Jump to content

jupjupy

Member
  • Content Count

    283
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

jupjupy last won the day on August 19 2015

jupjupy had the most liked content!

About jupjupy

  • Rank
    Altcap

Recent Profile Visitors

467 profile views
  1. jupjupy

    Generator queries

    Just clearing this up. You're right in saying that the generator entry will tell you what happens, and as such, Storm Generators say this: "If a Squadron for any reason does not have sufficient Storm Points to maintain a Storm Template, the Template must be removed immediately. If a Squadron maintains multiple Storm Templates the controlling player may decide which Templates should be removed." Hence Storm Generators do have to be maintained, which does not seem to be the case for other template generators.
  2. jupjupy

    Generator queries

    One of my own questions: if a Generator that places a template (e.g dilation field, storm) gets shut down, does the template also disappear? If yes, what if, say, an ottoman cruiser squadron that spends 2 points for one template and keeps the last one places a template down, then gets one of their generators shut down? Does the template still disappear?
  3. jupjupy

    2.5 Orbats Notes

    Eclipse universal ruling states that they don't have to follow Force Composition Rule #3, same as it used to state in 2.0. However, Force Composition Rule #3 used to be the Core/Non-core part of the book, but is now about all forces requiring a Commodore. As I'm pretty certain the Eclipse Company still need a commander.... This is likely a typo, and should refer to Force Composition Rule #4.
  4. jupjupy

    Official Thread: Chinese Federation

    Of course, I do see your point, BuckDharma, but ignoring it is a death sentence considering it gets deployed rather close to your fleet, and focusing it is not an easy task given it's giant health pool. That being said, firstly, Strategic Value does not apply when being prized, not like 870 points is much less considering its incredible value, but not only should you NOT be throwing a carrier 12 heavy dice pool into range of boarders (and especially not ones that can take down 10 elite + 6 or so AA + 3 security posts!), but it is a tactical consideration to know when to let the ZMD take fire and when to get it out of there. My overall point was that, while it is easy to crit, yes, it is overall far more difficult to cripple and finish off. While it does not take a lot of firepower to hit it, it is in that spot where any extra firepower would not be pushing for a double crit, maybe at most a damaging crit with some overwhelming dice. In comparison, other dreadnoughts are almost utterly neutered at around 4, 5 damage, except maybe the Prometheus' energy weapons or the broadsides on the Kanuni. On the other hand, I don't think the ZMD would be fun to play with or play against at all if it was the other way around: weak attacks but high defenses. Being hard to hit and weak to retaliate, every game will end up being a fest of "ignore the forbidden palace", which is certainly not what we want to happen. Think the Japanese Yurei, except without the cool boarding shenanigans. Now, at least, it requires strict decision making on each side to figure out how to use it, how to counter it, and what the end goal for each commander should be. Overall it is a much more tactically pressuring model on both the player and the opponent, and I think with some playtesting and good old trial and error, the ZMD in its current state will be where and what it wants to be in the Chinese navy.
  5. jupjupy

    Official Thread: Chinese Federation

    My apologies for the mistakes, you are absolutely right. The Redoubtable Carrier points was something I had carried over from 2.0, though looking back, that was probably a mistake as well given how the rules were written. Anyway, I have amended the above post in case anyone catches it
  6. jupjupy

