Jump to content

Grim110

Member
  • Posts

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Grim110 got a reaction from Beef in Firestorm Armada players in south wales?   
    Living in Barry here.
    Anyone in South Wales, Feel free to send me a message (can play both FA and DW)
  2. Like
    Grim110 reacted to azraelsportal in Token Dice   
    Hello all,
     
    I got tired of having to sort through all those little tokens so I made these!
     
  3. Like
    Grim110 got a reaction from rufus in League of Italian States Colour Scheme Database   
    Thought I'd try something a bit darker than most.

  4. Like
    Grim110 got a reaction from CDR_G in Little help for campaign upgrades   
    So we've started a campaign to spice things up a bit and have included the ability the gain experience points and 'level up' your ships with a wide variety of potential upgrades, assuming you can keep your ships afloat often... I'm wondering what would be a good cost to add onto each ship after receiving an upgrade. Here's what's available, yes I know it's a lot but don't worry about that, each ship will have a limited amount of upgrades, if any.
    Telescopic zoom (on one weapon system)
    Redoubtable (on one weapon system)
    Corrosive (on one weapon system)
    Incendiary (on one weapon system)
    Concussive (on one weapon system)
    Piercing (on one weapon system)
    Pinpoint (on one weapon system)
    Sustained fire (1 for small/medium, 2 for large/massive) (on one weapon system)
    Close quarter gunnery (on one weapon system)
    High angle (on one weapon system)
    +2AA
    +2CC
    Long range assault
    Security posts (1 for small/medium, 2 for large/massive)
    Sharpshooters
    +AP (1 for small/medium, 2 for large/massive)
    Terror tactics (1 for small/medium, 2 for large/massive)
    Diehards
    Crew upgrade
    Experienced engineers
    Spotter 4+
    Inventive scientists
    Sustained assault (1 for small/medium, 2 for large/massive)
    Specialised defences (1 for small/medium, 2 for large/massive)
    +1 DR
    Ablative armour 1
    Retardant armour 1
    Rugged construction (1 for small/medium, 2 for large/massive)
    Advanced engines 2"
    +1 Mv
    +1 DR
    Isolated systems 5+
    Hit and run
    Sharp turn
    Evasive manoeuvre
    +1 HP
    There are a few options.
    -We could increase the cost of the ship by a set %. Although a 10% cost increase could range anywhere from 2 to 30+ points depending on the ship. Perhaps a % with an upper and lower limit? Such as adding 10% to the cost but falling within the range of 5-15?
    -It could be nice and easy and simply make each upgrade 5 for a small, 10 for a medium, 15 for a large/massive.
    -we could have each upgrade with its own point value, which would involve actually determining and assigning points values to all these things! Which i'd need some input on.
    -Or some other idea.
  5. Like
    Grim110 got a reaction from Cassaralla in League of Italian States Colour Scheme Database   
    Thought I'd try something a bit darker than most.

  6. Like
    Grim110 reacted to Farcages in SAS interactions...   
    1)
    There's absolutely nothing preventing Fighter SAS from engaging obscured or stratospheric models. Note that most Fighters have Aerial Hunter +1, and thus will be hitting obscured targets on 4+ and stratospheric on 5+.
     
