASE reconsider this particular design choice! Too few turning templates: Okay, I admit I said that less turning templates is nice, but it felt really, really weird to have frigates move around with the same turning circle as a giant battleship/carrier. I’d rather, I think, just do away with the 45-degree template and have small, medium and large templates. You can convince me that medium + turning limit can substitute a large template, but I really, really hate turning limit so that’d be a hard sell. VV victory conditions (e.g., destroy UNIT with SRS/boarding): These felt very hard to achieve. You can aim for destroying models, but if you require, for each of these cards, that an entire squadron be eliminated, its going to take quite some time before the victory conditions become relevant. I’d far rather scale the scenario rewards so that the VV cards can be used to gain points for a specific model rather than squadron. Stat line changes through upgrades Standardization of weapon gun lines: I… Just don’t like it. It feels like, with this design choice, the majority of all individuality of nations was swept away. I’d consider instead a set of gun lines per nation. This would allow for far more unique feeling fleets/armies. I get that this is a beta with limited options, but I do feel this should be pointed out regardless. Boarding defense: I’d prefer to just use AA to repel boarders, and not give people the choice between the highest of the two. For surface/surface boarding. It reduces the lookup time and it doesn’t add much, anyway. Revving up generators… All of them: I love passive defense gens. I hate active defense gens. Why? Because it feels like I am very, very constrained in when I activate a unit. I’d far rather that we just say that all offensive generators are activated, and all defensive gens are on by default. If you’re in a battle, you don’t power down the shield gen every few minutes now do you? The Ugly Obscured is… Not nice: A first obscured ignores light hits, a second obscured is ignores light hits and transforms exploding hits to heavy hits? I’d rather obscured is non stackable and exploding hits count as heavy hits. This prevents checking for multiple sources of the same thing: You find obscured somewhere? You apply it, period. Minimum of 2 AA to assist: There’s this great change where you don’t have to figure out what the AA value of all units is in order to calculate totals… But now you’re forcing people to look up all those stat lines (across squadrons!) in order to figure out whether they can, in fact, support. Just make it so that every model within 5” can support AA, period. Unlimited boarding power with multiple squadrons: I think this has already been mentioned multiple times, but the combination of clumping (See: The Bad, Line of Sight) and supporting boarding attempts across squadrons means you can move multiple corvette squadrons in close and pump out absolutely ludicrous amounts of dice during multiple boarding assaults. I don’t like. Change to only having squadron supporting (excepting VV cards maybe, see Nazduruk_Bugzappa’s point), and/or only a single boarding attempt per squadron (my preference). Large templates + turn limit: So, on a 3’x3’ board with terrain, a large turning template plus turning limit means that a large unit has two tactical options: Stand still, or chug forward to the opposite side of the map. The maneuverability of large ships is too constrained to interesting movement. Hazard, the not-quite-critical-effect: It smells like a crit effect, it sometimes acts like a crit effect, it tokens like a crit effect, but it is, in fact, not one. I also take some issue with the idea that conditions are usually removed during the end phase (see first sentence of hazard explanation), as there are currently 4 conditions and only two of them are removed at the end of a round. Suggestion: It feels like stunned should just be part of a critical condition, obscured neither a state nor an effect (since it is applied by MARs and properties first and foremost), and only hazard and disordered conditions. Then, cleaning conditions should be a special step in the end phase. Terminology: Unit vs. Squadron: Why was squadron changed to unit? Unit feels like it could just as well refer to a single model, and it created a lot of confusion in our games (See also: The Bad, VV Victory conditions) Need to use tables to look up gun lines: This is a pretty bad offender to quick gameplay. Either we have a gunnery reference table open at all times, or we memorize it, or we have to add the stat lines to the upgrade cards. The first two are not really acceptable alternatives, and the last one creates confusion as it replaces a stat line that is printed on the card. I don’t really have any solid ideas on how to deal with this issue, but either have all gunnery lines as separate cards (lots of paper!), be more constrained in the upgrade system (removes the fun flexibility in list building), completely rely on a digital tool for army building and stat card reference, or… Eh. I don’t know. Rams don’t have any AD value assigned: Like it says on the tin. Linking fire is still universally half AD… Except for bomb bays, which are 1 to support?: Feels either like an oversight, or a balance choice because it is a blast template (in which case: please reconsider, it pays to have consistency in your stat lines for balance reasons. Instead, consider making it 4/2 for an equivalent payload in a 3 plane squadron). VV text orientation: Please just have the victory and valor parts the same way up. You want to reference them in the same phases, which means you’re constantly turning the cards around. Gunnery seems superior to torpedoes in targeting submarines: Um. Wavelurking is still iffy: Give it the submerged trait, sure. But say that it treats all enemy units as obscured (using that new condition) instead of saying the same thing without using the catch-all term that was invented for this. This also interacts nicely with torpedoes which can then attack wavelurkers without penalties due to its weapon specific qualities. I’d say remove aerial defense 0 since it’ll make it mighty unappealing to use wavelurking in most situations, you’re already penalizing them for relatively light gains by making it harder to hit enemies. SRS attacks: they have both the aerial and submerged qualities, which is great. The 0.03 version of the rules seem to have snuck in an errata to make it able to target submerged units (good!), but right now the rules state that you can use both AA and CC against SRS attacks. against the target. Might need a rethink The Missing Scenarios Two were added in the 0.03 version of the rulebook. Still missing the other 4. Battlegroups / Unit sizes: We need this to make many of the judgements we want to make about how stuff feels in the new edition. Maybe just give us 2-3 default ones? I can’t stress this enough: Supply a change log if you update the rules so we can see what has changed and test accordingly!!!
  18. 2 points
    Bunnahabhain

