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

Endgame

Member
  • Posts

    223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by Endgame

  1. It took me way longer than anticipated, but I finished up the squad of missionaries.  The stripes still aren't perfect, but I want to move on to something different.  I think I want to hit my Hermes and Apollo next.  I have the Solar on the Painting table, but its lack of straight, flat area is going to make putting the stripes on difficult, so I'm thinking of skipping it for now.  

     

    large.MissonaryFront.jpg.fa46a7376eea0ff

    large.MissionarySide.jpg.afb80d8735df12e

    large.MissionaryBack.jpg.644cfec46d757cf

  2. 2 hours ago, Xen said:

    If  you could rewrite rules from scratch for SRS in FA what would you do?. Remember primarily for this exercise, that it appears the intent for small craft in FA is that they cannot travel too far from their parent carrier or operate independently outside of the command distance for too long. I understand that there will be as many answers to this as as there are Simpsons episode's but I would like to see the different ideas stacked up against each other. Remember the intent in FA appears to be to let SRS add to defense against torpedo attack..

    If I get to wish list SRS rules from scratch...

    1) I would try to make SRS act more like ships.  Give them a full stat line and a fixed size - no more varying squad size by wings.  

    2) Unify the PD rules - have PD for torps and SRS be the same system.  That should cut a page or two out of the rule book and simplify things that unnecessarily have different rule sets.

    3) Remove the PD Bubble.

    4) Add Mars to certain SRS (fighters & interceptors) that allow them to fly CAP so they can link PD with a squadron.

    You can follow a large discussion on the last couple of pages in this thread:

     

  3. 43 minutes ago, Ryjak said:

    4. The game doesn't need Targeted Strikes right now, but Scenarios could make them important.  Some games have Scenarios where you can win without killing a single enemy.  FSA would likely benifit from something like this.

     

    Scenario wins without killing anything are generally a sign of a really, really bad scenario.

    Around 5 years ago, Warmachine ran a set of scenarios that were structured like this:

    Zone X (X may be a rectangle or circle)

    Any turn after turn one, If, at the start of your turn, you have models in the zone and your opponent does not, you win.

    The scenarios were very winnable.  In fact, there was a popular strategy of flooding the zone with modes, using a warcaster with a movement denial ability, and then just auto winning - no game play necessary.  Even with multiple changes over time to the scenarios to add various types of scoring, there are still plenty of games where there isn't really a game.  Just pushing some models forward and saying "I win".

    The best scenarios are the ones that force engagement, but are essentially impossible to win unless one player plays a disengagement game.  In other words, the only way you'll win by scenario is if your opponent runs away, or if you table him so badly that he can't possibly contest the scenario.

     

     

  4. Warmachine's deathclock format is actually an auto loss if you run out of time.  Which is FANTASTIC(!).  I hate a game only going 2 or 3 turns because my opponent plays really slow, and then losing because he scored some kind of early fluke hit, or I made a maneuver planning on getting 5-6 turns into the game. 

    In WM tournaments (I compete in multiple US masters tournaments) you will often see people take smaller model counts if they have a hard time with the clock - you usually don't see many people time out unless its a small scale event with people who aren't used to playing on the clock. 

  5. I wouldn't limit myself to pure of any race in the Alliance pdf outside of Terquai, and even there I'm not entirely in love with the T1 options.  The various minor races in the Alliance all seem to be designed with specific gaps in them to be filled from another alliance race.  

    I really think Hawker should keep the expensive ship vibe and add long range Gunships. If it contains an upgrade kit, I'd be cool with light cruisers paired with Gun ships, as the Light Cruisers become T3 in the larger battles, making them more expensive frigates.

  6. 20 minutes ago, Starslayer said:

    Any Hawker advice or tactics ?  

    What are their strengths /weakness?

    How are they different from the Terrans?

     

    Thank you.

    I don't have any Hawker models and haven't played them (so I won't comment on tactics), but from what I know about playing terrans and looking at the alliance pdf.

    In common:

    Both fleets are generally slow, have turrets, have weapon shielding available to them, have nukes, and have generic primaries as a general rule.  Note, Hawker are natural allies to Terrans, so they can be mixed and matched 50 / 50 in a Terran fleet.  