    2)
    Yes: first the defending models use AA against the torpedo bombers. Any surviving torpedo bombers then launch torpedoes, against which the defending models may use their CC. If the torpedo bombers have the Faster Torpedo MAR, only the targetted model may use its CC to defend itself.
  7. Like
    Grim110 got a reaction from projectmanhatten5 in Discussion: Massive Overhaul of the CoA   
    The energy Aristotle can still put out an impressive amount of AD while wave lurking, not to be underestimated.
  8. Like
    Grim110 got a reaction from Wolfchild in New era of CoA, a noob perspective   
    Had a game today with the kepotle.
    Even wave lurking its AD is pretty formidable.
    1st shot of the game it triple crit an Ecuyer and straight out lazed it in half! From the opposite side of the board! A little lucky for sure, but something to remember. Staying under the surface, while keeping in RB4 meant it survived untouched.
    I also had a Diophantus with Galens that drove up the board, getting both broadsides into play. With the Galens linking with the broadsides it becomes a formidable attack. The Dio took a few shots but also suffered no damage mostly due to its DR of 7. I feel we can be pretty aggressive with it now.
  9. Like
    Grim110 got a reaction from Nucreum in DWMod One: 1 model per player, fast game   
    I plan to at some point but havnt had much time
  10. Like
    Grim110 got a reaction from projectmanhatten5 in Discussion: Massive Overhaul of the CoA   
    So finally managed to find time to have a game, RoF vs CoA. I was playing the French and as a mainly CoA player I was watching the scientists closely! The game was called near the end of turn 3.
    The RoF took...
    1x St Malo, 1x Couronne, 3x Dieppe, 1x Cherbourg, 2x Rousseau, 8x Chevaliers.
    The CoA took...
    1x Diophantus, 1x Aristotle, 3x Cleomedes, 3x Zeno, 8x Diogones, 3x Plutarch.
    Following is my thoughts of the CoA from this game.
    The Plutarchs did pretty well, managing a crit on a Rousseau in turn 1, then a crit on the Cherbourg and finishing off the Rousseau in turn 2. They were sunk near the end of Turn 2 but one did survive a linked shot from the St Malo turrets! Pretty good showing overall from these little guys.
    The Diogenes were sub-par this game. Taking 4 losses in turn 1, leaving 2 units of 2 which were quickly dispatched by the Mostiques and Chevaliers in turn 2.
    The Zeno performed as expected with the French smalls deploying far from them, they resorted to using their broadsides and distracting from the Aristotle. They took many beatings but held up for longer than I thought they would. One was sunk by a Rousseau on 2HP (which was subsequently shot down) another was targeted by the Couronne and the Cherbourg and heat lanced to death. The third got dive bombed for 2HP and was in a position for more bombings turn 4.
    The Cleos made a decent showing, Scratching up the Dieppes and sinking two Chevaliers while remaining unscathed, any shots that came their way bounced off the shields or failed to roll enough successful AD, although nothing hugely significant was dedicated to them so no surprise there. It's a nice ship, not too destructive and just the right amount of durability.
    The Aristotle performed terribly! With the CoA mission being to take out the French commodore it tried closing on the Couronne that was flanked by the Malo. The Aristotle took a hard pounding from the Couronne on turn 3 from the heat lance, then the St Malo moved up and seemingly effortlessly, prized it. Before that the Aristotle pretty much did nothing with its turrets and had no decent shots available for the accelerator. Energy version is the way forward I think.
    The Diophantus only had a few attacks sent its way and they were mostly due to not having a better target, Nothing so much as scratched its paintwork though, it is truly an annoyance to even contemplate sinking and would need some hefty firepower dedicated to it.
    Offensively it hit like a wet noodle. With the French avoiding lining up for an accelerator shot it didn't manage much. It really needs the Galens linking with its broadsides to pump out some real pain. I feel it's firepower does not merit dread status.
    The increase in durability along with the price hike, without any offensive improvements, seems to make it a denial model in my opinion. Meaning, you won't kill much with it and would deal more damage with an equivalent points value of any other ship, but good luck trying to sink it! (Enjoy your "destroy all large/massive" card)
    The ship costs far too much for my tastes. It does not put out enough AD for its price tag! Your also paying heavily for its lurking ability and its drone capabilities, but if you want one you can't really use the other (lurk turn1, rise turn2, launch turn3, drones activate turn4. By that stage the game is usually done) Additionally redoubtable carrier points are a useless feature now since you don't get the drones to launch in the first place.
    And the drones... Oh the drones! They were out manoeuvred and picked off with ease. They tried to put up a fight, getting an attack run in against one of the bombers but the French SAS out performed them.
    Additionally no SAS squadrons were reduced to 0 so any units damaged early were making it back to the carrier to replenish, by turn 3 the drones had been cleared and there were only 6 ready to be relaunched.
    The difference between the SAS and the drones was very apparent, Drones were nerfed way to much in my opinion. The movement reduction alone was the main reason for their downfall, but the feedback rule on top of that broke them to the point that only a single squadron was able to launch and that was at the end of turn 3 just before the game ended.
    Regular SAS is by far more reliable than drones now, being able to perform an attack run and still be on the table, thereby getting to move back to the carrier and rearm/replenish. More SAS were replenished than drones launched.