    Official Thread: Chinese Federation

    I do agree it is a pretty hard nerf, but end stats wise I believe it is completely justified. Let us take the ship closest to the ZMD in stats as a comparison: The FSA Enterprise. At 280 points, the Enterprise is a full 40 points cheaper than the Zhan, so for this we shall upgrade it with the Shield (3) Generator, putting the points cost at 310 versus 320. Both are rolling at 8/13, with 6'' of movement. The ZMD has three more health than the Enterprise, as well as being able to move 360-degrees, is skimming, and has no minimum move. Defense-wise, it will take an average of 14 dice to crit the ZMD, while the Enterprise takes a substantially more 20! Without calculating for movement use, the ZMD is at a significant disadvantage because it is much easier to get 14 dice on a single roll than it is to get 20. In terms of AP, AA, CC, and IR, the Enterprise is rolling at 10/8/5/8, while the ZMD is rolling at 10/6/6/6. While the ZMD is only minutely tougher to torpedoes, it is weaker to rockets. The ZMD, however, does have Security Posts (3), which allows it some safety from boarding threats. In terms of firepower, the Enterprise has three gun turrets at 12/10/8/6, producing a linked firepower of 27/23/19/15 inclusive of Sustained Fire (3), as well as two rocket batteries at 7/8/9/0 for a linked fire of 11/12/14/0. It also has a broadside putting out a piddly 9/7/5/0. The ZMD has two concussive gun turrets at 15/13/11/9, producing a linked firepower of 23/20/17/14, as well as three rocket batteries at 0/6/7/8 for a linked fire of 0/12/14/16. It also has four heavy flamethrowers in the four cardinal directions throwing out 12/6/0/0. But wait, there's more! The ZMD has full Redoubtable, meaning it will shrug off any damage far more than the Enterprise ever will, its two gun turrets, Ack-Ack, and CC batteries firing long after a less hardy ship would have gone down. In addition, it also has Isolated Systems (4+), letting it bounce those pesky critical hits, half of the time anyway. The ZMD is also Massive +1, due to surface skimmer, and can therefore see over Large models without obstruction. As such, I'm sure we can agree that the overall firepower of the ZMD in every range band surpasses that of the Enterprise, not inclusive of that nonsense deadeye gunnery commodore trait. Of course, the ZMD is also a fortification, meaning two major things: It is deployed advanced, and as such, it cannot have a commodore on it. Being placed in Advanced Deployment means that a player not only will likely move it slightly further up compared to the rest of their force (and as such it will get shot more), but it will also get shot more compared to the Enterprise. But with it's 360-degree movement, it can actually retreat at full speed as well. Now, let's talk about the utility bits. The ZMD has a Rampart Generator for... you know, great wall stuff. That's really what it was built for, anyway. With it not affecting friendlies anymore, it can do what it was built to do with little fear. The un-upgraded ZMD is a Carrier 4, with one wing of 4 planes. Useful, but not that useful. Upgraded to 385 points (of course, no longer within the points range of the Enterprise), the ZMD gets Carrier 9, with a host of three wings of 4 planes each. In conclusion, the ZMD at 320 points is an incredibly versatile ship that is very resistant to battle damages, but overall a little less tanky than its naval counterparts. Its ability to field planes cannot be understated, as even the single wing of 4 gives you DOUBLE the activations that its contemporaries would provide. It's firepower is still above average for its price, and redoubtable/tertiary weapon systems and auxiliaries means its putting out the same amount of hurt turn after turn. Being a universal model, it has no problems sitting on terrain, and can quickly move behind islands to hide should it need to. Still a solid choice, but no longer blatantly undercosted as before.
  7. jupjupy

    Area Bombardment

    Right, really off topic here, but lets look at your average boarding statistics: Assuming you fire a single torpedo salvo that kills one Turtle (since we dont actually have stats for anything that isnt one of these yet), youre now faced with 5 AP, each with Terror Tactics (1). Jumping on an Aristotle which has taken, say, 3 damage, this means you're up against 3 AA. Of which an average roll will kill 1 (closer to 2, but lets round down) AP. So you're throwing 4+4 Reckless boarders at an Aristotle, which has 6 Elite defenders. On an average roll, 8 Reckless will hit an average of 8. 6 Elite will hit an average of 7.2. So both sides are wiped out, and as a result the Aristotle takes a Sabotage. That's it. Even IF you landed with every single Turtle, the Aristotle would still wipe all of them out. And this is probably the weakest Large to boarders in the game right now. Now, if they decide to jump onto a Cruiser, you'll be up against more AA (generally, barring extremely heavy damage to the squadron) and less AP, of which AA is generally more effective in this situation due to it taking out 2 AP per hit. Your best bet with these subs is either to finish off a ship that has already been boarded or is so down in the dumps after Hard Poundings that it's got nothing to shoot your boarders with. Battlecruisers are probably also juicy targets, due to lower AP and AA values. As it is, they're being paid for by the Boston, so if you wipe the Boston, well, there's most of your points back. That being said, getting a Magazine Explosion on a small sub is still like... 2 dice at 4+. Might kill one if you're lucky.
  8. jupjupy

    Terrifying on tiny model

    @Aurikon I think you might have mis-interpreted Grand-Stone's statement. What he really means is: If a terrifying weapon HITS a tiny model which has no CR value, is there just a disorder test or is there a disorder test that needs an additional success? Rules As Written, it should be the former.
  9. jupjupy

    CAP query in 2.5

    In general, as far as reading the rules go, I get the gist that in 2.5 a CAP is treated as a model within the parent squadron, which means they share activations and perhaps even coherency, but otherwise function as solo models. As such, other than that, I see no reason to treat an escort and CAPs differently. An escort/CAP must be within range of an aerial attacker to defend against it, as normal. They must be within range of the parent model to defend it from Boarding Assault, like normal. Hence, for defending against rockets, the same rule as to escorts and other squadron members applies: 4'' from parent model to be able to defend it. Your second question, however, is more interesting. As a CAP is technically part of the squadron, the parent model should theoretically be able to assist in the fight if its an aerial model (and is within 4'' from the SAS so that THEY can fire back), but the linking-combining rules get a bit weird here. Same thing with attackers being SAS, its just strange mechanically. Though, I don't see why not, at least from a fluff perspective.
  10. jupjupy

    Area Bombardment

    Yes, of course, but as an Indiscriminate Attack has the following ruling on page 100: "Most sources of Indiscriminate Attacks will specify the ‘To Hit’ Number they use. If they do not, they use the Basic ‘To-Hit’ Number as determined by the Height Level - see the table on Page 127." And Area Bombardment does have a 'To-Hit' number as on page 130: "Area Bombardment is considered to be an Indiscriminate Attack, with a ‘To Hit’ Number of 5 or (RED) 6, and may only ever Target the Surface Height Level." Hence Area Bombardment ignores the Height Level's Basic 'To-Hit' Number. As for +/- modifiers, there is no precise ruling in the book, as such is open to interpretation.
  11. jupjupy

