Jump to content

We're moving to Discord!

Come join in the discussion here!

You can also still find out all the latest news on TWITTER and FACEBOOK

Thank you for your continued support, and we look forward to welcoming you shortly.

The Warcradle Team


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Sebenko reacted to RuleBritannia in Warcradle Classics?   
    My apologies for the time taken, but Richard asked for the full list so I spent the time to do my research and check sources and came up with 20 things that Warcradle should apologise for to existing fans to make things better and understand how they could of and can improve.
    1.       Purchasing Spartan games without a plan
    2.       Not explaining to fans the loss of masters and extant CAD design and hence requiring redesign
    3.       Rather than explaining to fans the loss of material, blaming fans for the needs of a redesign
    4.       Blaming fans for the fall of Spartan rather than the reality of the owners own problems and the nature of the Halo licence
    5.       A lack of honesty on plans for the game with early statements suggesting a continuation of the extant game with a shakeup of factions which did not come to pass
    6.       Reliance on fans to update Orbats but no thanks or credit shown publicly
    7.       Blaming fans for negative reactions to Warcradle designs rather than accepting criticism was helpful when designs later changed based on fan feedback
    8.       Statements with unrealistic timescales which suggested releases at least a year ago
    9.       Failure to create a vision for Dystopian Wars and Dystopian Age
    10.   The problematic absorption of Dystopian Wars into the WWX setting with its attendant racism, sexism, fantastical elements and more unrealistic models being at odds with Spartan’s vision of a gilded age based on class warfare
    11.   The unwillingness to make the extant game compatible with the new ones, especially with the change of scale for the armoured game
    12.   Unwillingness to thank fans for pointing out the problematic and racist tropes involved in the Chi Vampire and Celestial Empire leading to the change of both
    13.   Unwillingness to promote the game
    14.   Unwillingness to promote the Classics range especially as a collection of Spartan models
    15.   Mishandling the sale of the Classics range for which fans were blamed
    16.   Mishandling of social media leading to unnecessary antagonism
    17.   Antagonism rather than conciliation as a rule
    18.   Release of material for Firestorm Armada and Uncharted Seas without explaining how many years in advance of product it was
    19.   Planned release of product without full unit sizes and cut down material that makes it harder for the player to collect the range
    20.   Accusing critics of being mentally ill
  2. Like
    Sebenko reacted to Spenetrator in Future FA rules   
    Yup - If you make the Cappellans buddies with the Federated suns no-one will be happy - (To use a battletech analogy) 
    I think Battletech are actually a really good example of how to do Timeline advances.
     I'd prefer a timeline jump to a retcon.
    There is so little lore out there from Spartan - you wouldn't actually have to change anything 'to give the game a sound footing'. you just need to fill in the gaping hole which is the lore. 
    Just don't get rid of our favourite factions and replace (or merge) them with 'WWX in space' factions. (Covenant Of Antarctica - I'm looking at you)
  3. Like
    Sebenko got a reaction from Spenetrator in The Beta Lives!   
    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?
  4. Like
    Sebenko reacted to RuleBritannia in The Beta Lives!   
    The game didn't fail, the company did, elsewhile WC wouldn't have bought it.  At the same time fan love has been able to help revive other games while rejecting them can lead to tension that can mar a release.  While I accept what WC want to appeal to a new crowd and the simplification makes that easier, some of the absences that simplify certain elements like boarding, shield dice and dogfighting have for me and some others made them less dramatic and interesting.  There is a question of how much abstraction we want in a game.  We could put all our models on the table and roll a die until one of us gets a 6 and they win.  Its very efficient but loses the tactical fun.  I think myself and a lot of fans liked the clunky because it made the battle feel alive, random and rewarded tactical thinking.  Imperfect certainly, but not boring.  Streamlining it too far risks the opposite problem.  
  5. Like
    Sebenko got a reaction from RuleBritannia in The Beta Lives!   
    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".
    The new aesthetic sucks.
    The new lore sucks.
    The new rules suck.
    Throw it in the trash and start again where Spartan left off.
  6. Like
    Sebenko reacted to Phant Mastik in Questions and Answers Blog Post   
    Concerning me: no
    One thing that fascinated me with DW (especially after 2.0) was that you had one set of rules for all theatres, and I could use all my models side by side. Interesting things to me were the above mentioned multi-purpose/surface skimming models, but also the possibility to play scenarios of coastal warfare. With the announcement of New Armoured Clash all my armoured models become obsolete to me. Although I could use some of them with the new set of rules in land games only (without the support of the navy and the fascinating mobile airfields - what a pity), there is no player base here. DW was a niche game here and a few guys maintain(ed) some navies with air support. Reviving DW 3.0 by brushing off the dust of their fleets - could be easily done. Talking them into a new game, needing new models and stop playing this scifi 10mm game of ground warfare - impossible.
    I don't want to sound like the guy who says: "Everything was better in the old days." The decision has been made and I have to live with it. I'm not happy with it, but I understand, that I live in a rather special situation and my concerns might just concern me. Starting a fan-based project, using SGDW2.5 as a base, with an existing new owner of the IP doesn't also make sense. So for me, DW moved from "Flank Speed" to "Standby". I invest my hobby-time now in other (28mm) projects, my ~13 fleets will stay on the shelf - for the time being.