    Drones are no longer a better option than SAS pilots, they aren't even close to being an alternative to SAS pilots. They can't hold off enemy SAS and they can't be relied upon to perform an attack run and have much chance of coming back, by the time you manage to move up and get an attack run in and relaunch the games likely finished anyway.
  11. Like
    Grim110 got a reaction from mrponders in Discussion: Massive Overhaul of the CoA   
    So finally managed to find time to have a game, RoF vs CoA. I was playing the French and as a mainly CoA player I was watching the scientists closely! The game was called near the end of turn 3.
    The RoF took...
    1x St Malo, 1x Couronne, 3x Dieppe, 1x Cherbourg, 2x Rousseau, 8x Chevaliers.
    The CoA took...
    1x Diophantus, 1x Aristotle, 3x Cleomedes, 3x Zeno, 8x Diogones, 3x Plutarch.
    Following is my thoughts of the CoA from this game.
    The Plutarchs did pretty well, managing a crit on a Rousseau in turn 1, then a crit on the Cherbourg and finishing off the Rousseau in turn 2. They were sunk near the end of Turn 2 but one did survive a linked shot from the St Malo turrets! Pretty good showing overall from these little guys.
    The Diogenes were sub-par this game. Taking 4 losses in turn 1, leaving 2 units of 2 which were quickly dispatched by the Mostiques and Chevaliers in turn 2.
    The Zeno performed as expected with the French smalls deploying far from them, they resorted to using their broadsides and distracting from the Aristotle. They took many beatings but held up for longer than I thought they would. One was sunk by a Rousseau on 2HP (which was subsequently shot down) another was targeted by the Couronne and the Cherbourg and heat lanced to death. The third got dive bombed for 2HP and was in a position for more bombings turn 4.
    The Cleos made a decent showing, Scratching up the Dieppes and sinking two Chevaliers while remaining unscathed, any shots that came their way bounced off the shields or failed to roll enough successful AD, although nothing hugely significant was dedicated to them so no surprise there. It's a nice ship, not too destructive and just the right amount of durability.
    The Aristotle performed terribly! With the CoA mission being to take out the French commodore it tried closing on the Couronne that was flanked by the Malo. The Aristotle took a hard pounding from the Couronne on turn 3 from the heat lance, then the St Malo moved up and seemingly effortlessly, prized it. Before that the Aristotle pretty much did nothing with its turrets and had no decent shots available for the accelerator. Energy version is the way forward I think.
    The Diophantus only had a few attacks sent its way and they were mostly due to not having a better target, Nothing so much as scratched its paintwork though, it is truly an annoyance to even contemplate sinking and would need some hefty firepower dedicated to it.
    Offensively it hit like a wet noodle. With the French avoiding lining up for an accelerator shot it didn't manage much. It really needs the Galens linking with its broadsides to pump out some real pain. I feel it's firepower does not merit dread status.
    The increase in durability along with the price hike, without any offensive improvements, seems to make it a denial model in my opinion. Meaning, you won't kill much with it and would deal more damage with an equivalent points value of any other ship, but good luck trying to sink it! (Enjoy your "destroy all large/massive" card)
    The ship costs far too much for my tastes. It does not put out enough AD for its price tag! Your also paying heavily for its lurking ability and its drone capabilities, but if you want one you can't really use the other (lurk turn1, rise turn2, launch turn3, drones activate turn4. By that stage the game is usually done) Additionally redoubtable carrier points are a useless feature now since you don't get the drones to launch in the first place.
    And the drones... Oh the drones! They were out manoeuvred and picked off with ease. They tried to put up a fight, getting an attack run in against one of the bombers but the French SAS out performed them.
    Additionally no SAS squadrons were reduced to 0 so any units damaged early were making it back to the carrier to replenish, by turn 3 the drones had been cleared and there were only 6 ready to be relaunched.
    The difference between the SAS and the drones was very apparent, Drones were nerfed way to much in my opinion. The movement reduction alone was the main reason for their downfall, but the feedback rule on top of that broke them to the point that only a single squadron was able to launch and that was at the end of turn 3 just before the game ended.
    Regular SAS is by far more reliable than drones now, being able to perform an attack run and still be on the table, thereby getting to move back to the carrier and rearm/replenish. More SAS were replenished than drones launched.
    Drones are no longer a better option than SAS pilots, they aren't even close to being an alternative to SAS pilots. They can't hold off enemy SAS and they can't be relied upon to perform an attack run and have much chance of coming back, by the time you manage to move up and get an attack run in and relaunch the games likely finished anyway.
  12. Like
    Grim110 got a reaction from Amiral X in Urgently required new models   
    Cloud gen node launcher? Fire at a friendly unit of Dieppes perhaps...
    Think, smoke Grenad but much, much larger.
  13. Like
    Grim110 got a reaction from interviglium in Community generated battlegroups and specialist squadrons   
    Perhaps...
    Emergency drone reserves
    40 points
    Any drones that ditch or are destroyed within 12" of the target carrier ignore drone feedback and are placed directly into the scrapyard.
    Or even simpler...
    Any drones that ditch or are destroyed this turn are only removed from the game on a 1 or a 2 of the drone feedback roll.
  14. Like
    Grim110 reacted to Meatshield in Drones. Too good? (Edit: nerfed too much?)   
    Having had time to think about the changes.
     
