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


Everything posted by Overread

  1. The closer we get to any kind of major release of the new Dystopian Wars the more I'd wager we won't see more Classics. Not that WC can't do them, but rather because more of their attention will be focused on the production for retail. Also being a Christmas period right now I'd wager they are in full WWE production at present. Of course the beta is still rolling along and the last models we saw week or so ago were still 3D print masters not resin castings so we are still a little way aways it would seem. Hopefully they can do a QA end of this year or early next to give us an idea of their roadmap and timeline toward release. We must be getting closer!!
  2. I guess for WC the main issue is drawing a line on when they can refine/change ideas and when they've got to commit to production designs. Esp if they are doing any artwork and lore writing alongside. Esp since at some stage refining a design starts to become more about personal preference than outright issues. That said with the rules beta chugging along and with 3d prints out there I'm guessing it can't be too long before we'll be talking about launch day?!
  3. One day I'm going to attend one of these big game convention thingies (just need to try and actually save up to go to one! And still have cash left to spend on things at a show). When that day happens I'll take my camera and beat all those rumour/early photo potato cameras! I'm really hoping that we are going to see ships soon - though it wouldn't surprise me if WC is still waiting to get final castings done from the actual production moulds before wowing us with them. I seem to recall that last event where the Prussians were formally shown off, were masters or somesuch. Not that I expect WC to lower in casting quality, but that I'd wager they just want to be accurate and faithful to what gets shown off.
  4. She's got that grand "Imperial Eara" pompousness to the design, esp on the prow. The guns look to e far more creative in design and are the triple barrel style! Meanwhile on the sides we've got what look like regular small gun turrets but no torpedo ports. Whilst the four corners appear to have what are either machine gun nests or shield generators. The prow still has clear torpedo slots. The smoke stacks are interesting (and possibly would have been better if the rim at the top were painted black from the smoke). A trio of stacks in a curious rectangular shape. Looks possibly a little wider whilst the engine design is pretty much identical. Looking fantastic and great to see out in the wild. Hope we get to see many more Was there much more seen and shown? If she's on a table and those are rolling dice she must have been firing at something
  5. @Jorgen_CAB however tabletop wargames have to be careful with invulnerable models. Warhammer 40K has experimented with this with things like Titans and Air units where their original versions were very hard to impossible to kill unless the opposing player took very specific counter units. Now in a warship game shifting it so that one class cannot threaten another class is fine, but it can backfire. Esp if you have factions with high diversity. For example there might be a faction that focuses on the use of smaller ships only and has no or only very few battleship class vessels; similarly another faction could be the total opposite. Furthermore players will build fleets to be the best they can and if battleships are near untouchable by anything that isn't a battleship then players are going to try to always take as many of them as they can, above and beyond other classes. Now army structure enforcement (eg must take 1 battleship per 4 frigates) can counter that somewhat; and larger counts of models on the table counters it. But it can be a rule that might make much smaller games harder to play and balance. That's important because its small games that get new players in the door. Small games that get them tempted to play and get them started. Of course you can split rules so that you've large and small scale battle rules (much like 40K has with regular and killteam rules) however as Dystopian is getting a fresh start with a new company after a dwindling period and a period of total market absence, I figure that its better the rules are weighted toward the smaller end at launch. Much like Warmachine; its better to start for the skirmish and then as the community grows build toward larger army rules as your market builds up bigger collections
  6. -1 to hit against smalls is better as a weapon property rather than a ship property because it means that its bound to specific weapons themselves. Thus the attacker is already thinking of that within their attack profile. It also means you can give it to any weapon regardless of its size or scale or the ship it is mounted upon. For example there might be gunships in the future which have battleships cannon mounted atop a frigate sized hull. Such ships would be classified as a small frigate, but the gun would be akin to a main battleship cannon. Thus the frigate would be a small firing on a small and thus the small -1 to hit when attacked by battleships rule wouldn't trigger. However if the -1 to hit frigate class is on a weapon profile then its always going to be there on the weapon no matter hte hull its mounted on. As for massing damage one angle is to reduce dice, but then you run the risk that small ships only work if they are taken in huge numbers. Instead what could be done is to base damage and impact on armour and weapon profiles. If a battleship has thicker and heavier armour then frigates might only be a viable threat to them in larger numbers, at least with their main guns. A -1 to damage or to hit or such might well represent thick armour of the battleship shrugging off lighter rounds from smaller calibre weapons. Frigates would thus be better served hunting destroys and other smaller ships, whilst not being a sensible threat to a battleship. Of course smaller ships can then make up for that with weapons like torpedoes, where you can't as easily mass them from a large group due to direct lines of fire.
