Jump to content

Kaldor

Member
  • Content Count

    122
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kaldor

  • Rank
    Mimreg

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array
  1. Clockwork crocodile! I just squeeled with delight. Dystopian Legions is shaping up to be a most excellent game!
  2. The problem is that 'flexibility' never goes both ways. Or rather, it ALWAYS goes both ways. And if you and I disagree about which direction we should 'flex' the rules, then things can get heated.
  3. Well, if I wanted to play a realistic game I certainly wouldn't be playing D-Wars! I want the ships to look wacky, steampunked and bizarre!
  4. That's a fair hefty points investment, that even if it is successful is going to leave the individual elements strung out and easy to destroy.
  5. Well, yes. But I feel that the energy turret concept is flawed at the most basic level. Having a single AD rating at all ranges means that either you have too much firepower at long range, and Energy Turrets are a clear winner, or that you have not enough firepower at close range (which is the current problem) and Energy Turrets become a clear loser to normal turrets. Personally, I think the best solution would be a graded scale of AD, like a normal weapon, that starts with a higher number than normal turrets in RB4, and decreases more quickly so that it finishes on a slightly higher number than it currently does. However, that would require a re-write of all existing models that can take Energy Turrets and would not give an option to release a shiny new model like the Fresnel I too would prefer that E turrets were a viable choice on their own, but I'd be just as happy with a force multiplier like the Fresnel. I don't think the inclusion of a robotic monster (I would have preferred something much more piscatorial in design!) will suddenly change the CoA into a boarding heavy fleet. But hopefully it will give everyone a bit more to think about when playing against the CoA than "Get into close range, and board!" which seems to be the current school of thought. Our ships are so expensive and so fragile in terms of AP, that boarding them is a no-brainer. Hopefully, if the enemy has to consider the chance of having their ships attacked by a giant mechanical monster, they might think twice about rushing into boarding range.
  6. One of the biggest complaints about Energy weapons is that the increase in AD in rangeband 3/4 is not enough to offset the loss of AD in rangeband 1/2. If the Fresnel gives us a way to get even more AD at RB 3/4, this could change things considerably and give the long-range capabilities of the CoA a significant boost. I like it a lot.
  7. And I respectfully disagree I think the models would be too small to be aesthetically pleasing, would clutter a table already cluttered with tokens for fuel, damage, AP, critical hit effects, mines, concealed or submerged tokens, not to mention TFTs and actual models! I also think they add nothing unique or interesting to the game. They do nothing that other units don't already do, and I object to adding unit types to a game just for the sake of it.
  8. I think their ability to lay a thick blanket of mines is worth every point. Area denial like that can, if used wisely, be an absolute game changer. If Prussians want to try and board my Dreadnought or Battleship, they've got to plow their smaller ships through a blanket of mines first. If the enemy wants to perform a wide flanking maneuver, they've got to push their ships through a minefield to get there. Coupled with terrain, you can really force your opponent to move where, and when, you want him to. And it's really hard to put a price on that.
  9. The reverse "I want them, so everyone has to deal with them" is just as egotistical, IMO. From a background point of view, sure they fit. But this is a game, not a simulation, and from a gameplay point of view they don't fit. Simply saying "Well, if you don't like them then you don't have to use them" doesn't hold true. I don't get to dictate to my opponents how we play the game. I can't just say "Well, I don't like flyers, so you can't use any" or "I think Heat Lances are over powered, so you can't use any". And nor could I say "I don't like infantry or tiny boat tokens, so you can't use any".
  10. CoA usually have less activations than you. If you take out a unit or two of smaller ships early in the game, you'll be able to out-activate them which will allow you to dictate the flow of the game.
  11. Dystopian Wars is a very rules-heavy system. Things like boarding, calculating dice, splitting fire, linking fire are all very complicated. I understand that this is the design route that Spartan wanted to take, and I can enjoy the complexity and the options allowed by it. I think the rules need a serious clean-out to remove superfluous or poorly written mechanics, but that's neither here nor there. Tiny Flyers (and tokens in general) are much more complicated than they need to be. Add in a swathe of MARs for them, the different types and how they interact with different targets, offensive AA, defensive AA, abort results, destroyed results, CC results, tracking fuel, splitting or linking it all... It's really more hassle than it needs to be. And we certainly don't need to be adding another element of complicated rules into an already rules-heavy system. I say NO to tiny boat tokens, unless the entire token system is given a drastic over-haul to simplify it.
  12. One could play somewhat fast and loose with the definition of a fleet, though.
  13. I like the idea of the blades, but I think the execution needs a little refinement. Restricting it to the points or outer third of the blades would keep the bright spot colour without making it look so candycane, as Sanguinary Dan mentioned.
  14. But there's almost no difference between the official model, and a paper cut-out! Why pay for a featureless token? I'm certainly not getting any aesthetic benefit. A token like this is exactly the same as small chit of paper. Why would I want to include that in my games of lovingly sculpted and painted models? I have no objection to having infantry in the game, but there was no need to make tokens like this to ruin the aesthetic of the battlefield. Tweaked and modified AP rules would have been completely sufficient.
  15. IMO, if a model is unreasonable at a given scale, then the unit in question should not be a part of that game. Infantry is ridiculous at 1:1200 scale, and modelling them as separate tokens is unnecessary to represent infantry on the battlefield at that scale. We wouldn't be including models of Landships in Dystopian Legions after all! Personally, playing a miniatures game with abstract tokens like this is no different to playing with chits of cardboard with 'battleship' and 'cruiser' written on them. Except Spartan wants me to pay money for these markers, and considers them the official model! Not happy at all.
×
×
  • 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.