    Differences

    Hawker is part of the alliance fleet, meaning after you meet core requirements, you can mix and match other alliance squads as you like
    Terrans rely more on shields - Hawker trades some shields for a higher CR rating
    Hawker has Cyber Weapons
    Hawker tends to have upgrades for more HP and MV, while Terrans have more upgrades for shields and beams.  This gives Terrans a bit of a range advantage with upgrades, while hawker ends up a little more durable and can make up some of the speed / range deficit by pulling ships from another race
    Hawker ships tend to be expensive, especially with upgrades, including the frigates which can hurt when it comes to activation count.  Terrans can fill minimum requirements more cheaply.  

     

  7. Maybe a hawker gunship instead of a heavy cruiser?  Perhaps use something similar to the resolute, but extend the turrets all the way out to RB 4 and drop either the HP or CR (or both) down a notch.  I would love to see a 4/6/5/4 turret on a Hawker Gunship, with an optional Cyber turret, and put it in the 90 point range - there isn't much in the alliance or Terran fleets that currently occupies that point zone.

  8. 8 hours ago, BluFlcn said:

    I've seen the cruisers with painted bridges, but the only ones are by Knautscher. I actually modeled my Terrans off of his and have done pretty much the same but with blue instead of industrial yellow (couldn't make the yellow not look horrid). I've only got the battleship and one cruiser group painted and so I've never bothered taking pictures of them. Got distracted by literally every other faction under the sun.

    Hope this helps:
     

     

    Yep, that thread is where I got the idea for the Bridges on my Templars.  I didn't look closely at the other ships, though, and now that I look for it, it gives me some ideas.  Thanks for the link!

  9. Has anyone tried painting bridges on the Missionaries?    The only spot that makes sense is under the top turret, but I'm not sure I love that for a bridge - I'd love to see what someone else has done, but a search on the forums doesn't show anyone with painted bridge windows.

  10. 1 hour ago, Ryjak said:

    While I agree players should examine all their fleet building options, it seems most do not want to mix factions.  Whatever draws someone to the various Support/Mercenary fleets is what they're interested in, and they don't seem to be interested in mixing multiple factions together.

    For example, I don't know many RSN players that include any anything in their fleet beyond RSN.  Maybe one used a Work's Raptor squadron.  Same for Tarakians, and they only have three ships they can field.

    Further, you must fill your minimum Fleet requirements from one Faction, creating the core of your Fleet.  You can't grab a Hawker Battleship, Tarakian Cruisers, and Ryuishi Corvettes to form an Alliance Fleet.  I would hate to misrepresent this to a player.

    You make an excellent point about core requirements.  I would prefer they relax or get rid of those altogether, but as it stands you will spend a good chunk of your points filling core requirements.

    When I decide to expand into alliance ships (which I will do when I'm playing regularly) I'll likely pick the cheapest core fleet so I can mix and match as much as possible.  When your faction theme is all of the Minor races working together, it doesn't feel right to only use a very limited subset.

  11. 1 hour ago, Ryjak said:

    While I agree players should examine all their fleet building options, it seems most do not want to mix factions.  Whatever draws someone to the various Support/Mercenary fleets is what they're interested in, and they don't seem to be interested in mixing multiple factions together.

    For example, I don't know many RSN players that include any anything in their fleet beyond RSN.  Maybe one used a Work's Raptor squadron.  Same for Tarakians, and they only have three ships they can field.

    Further, you must fill your minimum Fleet requirements from one Faction, creating the core of your Fleet.  You can't grab a Hawker Battleship, Tarakian Cruisers, and Ryuishi Corvettes to form an Alliance Fleet.  I would hate to misrepresent this to a player.

    You make an excellent point about core requirements.  I would prefer they relax or get rid of those altogether, but as it stands you will spend a good chunk of your points filling core requirements.

    When I decide to expand into alliance ships (which I will do when I'm playing regularly) I'll likely pick the cheapest core fleet so I can mix and match as much as possible.  When your faction theme is all of the Minor races working together, it doesn't feel right to only use a very limited subset.

  12. 30 minutes ago, Ryjak said:

     That is an interesting way to look at things… How does Pathogen fit it?  A faction within a faction? 

