Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Wolfchild

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,215 profile views
  1. @Erloas is right. The split of sentences makes all the difference. It makes sense in reality too: On the surface targets are in relative 2D, just waves or hills making any difference, so that 500 yards difference is likely just that. Above ground/surface, or below, they become height bands and so it's all in 3D. The conceptual 500 (horizontal) yards apart, could easily become 1000 (true) yards with the varying altitudes within those bands, making targets that much harder to hit. Thats why fliers can pass 'through' one another's board locations without colliding unless they actually intend to do so. They just fly over or under the other within the same height band.
  2. If Im paying 30pt extra, I'd like to feel more of an advantage. Also it just doesn't feel right to only be able to field the smaller SAS from a fleet carrier
  3. That must be the only way to use it effectively then. Fairly sure opponents will just learn to target it heavily in turn 1 before it can use to stratospheric and take some aerial hunters to swat it from the sky, or find a way to board it once weakened some. Its **** that it feels like it has one role, one that further minimises it's already weak shooting capacity. Glad u managed to get some utility tho. I've only once managed to get enough power output from drones in game to believe in their potential. That was in 2.0 games, now in 2.5 the Hunter+1 and Swarm tactics just brings us back to where we we're, (worse on torp bombers), so I still don't see the benefit of sinking 300+ points (+strategic points risk) into a flying carrier.
  4. Cheeky but neat lil loop hole then. I don't particularly like how it's developed that smaller carriers can launch 5 SAW but larger carriers generally only 4 SAW as one SAS. It seemed better before when the Carrier value and number of SAS were the same. All this new system does is prevent 3 SAW tile activation spam, but seriously, needing small carriers to launch larger SAS is illogical.
  5. Reading this BATREP it appears to me that CoA actually won 3:2. Maybe it was recorded incorrectly? At no point did the KoB get 3:1 ahead, so I found that quite confusing. As for the suggested improvements and general summary of the Euclid I fully agree. With the advent of v2.5 we are still disappointed: still overcosted with a confusing and limited array of options.
  6. Other than 6" carrier functions, am I right in assuming that drone launchers are basically just normal carriers now, with incredibly lame SAWs? We used to only lose 1 carrier point on a CRIT (and a drone dropped from the sky), now every damage point reduces a Carrier point?! We've gone from sending out aggressive drone spam up ahead to clear the skies, b4 wave two of bombers to clear the waters. We now need our drones to return to be re-armed rather than just firing out a fresh batch. I always imagined the 'ditch' after attack run previously, represented that they'd either self destruct/kamikaze, or they'd autopilot back to the nearest drone launcher. Now we have 14" move again, can launch out an extra 2", without an activation marker (all great ways to be effective and get up the board), but can't move ahead of our fleet cos the SAS lose all effectiveness (lost MARS that make SAS work)?! If we don't have the right vessels, with the right MAR, in the right places then they'll not perform. If we do have the right ships in the right place, they just about (but not quite) come upto the standards of normal SAWs. Normal carriers now enjoy almost all the benefits previously available to drone launchers for no extra cost. I quite liked the idea before that with Swarm tactics, perhaps our SAW each represented numerous drones (far more than a normal SAW worth of planes), because they were that much smaller.... only thru numbers they got better, overwhelming the foe. The Hunter MARs should still be present because that represented whatever targeting array was placed in the drone for its desired target. Only the acrobatic pilot etc kicked in near drone relay ships. It made sense. New orbits have a LOT to change/explain
  7. The book tells you to place a dice on the SAS tray not only to designate which type of SAS but also the starting number of SAW on that tray. So that suggests to me we can only rebuild to the size that we've lost.
  8. Sorry, getting confused. (Inventive scientists used to cause a raging fire on a 1 but now its corrosion). But this is about Fuel Reserves. Doh!
  9. Agreed. Drones aren't drones anymore..... but @Spartan Mike tells us they're working on it ..... we'll see. At the moment they got even worse than the back of 2.0 which I'll bet non of us thought was possible.
  10. For reasons why torpedoes work that way in game : Torpedoes are given a set buoyancy before being fired, so they would travel up or down to the target height (obviously with a lot of forward trajectory), then along that level til they hit their target. Some newer torpedoes can be directionally controlled (in the real world), usually by some form of target lock/seeking sensors, but for DW tech, they go to target depth 1st, then horizontal trajectory till they hit something.
  11. I think a lot of these red (D6) issues arise from computer assuming u want 'RED (D6)' after typing, "4, 5," because it's such a frequent term in this system. In this case however it's down to Repair versus Damage Repair. Its very easy to just read 'repair' and confuse the two.
  12. Ablative armour was ignored for repairs in 2.0 too, I believe.
  13. That last sentence needs to be in the book (thanks @Erloas): 'any aerial medium or large model may occupy the stratospheric height band' but must be deployed in flying or or obscured. No tiny, small or SAS may ever occupy the stratospheric level. 'any medium or large diving model may occupy the deep diving height band' but must be deployed in diving. No tiny or small may ever occupy the deep diving level. Spartan pls make your wording less ambiguous. U need to specifically say what CAN do things, not just hope that it's implied.
  14. They used to ditch after attack runs, part of that ditch could have been self destruct..... though that really is a waste if materials it would be safer for tech superiority.
  • 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.