Jump to content

qnsung

Member
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About qnsung

  • Rank
    Spica

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

309 profile views
  1. Naz i agree that the Aquatic Assault MAR specifically allows a model with it to board while submerged or a submerged model. What i am saying is that nowhere in the new rulebook does it say that you cannot board from a submerged height band or a submerged model. This was also the case in the Robot boarding section of the 2.0 rulebook. I admit that the intent of the rules is most likely that there was meant to be a caveat in the limitation lists for both the normal and robot boarding sections, at this point in time there isn't, in either of the sections. Maybe @Spartan Mike this needs to be put into an updated FAQ asap.
  2. Uh guys the rules as written in the 2.5 rulebook do not say that a Robot can't board while submerged, neither did the 2.0 rules as written.
  3. Bratr you would get 2 wings of 3 fighters
  4. Hi Guys, Just putting my 2 cents in with the Zhanmandao debate, first can i say i think it is probably a bit undercosted, but not ridiculously OP. The most similar model to compare it to would be the RoF Vauban. Keep in mind this is going off the base model without upgrades initially Zhanmandao stats/Vauban Stats Both massive surface skimming vessels (one naval one armourered) DR - 8/7 (normal for Chinese to have 1 higher DR accross the board) CR - 12/12 - Same Move - 7" (360)/6" (Large) - Zhan wins out on this one HP - 12/12 - Same AP - 10 Elite/10 Elite - Same AA - 6 (Redoubtable)/9 ® - Vauban by a long shot CC - 6 ®/6 - Zhans wins because of the general Redoubable MAR Rockets - 2x -/7/9/11 (Incindiary/2x -/11/11/11 - yes the Zhan has incindiary but Vauban gets a much better AD spread Zhan gets flamers but the Vauban gets broadsides that can link with the turrets and hits out to RB4 so i think these are pretty much equal Turrets - 2x15/13/11/9 (Redoubtable) / 4x10/9/8/5 - i feel that these pretty much equal out in AD spread given the numbers and the fact that the Vauban can link in with the broadsides however the Zhan would probably win this round simply based on the Redoubtable Carrier - 4 (Redoubtable)/ 9 - vauban wins this one even without redoubtable Both have Fuel reserves Security Posts - 3/2 Zhan has Isolated systems 3+ - this is big win for the Zhan Zhan has Rugged (2) Vauban has Retardant (2) - in terms of these two MARs particularly in large and massive models they are nearly equal, with rugged you should be throwing large numbers of dice at the model anyway so the loss of two won't be felt as much as if you were shooting at smalls, with retardant it can have a big effect as often exploding dice can mean the difference between a crit or not Strategic Value 125/100 - Vauban wins this one Rampart Generator - it is hard to cost this one as it needs other models to be useful - yes it should be part of the cost but i don't feel that is it a significant part Upgrades - I'm not going to go into huge detail with this one other than to say that i think the Vauban gets the win here based entirely on the Cloud Generator, for 20 points its a steal, even the option for having carrier 12 on the Zhan is not better that this generator Points Cost 280/300 - right here is the kicker, why is the Zhanmandao 20 points cheaper? I feel that these models are nearly comparable and they probably should be close to the same points costing. Yes the Zhanmandao needs a nerf (again) but i think the focus group has to be careful not to nerf it too far, then you just end up yoyoing back and forth. Cheers Q oh and I am a staunch Chinese player, 8000 points and growing (once some new models come out, oh and i may need another dragon just because it is an awesome model )
  5. until
    Come along to the second annual Shepparton Miniature Gamers Dystopian Wars Tournament. Details can be found at the event FB page here; https://www.facebook.com/events/489902901184625/
  6. Fair points on your response Drachenfutter, I think the local meta play's an important role in deciding how tournaments are run. The local meta in my area seem to be happy with using the objective cards in tournaments, there have been 2 in the area this year and for the first there was significant discussion around whether it should be run with objectives and both sides of the argument were put forward, in the end it was pretty much unanimous to use the objective cards in the first one. After that the feedback was that people were happy with using them. We ran them in the second tournament that I personally TO'ed, and they worked well, and we had a really good mix of fleets, none of which whitewashed accross the board (you can see pictures of the fleets and the results here https://www.facebook.com/Annual-SMG-Dystopian-Wars-Tournament-839280422856590/), it was a very close tournament. If most people however expressed a wish to run scenarios i would seriously push your scenario pack as the scenarios to use, they are well thought out and look to be pretty much as well balanced as you can make scenarios.
  7. While the scenarios may be winnable for any faction, I think that this is beside the point, my only argument against these scenarios is that in this game factions are geared toward specific playstyles with their models and stats, with a number particularly geared toward closing quickly with an enemy and engaging close range. These scenarios force you to do that which gives them an advantage and gives fleets that rely on long range weapons to soften these fleets up less time to do that. The difference between moving 2" or at parralell to the advancing enemy fleet and having to move forward to contest and objective can mean the difference of 2 turns of shooting where they cannot be shot effectively at for long range fleets. Anyway enough of my ranting Oh I play Chinese, Italians and EotBS so i would love these scenarios, i love it when people get close to my flamethrowers
  8. Hi All, Great work on the pack Drachenfutter, it is really well presented and offers some really interesting scenarios. I love playing scenarios in friendly games but I have generally found it is very hard to make them fair to all fleets and builds in a tournament setting, sooooo I am going to be the devil's advocate and raise the question of how fair the scenarios are towards some fleets, in all but two of the scenarios, Destruction by numbers and Mutually assured destruction, the objective is to either close and board an objective or have a models within a certain distance of an objective. Doesn't this advantage certain fleets and also effectively eliminate certain fleet builds from the tournament scene? A Covenant fleet built around energy turrets is disadvantaged if they are forced to close prematurely with the opposing fleet, also requiring a covenant fleet to board an objective makes them very vulnerable because they have fewer AP to perform this role. Conversely a Russian fleet would be advantaged by having their opponent forced to close with them and with high numbers of AP they would feel the pinch less having to send them onto an objective. This can be done for many different fleets, I feel that it would force people into certain fleets and fleet builds at the tournament to ensure a viable list that can actually achieve the objective and still survive. I find that with so many varying styles of fleet and players it is hard to come up with scenarios that don't force people into certain play style. While the objective cards to get boring and often predictable they don't force the player into a play style Anyway just my 2 cents worth, again though you have done an awesome job with the document and I will certainly be suggesting that we use the scenarios for some friendly games at my club Cheers
  9. My first battle report for DW, a massive fight between the Chinese Federation and the Federated States of America. https://element270.wordpress.com/2015/06/29/chinese-federation-face-the-federated-states-of-america/ Cheers Q
  10. Has anyone else noticed in the Battle Groups section of the new stats the Jian has a Mark III? Typo or are we getting another version of the Jian
  11. Hi, small error in the infantry bunkers; CoA, FSA, RoF: All good KoB: with the heavy and medium bunkers you only pay the cost of upgrading one infantry company Russian, EotBS, PE: Lists three infantry companies in the heavy bunker but you pay the cost for upgrading all three for each entry thanks for all the hard work
  12. qnsung

    Steward

    emmachine I tried out the Lysander Mk2 and Cromwell combination out a couple of weeks ago, my opponent was both shocked and appalled. It worked incredibly well, the only problem is that the Lysander is only a Large model thus can have some LOS issues at times but i got around this with a Brunell and a Royal Oak spotting for them.
×
×
  • 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.