    The Beta Lives!

    Make sure you do feedback through the form- it is too easy to miss here, and using the form makes you structure it a bit. On a gameplay level, my thoughts on the beta are mixed- there are some bits I like, and some I don't and some I have yet to form an opinion of.. However, the point of testing is to fix stuff, so if we want stuff fixed, we have to point out issues in a constructive fashion wherever possible It is clearly at an early stage, and there are all sorts of game breaking bugs to be fixed- the best one I have found so far is in the assault section. There is no restriction on a model both launching and supporting an assault, and a model doesn't need to be in the active unit to support, and it can be within 5" of the target or initial model launching the assault. Put that lot together, and you can take a squadron of 6 frigates, close them all to within 5" of a target, launch 6 separate assaults and have the other 5 frigates each support each other, so for a unit with fray value 3, you get 6 x 8 dice assaults... You want to make it worse, do the same on the other side with another unit...your first unit is within range of target, so can support, and you can now do a further 6 assaults with 14 dice each now! at least the fix is easy- "a unit can both not launch and support an assault in the same activation, and can only support one assault in the same activation." The victory point mechanic will work well for scenarios- the 'Strategy point' bodge I used for my scenarios in version 2 can go away! Does anyone else have problems reading the cards when printed out, due to the darkness of the background. It will be ok on a pro quality colour print, but on a standard black and white laser print it is almost impossible to read! James
  19. 2 points
    Overread

