Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Moonhare

  1. Thanks for the response. I will use the Beta feedback channel in future.
  2. A couple of questions regarding Fire Arcs. In the Dystopian Wars Third Edition Rules Beta v0.02 on page 5 the Fire Arcs diagram shows angles that don’t appear to be multiples of 90 degrees. The Fore angle appears acute, the Port appears obtuse. Is this intentional? Also, square aerial bases are marked with arcs of fire but what about the rectangular bases of larger aerial models? Thanks in advance.
  3. Thanks for the reply and diagram comments. Ok, text takes precedence. Just to be clear, the Merlin's Fore Guns are measured from the centre of the front side of the base? With the John Henry which point on the model's weapon would the measurement be centred on? The tip of the barrel? Looking at the rockets on the right arm they seem to be located on a forearm cuff, so would that be the measuring point? As an aside, how do people centre the Fire Arc on the waterlined Metzger's Right Tesla Coil weapon which is invisible as it is submerged underwater?
  4. I noticed a small change in one of the diagrams from 2.0 to 2.5. The aerial model depicted on the square base in 2.0 has the 90 degree arc measured from the centre of the front edge of the base. In 2.5 (p117) the same diagram depicts the arc as now originating from the centre of the base, where the flight peg is located. However, on page 118 of 2.5 , the text notes that for Guns, 'Range and Line of Sight is determined from the centre of the relevant side of the model where the gun is mounted' which seems at odds with the diagram. So do Merlins measure LOS and Fire Arcs from the centre of their front side or from their 'centre'? Also, how does this apply to a John Henry Robot with 270 degree arc centred on the port side. Is the arc centred on the centre 'spot' or on the centre of the port side of the base? Thanks in advance.
  5. Thanks for the helpful comments so far, you have pointed me in the right direction. I havenow found the passage I was looking for on p125. Under Defensive Counter Attacks it notes that 'Any Linking/Combined Fir measures its range from the Linking Models to the Model they are defending' and because AA is range 4" when defending against rockets (p136), the CAP needs to be 4" away from the parent model - it is after all just another model in a mixed squadron as has been pointed out. On question 2 - with SAS attacks vs CAPs, is this a case of creating a mixed dice pool? ('Sometimes the dice in a Linked AD Pool comes from weaponry with differing 'To Hit' numbers' p129). So in the last example 1/2 AA Heavy (BLUE) Dice for the parent model hitting attacking SAS on 4+ and 10 Heavy (BLUE) Dice hitting attacking SAS on 5+ for the CAP (although both may be adjusted by Hunter MAR)?
  6. Could anyone help me clarify rules on Combat Air Patrols (CAP) in 2.5? I understand that CAPs move independently unlike in 2.0 when they stayed in base to base contact with the parent (although they move during the squadron's activation). When a model with an attached CAP is attacked by Boarding Assault, the CAP can link AA Anti-Boarding fire if up to 4" from parent (p145).If the parent model is subject to an aerial attack the CAP can only link in with Aggressive Counter attack linked fire if the attacker is 4" from the CAP (p125 and p136) My first question is can a CAP use linked AA fire with the parent model to provide defensive fire against rockets when the parent is the target? If so, how far away from parent model can the CAP be? Is it 4" from parent or 4" from attacker or another value? Another question arises from attacks on the CAP. If a squadron targets the CAP (and only AA can target SAS) can the parent provide linked fire to join in? Is this also the case if the targetting squadron is also an SAS ? In a dogfight can the parent model assist? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
  7. Thanks for the update. Our Dystopian Wars contingent has recently grown to six at the Oxford Gaming Club so I will pass on the link for posting results.
  8. Thanks Bratr, I thought I sent in a report for Free Australia vs Kingdom of Britannia last week but may not have hit the submit button. I have resubmitted so you mayfind you have a duplicate engagement report. Cheers.
  9. Just to say great idea and implementation! One query - on the Campaign Stats I didn't see a row/column for Free Australia. Was this due to no reported battles or an oversight? Thanks in advance.
  10. Many thanks for the rapid reply and clear response.
  11. I would appreciate some assistance with understanding the rules laid out in Commodore Rulebook Section D7 INFANTRY: Infantry Bases section. Do squadrons of Infantry Base Models have to be joined as a Formation or can they function as independents within 8" of each other like other squadrons? The rules state: "Infantry Formations are considered to be a single entity for the purposes of Range and Measurement" making me think that they are joined together. If so, when deploying more than one infantry base model in a squadron are they joined together in a way similar to SAW models when forming an SAS? Also, what happens with damage? Does one infantry model suffer the full attack effects before the second model is damaged, as per damage to SAWs? Many Thanks for your assistance in advance.
  12. Just measured the Arronax base - 4 3/8" long. This means finding an island minimum width 4 3/8" width to burrow into. It also means and starting movement segment no further than 2 5/8" away from the island in order to complete the move onto it to enable it to burrow in the next turn! As well as having to endure +1 to hit from a low speed manoeuvre marker while it waits... Has anyone attempted a naval use of this lurking ambush successfully?
  13. Thanks c0rruptd that makes it clear.
  14. Thanks for your comments. As I understand it a Multi-Purpose model (Section D9) always treats all major/minor surfaces (water surface, ice sheet/ floating wreckage, ship graveyard, shallow water, cliffs) as having terrain quality of clear. However, a Multi-Purpose model 'always refers to its listed Type (or Diving/Burrowing Function if applicable) for purposes of terrain interaction' (Section D9). So does this mean that the Arronax follows the Burrowing classification making interactions with islands clear, but reefs, sandbars and icebergs impassable (Section D3)? If the Arronax can be on both the island and water at the same time (both counting as clear) can it enter burrowed state if only partially on the island? Similarly, can the Arronax partially exit the island while remaining in the burrowed state? This would have advantages akin to 'toeing on the hill' to draw an analogy with Warmachine-Hordes.
  15. Can anyone advise me? 1. Is this the correct sequence of actions? a. Arronax on the major water surface approaches an island, completes its move onto the island and adds a low speed manoeuvre game marker (giving it +1 to attackers targetting it). b. During it's next activation the Arronax submerges onto the island during the movement declarations segment so benefitting from being immune to being targeted except from CC and concentrated bombing. and choosing to remove the low speed marker. c. In the next activation it then opts to occupy the surface during the movement declarations segment and commence moves and attack enemy models. 2. Does the whole footprint of the Arronax model's base need to be on the island to burrow? What if it only partially moves off the island when submerged? Does it still benefit/suffer the consequences of being submerged when in this state? Thanks in advance.
  • 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.