  7. So a long while back I ordered a Tiksi Support Cruiser and Nikel Heavy Frigate when they both went on limited sale by WC; though it seems the Tiksi was very popular and all the stock ran out even during pre-order. So I left my order open on the chance that they'd get another chance to do another run and low and behold today (this evening in fact) a small, unexpected parcel arrived! Very pleased to get both models! Never had the chance before SG died to start a Russian force and wanted to own at least one or two ships from their range before they vanish fully (yes I know WC might well bring them back, but it might be many years before they grace the seas once more). Great sculpting work by SG and great to get the models cast up so well from WC!
  8. I think one aspect they can play with without a grand alliance system is that they can do a cold-war approach - lots of skirmishes that can then build into staged campaign or key event mission packs. Advancing the storyline is a key part of many lores so starting the game out with as few alliances and ties makes it a lot easier to then mess around and change things up. Shifting alliances and such I just hope WC keeps alliances and such to a lore side of things - that way they can shift alliances around. They can even release unique and specialist ships that are the result of alliances into specific factions. So say the Soyrlians gain a unique frigate with Relthoza cloaking as a result of an alliance between the two factions. Even if the alliance then dissolves in the story line later, the limited ships can remain and then they've got a history and connection. Far better as then the ships are also balanced specific to a race rather than being a messy "lets ally to whole factions together". Plus done that way its just another ship, so WC don't have ot give every faction an "alliance ship" of their own. The Sorylians get a Relthoza hybrid ship, but the Aquians just get a regular Aquian ship release.
  9. One aspect could be to introduce wrecks. When big ships take significant damage to the point of being rendered inoperable/sunk or destroyed; instead of removing the model totally its instead replaced with a sunk version of itself (out of the box this could mean just leaving the model there and putting a red counter next to it to denote that its blown up - sinking ship models could be conversion opportunities or optional purchases from WC). For battleships, carriers and dreadnoughts this would be one way to have the ship linger even though its destroyed - adding to a longer feeling of the game and adding the ship now as a terrain feature - an obstacle. this comes at the issue of ships from another angle; instead of trying to make it so huge ships can escape battles, reasonable but hard to achieve in a game that might only get 6 turns at most and many times might be far fewer. Instead this approach is more practical to a game of this length and creates something a bit new (many games now don't use wreckage - in fact that last game I recall with any was Epic 40000 when you blew up a titan)
  10. I think one thing that stood out a bit more in design with Relthozian and Aquian ships was how weapons were not as apparent in design. Take a Dindrenzi or Sorylian and the guns are VERY easy to see. Relthozian or Aquian you have to use a bit more imagination - its the kind of thing that is great if the box art has a nice drawn art sketch with guns blazing to show off how the various alien appearing pats are supposed to look when firing and in combat. I think the old background lacked in this identity. SG just never really put out enough stories, artwork and styles to really give factions the same identity. Many of the races were quite faceless and could have been just human factions with funny names. I think that hampered some of the old lore in getting a strong foothold; so I'm really hoping that WC can push the lore and artwork more strongly. Just to get that visual identity to spark the imagination of players when they are playing.
  11. The issue is that in a ship game I just can't see retreating ship getting much chance to actually retreat before the end of the game; or at least a point where both players can see who is going to win. I agree its no realistic, but then we've got submarines with chainsaw blades on top; we've got walking castles; giant squid machines, hovering cities and even ships that can hover/fly for short periods. We are already within a totally alien setup. I think that the kind of tactics you want would be better in a much smaller game where you might have only 4 or 5 ships a side and where each is far more detailed in control and how the game plays out. I a game that Dystopian Wars tends to aim for I think killing stuff has to happen if all those powerful machines and monsters are going to feel powerful in the game to players. Of course killing should still be a few turns off for most bigger ships and it doesn't want to swing to the extreme where ships are knocked out every 5 mins etc...