    Future FA rules

    Myself I hope that what WC captures is the feel of the factions. With a different author its no surprise that things will shift and change and its clear that WC is going to change the political scene and likely focus on having the factions standing more alone than united into two (grand alliance) megablocks opposing each other. What I hope is that they retain the feel, theme and style of each faction and build upon it. That Relthoza remain the cloaked shadowy spiders lurking in their ships built with vast open areas within. A deadly force to strike without warning and slip away again after. To retain the mighty Sorylian lizards who tower over men; built in strong bodies with powerful machines and a lot of vast broadsides of cannon that they will rush up and turn their sides to unleash in devastating barrages of fire. The politics might change; the reasons for war and the alliances and even some of the minor factions might vanish or never reappear or might appear in different ways. But I'd hope that WC retains the feel and theme; the style and the atmosphere of the game. And I'd wager that WC didn't just buy FA because it was cheap on the market and because it was floundering - there has to be love of the game and its lore and its themes within the WC company, otherwise they could have made their very own Space Game without any Spartan Games ties to it. Indeed I'd wager if WC want to build on the lore and make it stronger and actually formally publish more of the lore into paper format to put into the hands of gamers then it is a good thing to let their own writers and creative people be a bit more free with the lore and setting. SG didn't build the FA world to be expanded upon by other writers, they haven't got book after book of detailed lore and facts and such that can be used as a creative backbone to put meat on a story. It's just not there like one might get if you were to write, say, a Dungeons and Dragons book set in the Sword Coast. With small information there would be changes, but there would also be a stagnation of creativity as it would be shackled to ideas and concepts that were never fully realised before. Like I said I don't mind and I expect change, but at the same time I hope for a feel and structure of factions to be the solid foundation upon which those changes are based. PS I'm not saying SG did badly, they just didn't publish a huge library of lore in the same way as some other franchises have.
  20. 2 points
    Wolfgang Jannesen

    Future FA rules

    I would like to see the culture of the drenzi and RSN move away from bitterness and militias towards a more pioneer attitude in official media for sure
  21. 2 points
    Largefather

