Jump to content

Uncle_Biggins

Member
  • Content Count

    879
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Uncle_Biggins last won the day on April 7 2016

Uncle_Biggins had the most liked content!

About Uncle_Biggins

  • Rank
    Sircan

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  1. Forgiveness all, I have been writing a bit recently and tend to waffle that said I figured i might throw in on this one. @Dan. Your brutal honesty is welcome, but your concerns might be a touch too strong for the changes applied. For what its worth this is a bit of a window to the process of these changes, they have been siting on a desk for awhile and might have been implemented much sooner had there been an opportunity. As a Dindrenzi player who mains them as one of my two core Zenian League factions, I have been writing a series of articles for the last few years covering new entries to the game. I prefer to write about what I know rather than theory machining but then again I also dont exactly want to disparage what people might want to consider when making/chosing a model. As a Dindrenzi player, when constructing lists or finding a competitive fleet to be used on the razors edge against an opponent trying to do the same, the Trident was frequently given the opportunity to perform in its 2.0 and their results when viewed as objectively as I possibly was not very favourable. As part of the beta, and a frequent Dindrenzi player, I have seen the shift in this models playability from a competitive standpoint gradually erode for a few reasons. While impossible to deny their are strengths and value to it, however they are difficult advantages to yield over opponents and the 210 price tag for the base squadron puts rather close to some serious company and the leverage on. There are a number of reasons for this, static deployment, defencive MARS/Abilities (especially around the 20" + range), AD cost effectiveness, number of attack vectors, defences overall. They have some critical weaknesses that can be difficult to surmount, especially against an savy opponent. I see comparisons to the Secutor has been raised and a question that 'If the Secutor is so much better/more versatile than the Trident, then why isnt it too powerful and the Trident not just fine.' From as objectively viewed as possible from as many angles as we had, the Secutor seems to fit well into the mainstay class of Tier 2 ships not only internally among the faction (Fills a toolbox role, carries typical Dindrenzi ubiquitous strengths, appropiate risk/reward/value between its cost/influence/value.) The Trident fills a role in Dindrenzi to be sure, but it is rarely considered and optimal list option. Even circumstances where the ships performance has been acceptable, the ship has to face a comparison to the Pheonix/Firebird allied to it in the RSN, a ship that while sitting in a price bracket above that of the Trident, sees alot more favourable play time due to its refinement (lessons learned during balance of 2.0 core factions, Destroyers with large range band incriments that prefer long range combat and the value of shunting counter deployment for instance). Playtesters and a noticable porition of the playerbase reported the Trident to be a difficult model to love or even field and it was at a point by an unoffical poll given the dubious recognition of the most useless model in the core fleets. The changes to it might be quite ambitious. The addition of new hardpoints and abilties for the faction and the adjustment in points comes off as rather aggressive. How far apart does the 180pt squadron (Scout Hardpoint) sit against a core unit of Secutor Cruisers for equal points? Players should try and review their performance and ask whether or not after these changes the Trident is actually a dominating consideration for list construction. Versatility, Speciality and overall power are three things that I suppose you could say seperates the There was more work we could have done to be sure to other models and factions, but many factions have destroyers in particular that were underperforming inter-faction and in this case the Trident was probably the sqeakiest wheel of them all. EDIT: I didnt really say that much at all about the Trident well enough above, but from what I have seen at least nobody seems to disagree with the 'direction' that the Trident took. Whereas before it was overcosted and perhaps a bit weak, it got significantly cheaper. With a different approach it might have dropped 10pts and gains +1CR or some other combination thereof. This is what was ultimately decided upon. If experience differs though please dont hesitate to post.
  2. Great idea about getting back to that option. Its something I have only ever used once and it felt very solid. Its a nifty activation, I just wish the Castra had launch tubes.
  3. Full stop and shunt matrix resolve during secondary movement. You can reveal, not move during the primary then during secondary use manouverable" remove full stop then shunt directly towards or away from a target.all on the turn revealed.....have fun.
  4. This event sounded awesome. Man I love conventions, I do not get to do enough of them.
  5. I am finalising the writing for the Scuta and the Pugio over the next few days. I am going to group the Scuta and Retarius into the same post to give me a bit more room for future releases. I thought about doing the RSN Escort but im afraid I dont think that my experience with them would do it justice from an experience perspective. Ive tried to write at least what I know and I hope that in part is what has made the guide pretty useful to others.
  6. As a follow up cause I was short on time, also used a squadron of Velietes. They shunt arrived in on turn 3 intersecting an Overseer Carrier and broadsiding at an Impact squadron. After two activatiosn they attributed 4 damage to said Carrier and destroyed 4 Impacts, they lost one ship in return with heavy damage to another before they shunted out of combat before being completely lost for an overall very successful deployment. Ships went in at 60pts (+Scatter).