    The only way I could describe Pathogen is as "the modelers fleet".  It doesn't work with anyone else, it doesn't have its own models (as far as I know), and its going to require extensive work to get it up and running.  Honestly, I'm not sure why its in the Marauders pdf, since it literally can't be used with any other marauder models or any other faction and has a chart specifically to say that.  It should really just be its own pdf.

  13. 2 minutes ago, Ryjak said:

     Sounds like a job for @Spartan Linde

     

     

    You got it; how else would you count them?  You can play all the way up to a Grand Fleet with every faction, and never use allies. 

    I would count them as a single faction, just like I would in any other game with a mixed faction (see Merc & Minions in Warmachine and Hordes, for example).  They use the same pdf, the same fleet manual and fleet lists, and can be mixed and matched without penalty.   While you could play only Works Raptor, or Hawker, you're limiting yourself to sub selections within each full faction.  That is similar to saying - I'm running the "old ships faction" of Terrans.  I only run Razorthorns, Pilgrims, Sentinels, and the Zenith.  In the end, its not really a faction, its just picking a sub section of the available models within the faction.  

    IMO, this is big for expectations and I would hate to misrepresent this to a player.  Lets say player X is an Alliance of Kurak player and has purchased the Hawker patrol box.  If Spartan releases more models for Ryushi, Tarakians, and Xelocians, player X has received 3 releases, the faction is receiving support, and player X is likely happy.  If, however, we tell them that Hawker is its own faction, and player X has chosen to play "Hawker" in exclusion to the whole faction, player X has received no releases and is likely unhappy.

  14. Had a bit of a slowdown in painting, but I worked out a quick trial Missionary for where to put which colors.  I bought some tape to try to tape off the straight lines, but the tape I got is way too large for something as small as the strips on the Missionary.  I've started on the other 3 ships but will be sticking with sloppy stripes on the frigates for now.  

     

    large.MissonaryTop.jpg.1a1cda6b97e5b8759

  15. 25 minutes ago, nobody1988 said:

    That was very easy^^

    First white Primer on the whole model, let it dry over night. Use masking tape for straight lines. Now just black prime the whole thing. Done ;)

    Yeah, I think I need smaller tape for the strips on some of my ships.  do they make 1mm tape? lol

  16. 15 minutes ago, Starslayer said:

    Ok, it would be nice to have just a basic write up on strengths/weaknesses, basic tactics, etc stickied in each of the factions forums.  That would help newbies out a lot.  The basics of the faction could be explained by experience players- who has lots of shields, fighter wings, short or long range firepower, speed, etc. Im not looking for some detailed analysis, just the basic flavor of each main faction.  It would make the game more approachable for new players. Im looking at info on the main 6 factions. They have been around awhile , so Im surprised no one has a basic short write-up.  I guess I'll keep looking.

    Here is one of the several posts from the thread linked earlier by Commodore Jones.  Is it not what you were looking for?

    Also, Ryjak, how on earth do you get 22 factions?  You're not breaking out the individual members of The Alliance of Kurak, the Zenian League as thier own factions, are you?

    Aquans

    Strengths: Very mobile. Solid firepower. Bring lots of SRS. Reasonably durable. Guns on almost all sides. Good squadron sizes. Good mines. Difficult target on some t2s.

    Weaknesses: Overrated t3s. Not very high crit ratings. Not great past band 2 with most ships. Boarding in general is kinda bad. 

    Overall: Very strong, imo top in strength of main 6 races. By no means does this make them unbeatable. You can make a good list to do a bit of everything without really sacrificing anything. Their natural ally is mediocre at best.

    Dindrenz

    Strength: Very long range fore fixed guns. Very good damage fore fixed guns. Good crit rating. 

    Weaknesses: Gunracks(only fire to 1 side for broadsides). Poor turn rates. No shields whatsoever.  Ablative plating(your crit rating drops once you get very hurt).

    Overall: One of the weaker of the main 6, better do a lot of damage as they come in, because once they get close you're at a disadvantage, be sure to use your gunracks well, they aren't really that bad. Enjoy your turn 1 frigates(really sucks). Their natural ally is extremely good.

    Directorate

    Strength: Cyber warfare is a lot of fun. Some fantastic boarding units. Good mix of types of ships to fill all roles. Evil Corporate Overlord(yes that's a strength). KILL CREW it's funny.