  12. Thing is if you've got a tough ship then getting it damaged to the point it turns away and actually can move out of the battle field in a Dystopian Wars game is going to be hard. Mostly because you're looking at a lot of activity turns to achieve that end result when the game might be well over before its really moved out of battle. In games like Firestorm ships can leap out of battle in an instant through hyperjumping; or in games like Warhammer units cna turn on the spot and flee backwards. With battleships the movement system means it might take a whole turn just to turn around to flee and then another whole turn to at least start moving out of the battlefield. If it took a turn to get into range then a couple to do damage, by the time you are retreating the game might already be nearly over. You've also got to balance hte fact that people want to destroy and sink enemy ships. They want that moment when the ship blows up and detonates. Now there's a few ways I think you can get this to work in game: 1) Tiers of ships. Your destroyer or frigate might just go down - little to no crippled state; but in contrast they'll come in larger groups. 2) Battleships, carriers etc... - big ships that can take a pounding and become crippled and have an overall performance drop, but which can still be readily sunk with concentrated fire. 3) Dreadnoughts, titans etc... - the vast ships that I think work best with the idea of regions of damage. Ergo you might destroy their fore weapons; or their port weapons or their rear engines and weapons. Ergo instead of being able to take out the whole ship you might only disable and cripple bits of it. This creates a sense of long term survival of the biggest ships; but also leaves in the possibility of luck in taking one out - making those moments rarer and more desirable and enjoyable when they happen. Note that crippling and the idea of retreating could be replaced with wreckage. A battleship, or larger, that sinks could be represented by a token base representing the hull of the ship steadily sinking. Creating a new obstacle in the game, which should be right in the thick of the action and thus a viable and readily risky element that's right in game the moment the ship goes down. Something like a magazine hit could shatter the ship so that it sinks so fast it doesn't make a wreck to sink, but also has the area effect of the blast to damage any nearby ships. Thus rewarding good positioning, reducing the chances of units bunching up and creating a dynamic terrain setup of the gam.e
  13. Spartan Games even had great bases for Halo. Personally I think its a big step forward for space games; use the base to track stats and other things. So long as its practical its a great idea, esp for larger ships which come with a larger base and thus can hold more info and thus let larger ships be more complex. It always feels odd when big ships take damage like a small ship and you can't knock out segments of it etc... Even if its as simple as fore, port, starboard and engines (rear)
  14. I think its also because their marketing is pushing more on Dystopian Wars at present; which makes sense they've got the Beta rules test running and they've got old casts being sold to help build interest. Launching Dystopian Wars and running that for a few months would likely clear the air and leave them space to bring in Firestorm (and honestly I'd wager Firestorm to be coming out right after Dystopain Wars possibly before the scale shifted land version of the Dwars game).
  15. Agreed, but at the same time I don't want to return to the old SG era of blog posts that go nowhere. Right now most of WC's marketing is very similar to GW in that what we see is stuff coming very soon with little hinting at the long term. I would think part of this is because WC is still setting itself up so everything is new and can throw up unforseen twists and turns. I'd wager once they've got one or two games out we might see longer forecasting of releases once they've got a stronger handle on their end and the player end too.
  16. I wouldn't expect nor hope for any news until both Dystopian Wars and Firestorm Armarda are on the market. Even then it might have to be after the land versions of both those games come out. Uncharted needs the most work of any of the games; even right now WC could just roll with the old sculpts for the other games; but Uncharted still needed revamping at the end of its life (whilst the quality had gone up, many of the sculpts were old and showed their age - the Dragon Lord ships are very plain and mostly just wooden boarding on the hull - a couple of their last ships released were far more detailed with metal banding and windows etc... and its clear that the ships of Dystopian and FA prove that the overall quality could be improved far further).
  17. I've always felt that Unit as a word is iffy to use. It can refer both to a single model and to a group of models (often of the same type). Whilst it can be defined its a term that casually can mean both. It might be better to use terms that are more universally specific - so model for a single model (as it can't be interpreted any other way) etc...
  18. I think its also that WC doesn't want to do what SG did which is to actually promise stuff before its ready - which is a good thing. Last thing they want to do is promise stuff and then find that it changes significantly for a myriad of reasons. We might still be a year away or more from FA returning to the market (I hope sooner but I'm wagering on a year from the launch of Dystopian Wars).
  19. One aspect is that many of these details just might not be ironed out yet - the focus is clearly on Dystopain Wars at present so much of the FA stuff could still be a bit up in the air as to what is going to happen. So it can be hard to give firm answers because there's no firm reply other than a lot of possibilities. Another aspect to consider is not to forget that information is interpreted different ways by different people; and when information is short or summarised the interpretation and extrapolation of that information might vary quite significantly between people. Eg the Directorate might well have inherited a lot of tech from another faction which then dictate their ship design. One person might interpret that as fine and fill in all the blanks themselves; another person might then ask "but why are their ships shaped like they are as it doesn't follow their other faction properties." Ergo whilst the second person can certainly imagine answers, they'd rather have firm answers to those questions rather than guesswork (and the more players have to make up their own lore to fill in the blanks the bigger any divide on impressions can be).