    Area Bombardment

    Wait... no tiny submarine has 2 AP, what are you talking about? Only the Australians get "2 AP" when they stack their Terror Tactics (1) on them. Regardless, even if they did (which would be borderline overpowered depending on average squad size), the easiest way to plink them down considering they are 10 point models with 3DR is to use frigates and light cruisers. Their weapons are weak but throw out just enough dice (even when halved) to get 3 hits on 5+ without overkilling. Once you take out 3 or so the squadron is heavily neutered, and your CC fire should kill a number of their boarders as they come in. If you are Covenant, wave lurk your battleships and use the Particle Accelerator. None of them should survive. Back to the original question, as far as I can tell from the rulebook, both Area Bombardment (and really, most indiscriminate attacks) use a "To-Hit" number. As Height Bands also use this number, and weapon to-hits supersede height band to-hits, it would be logical that an area bombardment would not be affected by being in, say, stratospheric. I mean, after all, you're just randomly dropping bombs on whatever the heck is below you, regardless of whether you're 1000 meters or 5000 meters in the air.
  12. Thanks for the welcome, everyone! So I had my first game with v2.5 CoA yesterday against the Prussians, our lists looking something like this: Covenant: Aristotle + Kepler, Descartes Mk2, 3x Zeno, 2x Ptolemy, 3x Plutarch Prussia: 2x Eider Mk2, Rhine, 3x Uhlan, 4x Lahn, 4x Arminius Everything was playing out fairly normal with the Arikepler squadron doing the heavy lifting like in most 2.0 games, and the mines dropped by the Ptolemy's helped to shuffle the Prussian fleet into one side of the map. Then the Energy blast hit as the last activation of turn 1, and at rb3 it critted two Uhlans, severely hindering their strike capability. Then it hit again as the first activation of turn 2, rolling for 19 AD on both Uhlans and a slightly damaged Eider (which also happened to house his Commodore). The resounding blast wiped out all three ships, essentially securing the game for me. To be honest, it wasn't the most accurate field test, seeing as how the game ended so quickly I didn't even manage to turn my Aristotle around to test the new PA, but... yeah. The Descartes MKII is a really solid ship for 175 points, not to mention its very tough against the traditional Covenant weakness of boarding. Having a turreted AoE at range band 4 is incredibly powerful too, seeing as you have a chance to wipe out entire small squadrons for no reason hitting on 3+ and ignoring those pesky Small Targets.
  13. jupjupy

    Pointless Particle Ponderings...

    All area bombardments are, by nature, indiscriminate attacks. This is stated in page 100 (where it states that ordnance attacks using templates should be indiscriminate) and in page 130 (where it states that area bombardments are indiscriminate). As all indiscriminate attacks ignore generators, and the Energy Blast can only fire indiscriminately, barrage is a redundant MAR. A weapon does not need the Barrage munitions to area bombard, it just needs to have the area bombardment (that weapon) MAR on the model. Overall, I think the Blast is much more flexible as a weapon system than the accelerator (and I really want the old accelerator back), but it does kill your own generators, so... yeah.
  14. jupjupy

    Pointless Particle Ponderings...

    From page 100 on the book, indiscriminate attacks all ignore defensive generators and MARs, not that I know why the EBs have Barrage, but yea.
  15. Hello everyone! It's been a VERY long time, and oh how glad I am to finally come back to Dystopian Wars with my new Kickstarter set arriving on the horizon. And am I filled with joy at seeing familiar faces once again (Hello Thamoz, Nazduruk, Sebenko. I doubt you guys even remember me, lol). But, back to the goodies. So it's not been all that long since I've last played DWars, but it has been a very long time since I've been on the forums, and I must say, the current state of the Covenant leaves me... rather disappointed. The change to the Particle Accelerator is, in my opinion, unwarranted and borderline insulting to the fluff and cool factor of the weapon. Of course, I'm not here only to rant, so there are some things I shall express my gratitude for. I do like the changes to drones (though I think it was a little harsh and either they need to get their default Hunter MARs back or the Combat Coordinators should have vastly improved ranges), as I think they fit the overall 'feel' of their classification as a whole. On the other hand, the Target Painter change is downright terrible for a fleet that relies so heavily on synergy. To be honest, I think it makes -sense-, but it just feels like it hurts us overall without being too much of an impact on other fleets, 'cept maybe the Brits and the Yanks. Now, I like seeing new toys just as much as anybody, but I just wish the current Covenant could get a nicely fitted bunch of naval vessels for once. Our larges save maybe the new repair ship (awesome thing, by the way) are still pretty much bottom of the barrel. CC (Hunter Submerged +1) on the Aristotle feels like it was just randomly slapped on because reasons. And it's not even +2 like it should be. *ahem* Excuse my ranting, everyone. It's good to be back, and I hope to have many more victories with the greatest nation in Dystopian Wars with all of you. P.S RIP Coeus.
×

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.