Jump to content

Sebenko

Member
  • Content Count

    1,657
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by Sebenko

  1. Considering WC's lock-happy attitude to discussion so far (God forbid you do anything other than smile and nod on the facebook group), I don't think it matters. I'll be surprised if more than typo reporting gets acted on. I think my previous 'feedback' is as likely to be acted on as any more detailed response, so why bother wasting keystrokes?
  2. There's so much wrong with that statement I don't know where to start. I don't think I asked for Halo Fleet Battles, did I?
  3. I'd say hidden in the rulebook for a totally different game (frankensteinian jamming together of settings notwithstanding) is pretty hidden for anyone looking for DW background. Needlessly edgy much?
  4. In before thread locked for criticising WC. These rules are the best thing that WC has produced for new-DW so far. I'm not saying that in a positive sense. No wonder the CoA background document is hidden several pages deep in the WWX website, I'd be embarrassed about it too. Have you read this drek? It's all zombies and aliens, as though they're more important to DW than steampunk imperial geopolitics. Yeah, the vault could have been aliens in better-DW, but it could have been ancient Atlanteans, time travellers, Lovecraftian elder things or a hundred other things, but what it certainly and most importantly was, was a mystery. Don't even start on the tripods, they're non-canon and you know it. And why is Sturgeon now some kind of moron who lost 'half his expedition' dicking about getting to the vault? Where is the 'building a new nation' optimism of the CoA? Why are they now some illuminati-type stupidity? Why aren't they a nation? Do you really think the edgy cynicism is a good thing? The new CoA logo looks stupid too- what, are you chasing the 40k AdMech market? Leave the skulls to GW, thanks. Having WWX carpathian get one over on the CoA with his RJ-whatever stuff definitely reads as "Hur-hur DW is ours now, it's second to WWX, suck it boat-lovers". https://www.warcradle.com/uploads/wwx-pdfs/factions/Covenant-of-the-Enlightened-DA-Background.pdf The new aesthetic sucks. The new lore sucks. The new rules suck. Throw it in the trash and start again where Spartan left off.
  5. For me, I already had a proxy plan for my CoA- they're painted red for a reason- they're going to be AdMech when the new version of Epic comes out. 10mmDW seems pointless because I was in it for the landships. DW Land without that holds zero interest for me, so I might as well choose a 10mm game that mght have a playerbase two minutes from where I work.
  6. Hurry up with those orbats... I haven't tried inflicting DW on my local group yet, knowing that the current orbats are... not great and are being replaced soon.
  7. But the rules explicitly state the opposite (see the rules quoted in @Gonmoa's post)
  8. Covenant. Have you seen the Descartes MkII?
  9. I'm going to put it down to the damn thing being the size of a Nimitz class carrier.
  10. Dystopian Wars is a game that takes things that just didn't work in the real world and says 'these work because sturginium'. The cruiser submarine concept joins the RC frigates, about half the small tank designs, screw drive engines on CoA ships, landships and more odd ideas. While cruiser submarines like the Surcouf and X1 didn't work out , it's still a cool enough idea to show up in DW.
  11. Re-build, and the phrase 'rebuild a lost SAS' suggests (fairly clearly, if not explicitly) that you can't just build as many squadrons as you have tokens for- only that you can replace squadrons that have been wiped out, not make new ones.
  12. And all that time you're not at at least obscured, the Euclid is very vulnerable (literally once it gets to low-level) for a model that hands over 425 points when shot down, or 725 when prized- and that's without any upgrades. With more than one upgrade it easily breaks 800 points prize value. That's dangerously close to 70% all the way up to 1500. It's got low-level flyer, but it dare not use it. While stratospheric it's nigh invulnerable, but it dares not ever come down from there.
  13. Previously, CoA drones relaunched with an activation marker, because without was far too powerful. Whether it works that way for new carriers is indeterminate.
  14. SAS won't be in engagement range at any point in turn 1, so you won't lose out on any activation if you leave the carriers until last.
  15. A reconsideration of the Euclid- considering how tough it is to hurt while Stratospheric, I wouldn't say it was worse. But it is more dull. A dreadnought with a PA shouldn't be cowering at Stratospheric being nigh invulnerable, that's boring for everyone involved.
  16. Hmm, I thought mandating LAS being fighters was a bit pointless, but I totally forgot about retask (all these actual carrier rules are new to me). So that makes the fighter mandate even more pointless- if you brought a carrier, you can have them be whatever you want anyway (not like those carrier points are going to do anything else on the first turn)- and if you didn't bring a carrier, you probably want them to be fighters anyway to have a chance at defending against opposing SAS. Rules for nothing, I think. You're still risking the rest of your fleet not having fighter cover, and all your not-so-tough bombers are in one place. I think it doesn't really stack up compared to a typical dreadnought. But most importantly- who wants a dreadnought to be nothing more than a shepherd for drones hiding at stratospheric? It's the same issue as a lot of the CoA changes- balance wise they could go either way, but they're definitely losing cool factor. Yeah, I like that my opponent needs to throw over 40AD (or some very powerful MARs) to crit the Euclid, but that doesn't sound exciting for anyone involved.
  17. Where are you getting all those bomb attacks? It can only bring one bomber squadron on it's own, and local air support has to be fighters. You'd have to make sure you lost all the other drones and replaced them with bombers, while trying to maintain aerial superiority. It's a big risk to take if you haven't invested even more points into more carriers. Of course, the big issue with the Euclid is that no CoA player wants to spend that many points on it, especially considering the far more reliable damage output of a conventional dreadnought. I could spend 300-ish points on a Kepler-Aristotle E-turret squadron or a Prometheus, which will be much more reliable and not feel like I'm wasting the model's potential as it cowers at Stratospheric. Incidentally, I missed the upgraded coordinator range option because the typeface is so difficult to read in big blocks. If you must have a flashy font, leave it to titles and use a nice basic serif font for the main text- it'll fit with the DW style and still be readable. 16" coordinator range sounds pretty useful, but paying 25 points on top of the 300 for the Euclid is a bit much. The PA really should be much more powerful to justify the risk of moving to low level- a 300 point, 125 strategic value model with vulnerable, fuel reserves and DR7/CR11 will look very juicy to any opposition.