  20. Myself I hope that what WC captures is the feel of the factions. With a different author its no surprise that things will shift and change and its clear that WC is going to change the political scene and likely focus on having the factions standing more alone than united into two (grand alliance) megablocks opposing each other. What I hope is that they retain the feel, theme and style of each faction and build upon it. That Relthoza remain the cloaked shadowy spiders lurking in their ships built with vast open areas within. A deadly force to strike without warning and slip away again after. To retain the mighty Sorylian lizards who tower over men; built in strong bodies with powerful machines and a lot of vast broadsides of cannon that they will rush up and turn their sides to unleash in devastating barrages of fire. The politics might change; the reasons for war and the alliances and even some of the minor factions might vanish or never reappear or might appear in different ways. But I'd hope that WC retains the feel and theme; the style and the atmosphere of the game. And I'd wager that WC didn't just buy FA because it was cheap on the market and because it was floundering - there has to be love of the game and its lore and its themes within the WC company, otherwise they could have made their very own Space Game without any Spartan Games ties to it. Indeed I'd wager if WC want to build on the lore and make it stronger and actually formally publish more of the lore into paper format to put into the hands of gamers then it is a good thing to let their own writers and creative people be a bit more free with the lore and setting. SG didn't build the FA world to be expanded upon by other writers, they haven't got book after book of detailed lore and facts and such that can be used as a creative backbone to put meat on a story. It's just not there like one might get if you were to write, say, a Dungeons and Dragons book set in the Sword Coast. With small information there would be changes, but there would also be a stagnation of creativity as it would be shackled to ideas and concepts that were never fully realised before. Like I said I don't mind and I expect change, but at the same time I hope for a feel and structure of factions to be the solid foundation upon which those changes are based. PS I'm not saying SG did badly, they just didn't publish a huge library of lore in the same way as some other franchises have.
  21. Hey who knows they could have signed a deal with Halo and Starwars IP to combine them into FA!
  22. You will be glad to know that there will be plenty of company for you in Shepherd Book's "Special Hell" along with those who talk at the cinema as well!
  23. Update from the Beta Facebook group " Ahoy fellow Dystopian Wars Beta Testers! The plan going forward is to update the Beta document regularly. We are aiming for the second and fourth Thursday of each month. The latest update to the Beta is now online. Changes from the previous revision are numerous but are as follows: General clarification and grammar/typo corrections. Added more terms to the glossary Revised images for Action Dice Symbols and Critical Damage symbols to more closely match the products already being manufactured. Changed Short Range to Closing. Unit cards have not had that terminology change as yet but will do in the next update. Clarified Fire Arcs and Line of Sight Updated Obscured Condition to give an additional benefit when stacked. Clarified SRS token use and that they literally stack as well as figuratively. New illustrations to reinforce that point. Increased range of SRS tokens. Changed Generator Power Up to happen on a 'Counter' result. Generators made more easy to Power Up through Victory and Valour cards. Update to the Victory and Valour deck to increase the variety and add new in-game effects. Particular note are two new Valour abilities that make repairing and generator activation easier as well as introducing the ability to piggy-back an additional activation. Updates to generic ships to include obscured rule on Aerial and Submerged units as well as Attribute corrections. Modifications to the effectiveness of Support weapon values and Mortars in general. Tweak to Rockets and Torpedo effectiveness. Revised how Initiative is earned and added an additional benefit for those that want to 'Hold Their Nerve'. Clarified that attacks are not simultaneous. Units can now stop and move backwards! Revised the Escort rule. Removed Twin Screw and Homing Torpedo Outfitting Cards Expanded Squadron rules and explained multiple model units. Expanded more detail on Fleet building rules. Added two Common Encounters to the Beta. Added the Blast/Torrent Template and resized the Turning template. It is now the same size as the second edition Medium template. Made Boarding more deadly and broadened results. Made criticals more effective against both Activated and yet to Activate units. Updated Ramming profile (value of Ramming will be added to unit cards in next update, the profile is given in rules doc already)."
  24. I think what Richard means is that Dystopian Wars and Firestorm are very different beasts. With Dystopian Wars Warcradle made a clear move to combine two IPs into one for their release structure. That in itself brought a lot of changes to the structure and political scene of Dystopian Wars. Firestorm has no such twinning and being as the only other space games on the market are Dropzone and Starwars - neither of which are going anywhere near administration - I doubt there would be one. That means its got far less chance of the more major changes that Dystopain Wars has experienced. Of course I expect a lot of change, but I'd wager many of the core elements will remain the same (Sorylians are Lizards - Relthoza are Spider thingies
  25. Agreed there should be a healthy spread. That Dreadnought should be able to take pounding hit after hit and still make it through most of the game dishing out damage even if it loses guns and features and control. IT might even have damage tables broken down by segments and such. Meanwhile the destroyer doesn't need all that, it might have a crippled state but otherwise its going to die if it comes under big fire. The trick then is ensuring that the game features bigger targets so that early on you don't want to fire your big guns at the little boat - or even have it so that bigger weapons track smaller scale targets worse - land a hit with your main gun on a destroyer and its gone but its a very lucky shot - better to fire it into that big battleship and use smaller weapons for smaller craft.
  • 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.