    Maybe Warcradle can make me sail again, if they can preserve the feeling of the SG rules. I liked the cumbersome movement of the large ships with the templates. In my imagination it felt suitable and resembled an appropriate simulation of steering such large vessels. Another thing was the number of dice: delivering a broadside by throwing buckets of dice just feels like delivering a broadside. Throwing a D20 for example is faster - for sure - but not the same. The third thing was the tiny possibility, that weird things could happen through luck and Exploding Dice (Because Sturginium!). Take the last remaining frigate and fire her guns on the battleship and through a nearly impossible chain of 6es teleport it on a squad of cruisers... these situations are so epic, I don't even mind losing games through them. And the fourth thing was the versatility of using one set of rules for all theatres of war in one game.
    So will I have a look at DW3.0? Definitely Yes.
    Will I play Armoured Clash? Very unlikely.
    I hope Warcradle can make me enjoy Dystopian Wars again - at least I'm longing for it.
  7. Like
    Sebenko got a reaction from fracas in Tiny tank tokens. What to do with them?   
    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.
  8. Like
    Sebenko got a reaction from Pawprint in Tiny tank tokens. What to do with them?   
    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.
  9. Like
    Sebenko reacted to Grand-Stone in 2.5 Orbats Notes   
    When can we expect updated orbats to see daylight?
  10. Like
    Sebenko reacted to Aurikon in The Egyptians!!   
    I'm just not worrying right now, ROE are the only faction completely migrated to 2.5.  All other Orbats are translations to 2.5 and not the final product.  Once we get the final orbats, I'll start paying attention to things that don't seem right.....
    Unless I am mistaken and they have finally been uploaded
  11. Like
    Sebenko got a reaction from Wolfchild in a burrowing Multi-Purpose Robot can dive?   
    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.
  12. Like
    Sebenko reacted to Thamoz in The Egyptians!!   
    Give drones natural hunter +1 everything. (Our drones are the best drones with the most experienced controllers)
    Give carriers combat coordinator swarm tactics. (Seems reasonable to assume that there would be more drones buzzing near their launch ships)
    Give command and control vessels (e.g. hyperbius, hippasus) Combat Coordinator hunter +2 (which replaces rather than stacks with their natural +1 if my memory of the rules is right) (Specialist support systems make our drones super precise).
    Boom, job done. @Spartan Mike please send my consultancy fee to the usual address, I will accept new resin minis in lieu of cash. (I am also available to help patch the PA rules back into a fun shape! :P)
  13. Like
    Sebenko got a reaction from Der Hochmeister in Best boarding nation   
    Covenant. Have you seen the Descartes MkII?
  14. Like
    Sebenko got a reaction from Gonmoa in Area Bombardment   
    But the rules explicitly state the opposite (see the rules quoted in @Gonmoa's post)
  15. Like
    Sebenko got a reaction from jupjupy in Best boarding nation   
    Covenant. Have you seen the Descartes MkII?
  16. Like
    Sebenko got a reaction from S.Mike in Best boarding nation   
    Covenant. Have you seen the Descartes MkII?
  17. Like
    Sebenko got a reaction from Shadowcatdecoy in Best boarding nation   
    Covenant. Have you seen the Descartes MkII?
  18. Like
    Sebenko got a reaction from Grand-Stone in Best boarding nation   
    Covenant. Have you seen the Descartes MkII?
  19. Like
    Sebenko got a reaction from Ruckdog in Exploding Dice Radio: Episode 5 is Live!   
    Sounds like someone is having a... crisis at the mention of the CoA sub's long lance.
    Serious feedback, the sound quality is much better this time around, no more pop & crackle. Much more listenable.
  20. Like
    Sebenko got a reaction from Mr.ponders in V2.5 orbats (initial release) thoughts and ramblings submitted here for proper scientific peer review.   
    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.
  21. Like
    Sebenko got a reaction from Mr.ponders in V2.5 orbats (initial release) thoughts and ramblings submitted here for proper scientific peer review.   
    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.
  22. Like
    Sebenko got a reaction from Mr.ponders in V2.5 orbats (initial release) thoughts and ramblings submitted here for proper scientific peer review.   
    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.
  23. Like
    Sebenko reacted to Drastab in Best submarine design   
    That is one of the draws to this game, seeing these different concepts actually put into service.
    Take the FSA: their turrets work much like an enlarged gatling gun, while the volley guns are based on proto-automatics that had a brief battlefield life.  The paddlewheels were still being placed on ships for years after the advent of armored hulls.
    I find that looking up the source for these concepts very distracting.  Rounded Russian ships?  Yep, a real idea.  Iceberg Aircraft carrier, yes was a US plan from WW2.
    Even the giant spider walker was the brain child of an embittered Confederate general... Oh wait, that was Wild Wild West, but I still think that's where the penguins got the concept.
  24. Like
    Sebenko got a reaction from Bazlord in Carriers mandatory in 2.5?   
    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.
  25. Like
    Sebenko got a reaction from Mr.ponders in Notes and queries on 2.5   
    I think it shows a big misunderstanding of what CoA players enjoy about their playstyle. If some other CoA players could chime in here that would be helpful, but for me the fun of the CoA comes from that 'chessmaster' archetype that's been mentioned here and there- I want to plan, to use multiple activations to outsmart my opponent. I'm not playing RC here, I don't want to just sail into RB2 and start firing main guns until everything is gone. Teleporters, Combat Coordinator, Target Painters, they're all reliant on multiple activations, and that aspect is half the fun. Throwing enough dice to crit a DN at RB4 is fun I guess, but outsmarting my opponent, painting up his DN and then blowing it away with what would normally be not enough firepower is what makes me bother writing up fleet lists. And when the plan goes belly up, the painter model gets sunk and I'm suddenly staring down a dreadnought I have little chance of hurting, when replanning on the fly is the order of the day, you're damn right I'm more interested in that than playing a dull old gunline fleet.
    Also how did anyone decide that taking one of the most fun 'smart play' options and making it a worse version of the hunter MAR was a good idea, just to save one or two tokens? I don't think I've ever actually had more than one target painter token on the board at once, so I don't really buy that it has any significant reduction to bookkeeping.
  • 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.