    Thoughts on the Beta

    Pros - Simplified critical effects will have imo no discernible impact on the tactics or interestingness of the game (however I still believe custom dice in this instance are horrid Tokens are a better way to mark this because they cannot be bumped and the effect "forgotten" pg2 "CRITICAL DAMAGE DICE" seems to indicate that the die is left beside the ship) Tokens also don't require you to have one critical effect die for each ship in your fleet which becomes expensive with larger fleets or lots of smalls. - Scenario play is always a welcome addition provided that the scenarios are interesting and fun. - The simplified wording and realities of LOS and AoF are probably for the best. While it was interesting to measure arc of fire from the weapon that was firing it I can't see that it offered much return on the slight pain that it was. While LOS wasn't typically difficult in DW I don't mind doing away with the partially obscured and such effects which while interesting often were rules that you learned and then worked around rather than worked within. - I might be alone in this but I don't hate that generators have been nerfed. I will say that if they are paid for in points and then also may not work then they either need to be cheap or really cool. The idea of paying for something that might happen is not something anyone likes. I understand that you can force it but again. It should be cheap. Is it also possible to force a generator on a damaged ship so that you can terf it and deny victory points to your opponent? It seems unclear if intentionally terfing your own vessel would be advantageous. shields in particular felt too powerful before IME. That said they are probably too weak now. - I do hope that positioning and movement is as important as it was because it was a key feature in my interest. Glad to see that it should still be a part but am also sad to see the small and med templates gone. - Don't hate the changes to ramming. the counter collision damage rarely mattered and giving disorder seems like a good thing to always get for being rammed. Also nice to see that it doesn't prevent you from attempting a board or firing upon them from what i've read. Collisions do seem fairly toned down though. no chance at any damage to the impacted ship? seems strange. Cons -Custom dice suck 1. reduce overall complexity of the game by locking into set icons. Having to remember that X effect also lets me count blanks or light counters as hits isn't easier than just using numbers and in many ways it's worse. Having an effect activate on 5+ isn't hard. In fact I would say you example on page 16 is a great argument against custom dice. the whole thing would be much easier to explain if it was only hits, misses and explosions rather than explosive hits, heavy hits, light hits, blanks and counters. you're muddying the waters. 1. increase cost for people to get into game. prevent them from changing dice or using dice from their own collection. Just because Fantasy Flight has been successful with custom dice doesn't mean people like them. In fact it's the number 1 complaint that I hear about any fantasy flight game. custom dice are good for board games but bad for most miniatures games. - Battle Ready/Crippled. I don't know that i'm seeing the full scope of this change because of the blank slate nature of the factions that have been released but so far it feels worse than what we had before. I heard you talking on the Beasts of War coverage that you wanted to remove math from the game which is understandable given the trends in miniature games right now but there is such a thing as too much streamlining. Setting hard values for these based on "mode" seems like it will make target priority an even bigger problem than before. Before I targeted ships because I wanted to ensure beating their CR to cause damage but the ships felt big and strong and durable and damage felt like an achievement because it also made the enemy worse. I have read that you intend to include damage that weakens the ship but I hope that the stats included are meant to be quick reminders of what the stats are once it hits that state after gradual wounding and not instant effects after the 3rd shot. I do like that some of the Russian Units seem to get slightly better once they're crippled in that they get a higher critical. That is interesting. - Like many others I think that boarding was an interesting part of the game and that it's new form is undesirable. It also reads as though I would always be better off using each model with >2 fray to board individually in sequence rather than pooling like before unless you're massively out diced. It also doesn't state that assisting models are limited to how often they can assist in a single assault phase. intentional? - Not a fan of carriers just constantly spitting out planes. I'm half hearted on this one having not had the chance to play it but it seems like it removes most of the interesting parts of carriers and SAS. removing the management also removes the interesting tactics. now we are all Covenant just throwing drones out there. - if there was ever a place to clean up the game it was in the shooting sections. keeping the rule that all ordinance must be declared first and then resolved is so frigging clunky. For units that have 3 or 4 types of ordinance and want to split that up among multiple targets you can often forget the specifics. Of everything you changed this is what you kept? I would much rather see a system of declare all the ordinance participating in this attack, resolve it and then continue until you are out of ordinance, targets or choose to stop firing. I also didn't see it mentioned that defenses are limited actions. intended? I also don't think that the rule for shooting at a squadron does enough to fix my issues with the declare and resolve shooting phase. It's better than nothing but it doesn't feel like it fixes my issues with remembering the declared shots. - No ability to target a point on the table with blast weapons? Being forced to center the template on a model seems dumb. If i'm using an area weapon then i'm going to try to hit as many people as possible with it. Neutral - I'm not sure what you gain by changing the range bands. They seemed well sized for the size of ship that the models are. I haven't played with this yet as I regrettably will be unable to play for the next while but this just seems like a strange change. unsure if it will matter. - Not personally a fan of the use of cards for initiative but I would tolerate it if the rest of the game was bangin. Making the use of these cards optional might be nice but I felt as though they are being built into the core of the game by default. Rather than have the cards (which feel rather generic based on the pdf I read) I would much prefer to have the vp gain as part of each scenario or through a system similar to the Wrath of Kings Motivations in which each army had themed objectives that they could choose which would affect their playstyle. It makes the armies feel more unique and it would also make the scenarios be more important. - At the moment all the factions feel very similar and I miss abilities like the RC Sturginium Boost. I would hope that these kinds of MARs return and are varied enough to make everyone feel unique. overall/TL;DR I'll make my final judgement when the rulebook has been released and I'll try to play with these rules soon even if it's only versus myself to see how I like them but in general I'm not a fan of changes which go the trend of AoS. A great game was murdered when WHFB was converted into the PoS that it now is with all of the strategy and tactics removed. I really hope that a game which I bought specifically to replace what WHFB was giving me doesn't turn into AoS part two. I'm trying to be optimistic but i'm worried that because of the focus of trying to make the game accessible we will lose games that appeal to those who want something more complex. There are enough simple miniatures games. Does the world need one more to be dumbed down for the masses to consume at the expense of a interesting and satisfying game? I'm not familiar with WWX but from a quick glance it seems to have more going on that the dumbed down games that seem to be taking over and making it impossible to have a heavier game. Keep in mind that the average audience for DW was one which wanted at least the complexity of strategy and tactics that WWX has (probably more on average) and not less. It looks like, though it may be unfair to your overall vision, you are attempting to dumb DW down to be the intro game to feed players into WWX. Why not make DW the step up for people who want more than WWX can offer them?
  22. 2 points
    Overread

    The Beta Lives!