  7. Used the PDF for the first time today. Ended up using a Nausicaa with a single Decurion. The SRS served ulimately as a Deterrant and never got to so much as contribute a PD roll before a swarm of interceptors from the Overseer came and ripped them to shreds. Fortunately, the Decurion ended up being a low priority target and was never subsequently targeted by any foe. It managed to provide a solid 3 PD against follow up attacks from Bomber wings and the extra AD on broadsides and torpedoes helped to deal with the remaining enemy ships. The MN12 left in the ships wake was essentially a no go zone for the enemy fleet and thanks to a few engines to maximum cards applied early game, the ship was able to drop a pair of these across an Overseer and Ascendency destroying the former and leaving the last one seriously damaged. The Pugio are 60pts, with the nature of their stats they cannot ever really be 3-6 sized squadrons and they are officially the cheapest full strength frigate squadron in the game. They achieved little more than distracting enemy fire and defeating some rival Impacts themselves. The Directorate force had 14 Impacts proxied across the fleet, with two serving as attachments to the Anarchist. This investment was more than double that of the amount spent on Pugio and so the difference in result between the two new TF ships was deserved.
  8. I just played my first game with the new PDF since the last version of stats went up: The Overseer with Ascendencies is extremely powerful, I also used a pair of Impacts with an Anarchist however they were counted by Velietes with Scatter using gunrack broadsides so they didnt manage to contribute too much. It was enough to draw what could have been a painful 14AD attack off the Anarchist though so that was helpful.
  9. There is value in MV, range and squadron numbers. The squadron at 120pts requires about a 50 percent more investment in enemy fire to deal with the gain the same number of battle log points. Eliminating a single target from a Wayfarer squadron drops firepower down to 12AD, where it achieves parity with the Missionaries. The range is also pretty important. A 14AD attack this turn can often be worth more than a 16AD attack made next one. Missionaries: A Slight improvement in toughness, Cheaper, More Firepower. Wayfarers: Faster, Significantly Longer range, Better Attrition value.
  10. I think that GENERALLY, Carriers are hit and miss in respect to their risk reward. Upgraded and armed with SRS they generally cost about as much as an unupgraded Battleship. They yield more battle log than they should and with their dimished defences, dimished firepower and sometimes comparable points cost the strategic risk in terms of battle log work against them. This is something I would expect to see addressed at some point. Some faction Carreirs has some stiff competition from their Battleship entries as well. The Pretorian and Hydra for instance allow for near Carrier level capabilties alongside Battleship grade offensive and defensive toolkits. The latest trend of Wing 5 battleships I think is a good move, there a definate utility difference there. Some Carriers dont have the capabiltiies you would want them to have. The popular idea of all or most Carriers have access to a CMD range increase as part of their toolkit I think is a brilliant idea. It doesnt need to be homogenised or anything but seeing Carriers have a decent sized toolbox of abilties to pick from and see them exploit that I believe is a really good thing. Deck Crews Quick Launch High Wing Count Command Range Increase Ability to launch x2 SRS tokens an activation (new MAR) Ability to refit their SRS tokens into different types (new MAR/TAC Card/General Rule) Stuff like that and seeing Carriers exploit that toolbox in interesting ways alongside of whatever their racial abiltiies are (High shields, repectable scatter weaponry, Solid HP with high CR)
  11. The Pretorian at just belong 300pts is an absolute beast of an activation. Loads of firepower, good SRS, lots of HP to work through. Its probably the single strongest Battleship activation in the game. That said, I rarely get bad games out of a Nausicaa, but I mould mine for ride by mine attacks as being sometimes the primary focus of this ship. Sure it deals the hits on the way in, critical or few overall but its when you do a 10AD attack against three enemy models in a Cruiser squadron that you start earning back its keep really quikcly.
  12. I believe that getting the Terran Tier 2's in a good place will involve adjustments to original ships at some point for true harmonous balance. As Ryjak said above, making sure the Harpoon isnt too overwhelming that it sucks the oxygen out of that 210pt space it will likely be fighting for. Whether thats done by points or some other light changes, either could accomplish this. I for instance agree with some statements that the stat profile on the Teuton is quite acceptable, its very comparible to Cruisers and ships across the game, its just that it has the unfortunate distinction of costing 70-75pts when you are done with it, which is an exaggeration on what it should currently be.
  13. I play Ucchidia with bases, they are fantastic for the one/two/three. Shunt/Shoot/Board. Their ability to Cloak means that they are still very hard to retaliate against before their activation and they have good firepower linked enough to force crits on targets while boarding power enough to take one or two Frigates out if you are bold with their placement.
  14. The Champion is a flexible ship that in its beams form, exchanges some flexibility for power and a bit of economy. On the advance a squadron of three of them with Bio at 165pts with DR4 CR8 SH1 is one of the most durable Cruisers in the game for resisting damage. The Cyber option for 5pts less than the Tormentor is actually trading quitea bit. While the ship is faster and a little tougher from the instances of damage, the ship has -2CP, -2PD, -1HP making it often less durable than the Tormentor, the advantages in leveraging speed, natural SH and Reinforced Fore against a Tormentor in terms of a pure indirect weapons platform means that on the table it can often be the less durabe option. I am interested to know how people respond to both the Gravity version and the fact the ships CP/AP is so low. I want to know whether that feels like an acceptable character flaw for the ship.
  15. The two game systems were developed independantly of one another. The models rules were based off the physical design of each model, and then later translated into ships for factions to use.
×
×
  • 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.