  18. Not really, it brings one squadron of 4 drones and costs 300 points (or 320 points for a single squadron of 5). Just exploit the fact that it's taking up a third of the CoA player's points and can't get more than 9 AD on a target unless it's in RB1.
  19. I don't think so, there's been no mention of second wave or further shipping (hardback rulebooks and the like). I'd guess that there was some manufacturing time open for models, while still waiting on stuff like books (which we know to be outsourced and delayed)
  20. In terms of defence, I think we've come out fairly even with a lot of nations- and torps were often decried as being useless by many nations. The game in general seems to be getting more dangerous. Do I think that's a good thing? Not really, but I don't think we've suffered especially compared to other nations. Particle Accelerators- I don't much care about the balance for these. What matters to me is that they've lost their cool factor.Now they're barely more exciting than an area bombardment bombing run. Generators- Our generators are seeming a bit lifeless, too. Yeah, we gained a shield dice here and there, but that's just a requirement of the more dangerous game that 2.5 is. My feelings on the Target Painter changes have been well expressed elsewhere. Drones: As I said when the idea was first revealed by Spartan, short range on combat coordinator totally kills the use of drones. It's the exact same problem we had with generators before, except drones are a much larger part of our fleet than offensive gens were for most nations before. The actual abilities on some of the carriers seem ill-thought, as though half of them just got a MAR at random. Maybe I'd get some use out of the Diophantus' sustained fire bonus, since it tends towards getting close- but the Pericles? It was considered dangerously squisy when it could hide at RB4! And you want me to get it within 12" Combat Coordinator range of the enemy, in the newer, more dangerous system? Are you mental? Who thought that one up? The Aristotle has Hunter (Submerged), which also seems to have been picked at random. Generally, I consider the holy trinity of Battleship, Cruiser and Frigate to be a faction's bread and butter of standard options- can't go wrong with a cruiser squadron in any fleet. So to have such a niche ability seems useless, as most fleets will only feature one or two submarine squadrons. The Euclid has gained a great set of Combat Coordinator abilities, but again, it's slow, and still costs 300 points for the base version! And it won't benefit from the stratospheric survivability buffs as it's main weapon is a PA. 300 points for a carrier that can't even launch a full squadron of drones. It even still pays 15 points for a Target Painter that only affects it's 9AD e-turret! They've actually made it even worse. I didn't think it was possible, but no. Spartan, did you think the Euclid was a mistake and want to prevent us using it again? Can I have a refund for my one? Or can I have it even be acceptable on the field? Epicurus- still only okay at best. No way is the poor thing getting in range to help with big fuel tanks. Launch Turret still does nothing. Daedalus-Beta. Heavy Ack-Ack is a really good MAR, but it's not worth the 30 points and lack of toys compared to it's ocean equivalent, the Hipassus. Probably won't benefit from the stratospheric changes much, as it's still a fairly long rang optimised model. Hyperbius- It existed for it's Target Painter. New role is a bit pants because agressive counter SAS operations seem like waste, especially for 120 points. New Models Theon- I like it, super fast sky destroyer. I can see using these for more than just air superiority- punishing out of position medium targets would seem like a good role for them. Praxilla- I think that Long Lances are a bit overcosted, both on this and the Skorpios. That said, I think they'll be really annoying to face. Has a Target Painter, just to make me sad it seems- especially when in pre-release materials they were explicitly mentioned as helping energy weapon fire from other models. Menedaius and Newtons- Don't know how to feel about these, not used a repair unit before. I feel the Newtons running off and assisting models on their own would be a fantastic benefit over normal repair vessels. Little confused as to the 10/8/-/- broadsides, a 10/8/4/2 would be neater as it would fit with the Zeno's AD spread. Nice torps, would have gone well with the Descartes MkII's torp painter, had TPs not been ruined. Haven't thought much about how a 175 point low-offense value ship would fit in a fleet list, and nothing instantly springs to mind. Maybe just stick it in with a close assault contingent and make sure your boarding elements and non-redoubtable turrets are still intact. I am liking it, even if I don't know how to use it. And finally- if I haven't mentioned a model, it'll be because my opinion on it hasn't changed from the last 2.0 ORBAT, or at least I haven't seen any massive issues- maybe Cleos are useless in the new more destructive 2.5, but I couldn't tell you.
  21. Sure, with my CoA I forget it's there most of the time. Of all the flavour things we have, it's the one I would miss least if we lost it (unlike some other ones we've lost...)
  22. The longer I look, the more annoyed I get. We've had these issues for years. Finally new ORBATS, and they have more issues, failures and mistakes than ever before! 2.5 looks like a much less interesting game, and I don't see why I'd play it over 2.0. At the very least most of the issues with 2.0 had been ruled out by house rules and gentlemen's agreements. And how am I meant to encourage anyone to play versus my CoA? "Oh, all the interesting stuff got removed or nerfed. Now it's e-turret gunline only, sorry. I hope you like slogging through 4 range bands to get to my static fleet. Did I mention e-turrets get piercing now?"
  23. No, the Arronax cannot dive while on water. Burrowing only allows a model to move on the submerged level while occupying a land surface. The Arronax gaining diving was one of the changes expected in 2.5 (well, expected for years now), as the Arronax is useless without the ability to submerge. Another disappointment in the new ORBATs.
×
×
  • 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.