Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Xarlaxas last won the day on May 16 2014

Xarlaxas had the most liked content!

About Xarlaxas

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. If you're talking about different peg heights, in Dystopian Wars we just get the same length of peg as in FSA, but for Surface Skimming Models there's a convention of cutting the pegs down, and, for aesthetic reasons, people will often cut the pegs for flyers too so they aren't all the same height: it also makes for easier transport! I was planning to trim the pegs down a bit for my FSA fleets for the same reasons. I couldn't imagine there being any reason this would be against the rules in FSA, but that's not my area of expertise.
  2. I think your tactic of keeping them behind a Large/Massive Model and using them to make it basically invincible is pretty valid: if I hadn't had the All Mediums objective I probably would've ignored them last game. Generally speaking, I'd only be deploying them in games big enough where you have two other Medium Squadrons on the field, as they are very squishy (compared to other Russian Models), and even easier to derelict, also, remember that they've got that nifty 360 degree move, and are pretty fast, so you should probably have them hovering around close to your big models, but always ready to run away, especially as they've got Strategic Objective on them: that means they're actually worth 75 points a piece to your opponent, along with having Vulnerable, that makes them a prime target for a nice massacre if you let your enemy get the chance! Also, I'd say having them in full squadrons, or at least a squadron of 2, would be best: one repair ship with 5 AP is only going to average what, 3 successes? You'd be relying on explosive sixes to get your repairs done: with 10 AP you should be able to pretty reliably patch up a cruiser, 15, as we've seen, is pretty able to fix up even the Dreadnought, though I think you've been pretty lucky with those rolls too. That said, I'm mostly theorising here from the other side of the table, as I've not had the chance to deploy mine with my Russians yet, one day maybe. . . .
  3. I'm sure he wishes he had been on holiday, but last page he pointed out he was spending last week with his proper job, which I imagine is much less fun. :-P I imagine he'll be back to corral everyone in this thread soon enough though!
  4. Sorry to barge in but I just wanted to say that the above literally brought tears to my eyes: I am so very happy that the index is working as intended, and that people care enough about it to actually bring it up as one of their first responses to the new book. It makes all the work worth it!
  5. Uruguay customs takes the shipping cost as declared by the courier rather than what Spartan tells them. They also earn commission on impounded parcels.... /end moan
  6. Very good work, looking forward to seeing it in the flesh tomorrow! When my aguinaldo comes in you're going to have to come over so we can do some table making for my lair: the parrillero will be a perfect place for gaming, maybe once it's less "cold".
  7. This is certainly something I can attest to. The initial writing of the Index wasn't so bad, but proofing the damn thing was a Sisyphean task! The whole team's eyes were needed for it but I think what we ended up with is very robust. Though we'll only know for sure once the public pull it apart. . . .
  8. Personally, I think that 2.0 is very accessible, and, as a Proofing Team Leader, I've done my utmost (as have the other lads I've press-ganged to help me out) to make sure that the rules are as easy as possible to digest. I spent a lot of time looking at the start of the book, where the core ideas of the game are introduced, and I spoke to non-gamers to get their opinions on certain terminologies that we often take for granted. Nothing more fun than asking my wife randomly "what do you think a 'natural 6' means when I roll a die?" and then seeing that we'll probably need to explain that better for non-gamers! Also, having demoed the basics of 2.0 to people completely new to Tabletop games (they're a pretty alien concept where I've landed myself of late) I can say that people seem to pick things up really quickly, even more impressive considering that the people I was teaching don't know much English! There'll probably be a bit more of a learning curve for 1.1 players as they have to "unlearn" things they were used to in the old system, but that's the way it always tends to be between editions of games, whether they be war-games or RPGs. *scuttles back to his lair*
  9. Yeah, things are kinda busy with DW 2.0 right now...but I imagine you'll be seeing movement on the Firestorm front in the near future. I'm very interested in seeing what changes the errata brings as I've got an directorate fleet waiting to be given a spin but just not had the chance yet to try them out....
  10. Raising this thread from the dead a bit, but someone raised this issue to my attention elsewhere so I though I might try to clear things up! If you haven't already seen them Smeagol, the newest Russian rules are available here: http://www.spartangames.co.uk/wp/wp/wp-content/spartanimg/Russian_Booklet_Download_Version.pdf With the new rules Ablative Armour's wording changes thus: "Any time Attack Dice (AD) are used against a model with Ablative Armour, the model’s Damage Rating (DR) is equal to its Critical Rating (CR), and its CR is ignored. If this model suffers any Damage, it loses the Ablative Armour MAR for the rest of the Game and CANNOT regain it." This means that Flamethrowers will be trying to hit the higher DR as, like every weapon in the game, Flamethrowers use Attack Dice, but the Ablative Armour will not protect the ship from the Raging Fire Token or The Corrosive Token (in the case of the Chinese). So, if you hit the raised DR of a Russian ship with Ablative Armour with a Flamethrower weapon you will: Do 1 point of damage, give it 1 Raging Fire Token, and, if you're Chinese, give it 1 Corrosive Token too, while also stripping the Ablative Armour from the ship: NASTY!
  11. Yes, iamgraef has understood the new wording of the MAR perfectly, and I can confirm that it is indeed what we in the playtesting group had intended.
  12. I've not actually seen Nail's cards, all my information comes from the booklet, which I'm rather acquainted with by now, due to having done a wee bit of work on it and all, but that doesn't mean that I'm infallible to be fair. With regard to the errata: it was written prior to the release of the second printing, coinciding with the release of Storm of Steel, from what I recall. At any rate, the online Errata is dated January, and, again, as I've mentioned, the second printing of the Russians came out in May of this year, so I think that the second printing of the Russian rules overrules the errata. I guess that, seeing as Delboy has posted entire MARs from unreleased supplements in ye old play-test thread, there shouldn't be anything wrong with me quoting the new Ablative Armour MAR in full, especially seeing as others have them in their hands by now it seems. . . . "Any time Attack dice (AD) are used against a model with Ablative ARmour, the model's Damage Rating (D) is equal to its Critical Rating (CR), and its CR is ignored. If this model suffers any Damage, it loses the Ablative Armour MAR for the rest of the Game and CANNOT regain it." It basically boils down to figuring out the order of operations for the MAR and the Critical Effect; what I've posted above is how I'd interpret the rule personally, but I will ask the rest of the lads to see what the group consensus is, as the French are my main force and I don't get to field my Ruskies very often for testing. . . .
  13. There was a second printing of the Russian Fleet Book in May, so all the newest Russian Fleet boxes will have the V2 rules (they're in the wild now so I can talk about them), they've not updated the MARs document on the website yet, alas, but apparently You Look Like A Nail has updated his resources accordingly!
  14. Are you guys working with the V1 of the Russian Rules or the V2 ones as that will make quite a difference! In the new version the rules state a couple of things that should clear things up. First, Ablative Armour only gets calculated when Attack Dice are being used against a model; this means that if a Russian ship suffers a Fusion Leak from a Tesla that its CR would in fact go down to being equal to its DR. So, when a Russian ship that has suffered a Fusion Leak, but still has its Ablative Armour is shot you'd make your DR equal to the *Reduced* CR, and then ignore the CR, which means that you're more likely to lose your Ablative, but you'll only take one point of damage at least! Secondly, Ablative Armour is lost if the model take ANY damage, so sabotage will take off the Ablative Armour, as the ship will have lost HP. Hope that helps clear things up!
  15. Awesome, cheers, that clears up a lot of my confusion on the matter! I see I should have searched for Tiny Fighters rather than Flyers and I would have found the answer all by myself.
  • 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.