    Weakness: Squadron size sucks horribly(2 man squadrons are the worst). Tied in with 2 man squadrons you just hemorrhage battle log from a lot of t2s. Your basic battleship is a pile.

    Overall: Another of the bottom half in power but a personal favorite of mine. The play style suits me, which is be annoying. For straight ship gun strength to go head to head, look elsewhere. Target priority is very big for these guys. Knowing what is gonna wreck your day and handling it first is big. Their natural ally is solid but nothing spectacular.

    Relthoza

    Strengths: Cloaking on almost everything, as well as stealth systems, so VERY hard to damage from long range. Good SRS capability. Ability to pick when to engage in full or wait for a better time. 

    Weakness: Not durable at all once cloaks are down. Semi poor offense until you decloak. Not very good weapon range.

    Overall: I consider these right behind aquans, but take this with a grain of salt as this is the only one of the main 5 I do not own, so I know by far the least about. Played well they seem to be very strong with their ability to make it into the mid game mostly unhurt but this hinges entirely on your ability to know when to cloak and decloak. Natural allies are solid. 

    Sorylian

    Strengths: Frigates, yup they're that good. Some good T2's in almost all ways. Great vs gas clouds or difficult/elusive heavy lists. Very solid firepower in the right range. Boarding, but don't let it fool you, it's actually beyond overrated, still one of their strengths. 

    Weakness: No good admiral vessel, at all(this is their biggest problem). Boarding is bad because you have no way to remove crew or AP aside from blind luck, so taking ships over is unlikely. Very short range on anything but fore fixed kinetics, which you don't want to try to max out on. Paper thin battleship.

    Overall: They round out the last of the bottom half in power. The admiral problem is paramount, if they had a good admiral vessel they'd be a LOT better off. Shunting is key, in my play, at least. Get there fast and smash into stuff. Don't bother relying on boarding to do more than get a little bit of damage on something, and good god don't build your ships around it. Weak natural ally. 

    Terran

    Strengths: They have fantastic shields. Some of the best nukes, direct and indirect. Durable T1's. Good torpedoes in general. 

    Weakness: Not great crit ratings or really even damage ratings, causing them to rely heavily on shields. Mediocre firepower on most everything, but it's enough to get the job done. Nothing is very fast. T2s are probably your weakest link, but they still aren't too bad. 

    Overall: I view them in about 3rd place in power. The enemy has to be careful not to bunch up with almost anything, or a lot of damage can be dealt with nukes. You need to be careful with ranges if you want to maximize torpedo damage, especially with armsmen, they get real garbage when not in band 4 of torps, but their beams are solid in band 2. Part of their ships are designed to sit back and lob longer range shots(mostly torps) and the other half is designed to get up and brawl. Don't forget to use sector shielding early. Natural ally is good. 

  17. Some Hawker questions

    1) Do you ever take the Excelsior or Regent without the Cyber weapons?

    2) How is the regent in general?  It seems OK as a support carrier running 5x Interceptors and 3x support shuttles, or 6x Bombers + 2x Interceptors, but it doesn't really seem all that amazing to me.  If I'm running an alliance fleet, would I generally be better taking most other options with wings, like a Ryushi carrier or a Tarakian battleship?

    3) Are the Resolutes like, really fantastic cruisers?  They seem almost like heavy cruisers both in firepower and durability.  

  18. Well, the patrol fleet has a lot of stuff in it that you didn't list.

    The Apollo is a RB 1 ship, so it fights closer in than the Tyrant.  It can be made just as tough as the Tyrant, excluding the Shield Projector self, and you can give it Sector Shielding, which is a rule I have fun with.  It doesn't have wings, available, though, and after upgrades its almost as expensive points wise as the tyrant.  

    The Teuton is a versatile cruiser with the upgrades, but it costs a lot of points to tweak out the Teuton too, which really lowers its points to firepower ratio.  I've been toying with it minimally upgraded (only beams) with an added shield cruiser.  

    Armsmen are armsmen - they are solid ships, but if there is a lot of PD around, they are, essentially, just an expensive Wayfarer.  

    If you want to run what you listed, you're probably better off getting individual squads.  If you're looking to sneak shield cruisers into your list easily, you'll probably want to have at least one squad of teutons.  The patrol box gets you the armsmen and teutons, so it really depends if you want the apollo.

×
×
  • 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.