    This seems all very likely to work well at balancing Drone heavy lists, or Drone spam if you will. It is a way to curb the top end when 40 odd tokens are buzzing about and a combination of standard losses and attrition means those extra lost Drones help to lessen the late game power.
    The problem is this alteration is poorly implemented for the other end, the low end. A naval fleet that takes say a single Epicurus along as it's only Carrier (or a Diophantus), that's not many Drones on the board. Now they are few in number and a single successful attack run by Bombers/Torpedo Drones, just one single successful run has the a reasonable chance of significantly reducing their board presence. Having a limited resource gutted for being played well is not a good mechanic.
    These alterations do not encourage Drone light lists unless you try to completely avoid them. They actually push you into taking more Drones to compensate for increased losses. In no way does this support Drone light lists, it punishes them. Alterations made to one type of list has now punished another style of list. It is for that reason I do not like the overall direction of these changes because it again narrows options and further pushes the breadth of options into a corner.
    It corrects one end of the scale while hammering the other end.
     
    A bottom end should have been introduced to allow lists with much fewer Drones to sustain those Drones, because the impact of unavoidable unmitigated losses is a negative one for the investment.
    Either that or alterations, Fighters staying at 14" to allow some initiative and 1-2 for permanent losses. As it is this is just the same old "MOAR DRONES!" or none at all, it doesn't allow for the middle ground.
  15. Like
    Grim110 reacted to jupjupy in Drones. Too good? (Edit: nerfed too much?)   
    I like the concept of drone nerf in general. They were too powerful and needed some cutting back. What I dont like is the direction behind it. They are now slower, more powerful attackers instead of the "plague of locusts" I was hoping for.
    Let me just look at each specific change:
    Overall increased difficulty of getting drones in the first place:
    Not my cup of tea, but understandable. Though now every non-Pericles ship is more expensive and the dreadnoughts are almost ridiculously costed for simple drone 9.
    Slower speed:
    I absolutely detest this change. Drones were not fast in the first place and this just makes them both avoidable and less of a threat.
    Drone-Feedback:
    I like this. But only for drones getting shot down. Thats both fair and fluffy. I dislike the bit that ditching drones somehow lose their computers or controllers or something. It doesnt sit right with me and just makes enemies ignore them more. Every time you drop bombs you lose 2-3 drones on average? What?
    What I would have tried to do would be to make drones either easier to kill or removing Swarm Tactics, making that a Combat Coordinator MAR instead.
    And thyphs, most carrier players get more than 50% of their planes back up in the air. If you dont lose a squad, its not difficult to replenish wings to full strength. And carrier points being redoubtable is frankly neutered by the "crit to lose a token forever" thing, which does happen quite often. We wont be able to spam drones as hard, and they now have diminishing returns without the opponent even needing to field fighters. Yes, it was boring. Yes, it was predictable. It wasnt fun either for both players. But I'm not sure its been pushed in the right direction either. Feels slightly excessive too.
  16. Like
    Grim110 got a reaction from BuckDharma in Drones. Too good? (Edit: nerfed too much?)   
    The changes may be a bit much overall.
    Carrier/carrier upgrades are more expensive.
    Movement reduction on drones.
    50% of drones not reusable.
    Ship interceptions followed by dogfights and the drones are down, likely leaving enough enemy SAS to replenish. They'll get out manoeuvred which Shouldn't be too hard with other forces having higher Mv SAS.
    Considering normal SAS can attack run and just 1 needs to survive and get back to a carrier where the drones just ditch (removing half of them from the game)
    normal SAS are now more infinite in supply as long as they arn't thrown away and as long as 1 wing makes it to a carrier. Drones will run out quickly I feel.
    I think perhaps removing them on a 1 or a 2 (giving them a 2/3 return rate) would be more fitting given the other nerfs.
    Or perhaps on a 1-3 for destroyed drones, drones that survive to make the run and simply ditch get to return as normal.
  17. Like
    Grim110 got a reaction from Thamoz in SAS interactions   
    So...
    Drones vs Other SAS.
    - resolve all AA simultainiouly.
    - Remove wings as appropriate.
    - Drones do not ditch.
    Drones vs Aerial model.
    - resolve all AA simultainiouly.
    - Resolve damage.
    - Drones ditch.
    (Defensive AA has no effect on incoming drone AD, all drones ditch anyway afterwards, no point rolling defensive AA in this case)
    (Bomber) Drones vs Naval model.
    - resolve defensive AA.
    - Remove wings as appropriate.
    - Resolve drone ordinance from remaining wings.
    - Drones ditch.
×
×
  • 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.