    Stat Cards were all the rage a few years ago when Warmachine hit the market. They were neat and still are in that they let you easily track unit stats by putting the cards you need on the table rather than having an army list or a rule book that you flip back and forth in. Esp if the design of the game means that we don't see dedicated army books for each faction (or if we do its a few years off at best before there are enough models and lore to justify such publications). The thing is that any printed media can be updated by changes in the balance of the game. Warmachine found this out and has mostly given up wth printed cards because when they revised their rule structure to one that updated stats a lot faster, it was not economical to keep producing and selling cards; not economical to put cards in boxes which then went out of date and thus left them either having retailers selling old stock or having to have them repackaged (which is a significant cost and hassle to organise with 3rd parties). I think stat cards might work well for the launch of the game as it might be a year or two before we'd see big updates in the game balance and stats (assuming the beta testing phase goes well in that regard). So cards would work at launch and if WC keeps to a slower 0 even if just annual - update of rules then they could sell printed update packs for players to purchase direct. Of course app. based game aids help a lot in speeding up delivery of new updated stats; however they are not universally accepted and come with their own downsides (having to own a device to read it - having to charge it pre-game and/or having charging ports at the site - having to deal with overheating, crashes, software slowdown etc...
  23. 2 points
    Grand-Stone

    The Beta Lives!

    For me the major thing is lack of reduction of firepower with damage and the new boarding rules. These leads too many of the MARS and special effects of units being difficult to model. Say the EoBS, which had fire on almost all guns and rocktes, or the Prussians which kills AP as you go. Flamethrower in 2.5 finally was streamlined and fun. But anything that kills AP is gone cuz its a constant number. One of the neat tactics was to weaken something then board it. In 2.0 and 2.5, letting the BB take a few point of damage reduced AA, which helped a lot when boarding. Add fire to kill a few AP,... Now it's far more difficult to weaken a unit then board. Now boarding is just another weapon. I would like to see boarding be different. That boarding is high rish high reward situation. Where you could kill an enemy vessel by taking out all its boarding defence. Further, the new way of tackling to-hit number. Since it isn't a number anymore, it is impossible to have two effects stack! For example, small and submerged both had -1 to be hit. Thus it adds up to -2 which made the enemy only hit on exploding 6'es. If you had a hunter ability, it negated one of them. The ability to stack effect is gone, simply by removing to hit as numbers. Tiny fliers: I sort of like parts of it. But, also misslike other parts. The parts I misslike is that there is no difference between torpedo bombers, divebombers or fighters. Earlier EoBS (my main faction) had better torpedo bombers, and slightly improved fighters. Now that these differences are also difficult to handle. I somewhat like the rules for SAS, but I also hate that there is no 'fight to rule the skies'. In 2.5 whoever had the most carriers dominated the skies, and removed all enemy planes. Now you could launch new squadrons regardless of the total looses you have. Carriers should have a max capacity. For example they could have 10 launch point and 20 capacity. Once they have lost more than 10, they start reducing the number you could launch. What I like however, is that SAS helps in boarding, both in attack and defence. In 2.5 atleast, it helped in defence, but not in ofensive. I like that. But that does not compensate for the new boarding rules.
  24. 2 points
    Overread

    The Beta Lives!

    Crippled submarines going deep just sounds all kinds of wrong - if a submarine is crippled then it should be surfacing not going deep - going deep would add pressure and crack the hull open all the faster. I can understand it from a gameplay perspective in that its trying to dodge attacks and going deep is what submarines can do for that; but a crippled submarine should be surfacing and prevented from going deep if its doing anything. Aircraft going higher is a bit more logical - if it can still fly then going higher can let it avoid further damage whilst pulling it out of the main area of combat.
  25. 2 points
    Polaris

    Firestorm Painting Group

    Finished my first squad of venom destroyers
×

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.