What I (we) want... (dystopian empires reply)

[Grand-Stone 153]

I for my part really would welcome steam-punk cavalery and infantry etc. etc. It looks cool and sounds fun and could look cool.   However what I really really want is an improved rules set for dystopian wars. I want to play the full version of the game, but I want it to be slightly easier. There are lots of things in the full version which could be made easier without taking anything from the game. And better orginized for look up. There are too many rules which are too easy to oversee.

For example, to hit numbers. At least give us a complete list of them! Make it 4+ and with modifiers as intended. And then all modifiers are written on the stats of the unit. Make hitting sas 4+ always, and instead have MARs which modify them. Then the to hit number is given in the stats of the unit.

And there are also some rules which could get rid of. Rockets and bombs and shields for example...

Instead make a shield penetration MAR, which does something. For example modify the to hit for shields. Then I could always remember it. Cuz it says so right it the unit description.

 

 

Also some rebalancing:

-I play EOBS and they have some very nice things going for them. But the sonic generator isn't one of them. The problem is that you have to be within 8'' of the enemy unit at the start of your turn, and it's a realy low probability to effecting it. It just isn't worth it. In general I find all offensive generators a bit lacking. If you could activate them AFTER you have moved, that would be a great improvement. The disruption generators suffer from the same problem. The Node version is offcourse much much powerful. But it would not hurt to beef up all offensive generators (the ones which requires you to be within 8'' of the enemy before moving)

-A new ORBATS wouldn't hurt either

-we have never played with cards, but... as I read this forum, the cards play doesn't work optimally as they are to often just nullified. I enjoy a lot of the thing behind it. You collect 5 cards which you could use throughout the game. But the thing I don't like is the points cost thingy. which requiers me to write down things.

Edit: why could the 5 cards just work, at no points cost, and let the only way to nullify it be a nullification card.

 

When regarding dystopian empires, I would very much welcome steam punk infantry model. However, sadly it requiers a separte game due to the scale of the models ;(   If it would be possible, I would really enjoy to have an larger focus on infantry in the Dystopian Wars game! Have them as tokens with infantry on them or whatever... I know there are rules for them already, but  I play naval and haven't tried the land part. Give me some interesting choices (and some opponents) and I would play the land based one too.

Ideas for dystopian wars:

-jet pack infantry  for naval version. This could be launched from special ships and or carriers...

-more types of tiny fliers (SAS).

 

So, you could make Dystopian Empires, it would be cool. But fixing the rules for dystopian wars higher on my list.

 

 

 

[draco84oz 690]

In many respects, the boarding parties in Dystopian Wars already have jet packs - I mean, how else could they get from ship to ship/airship to ship etc...either that or the Dystopian universe has managed to perfect the Man-Cannon (although I maintain that the Russian use a man-cannon instead of jetpacks in the first place...).

Also, what sort of SAS flyers would you be looking at? The only other kind I can think of would be Fighter-Bombers, but, given the rules for SAS, I don't know if anyone would use them. Firestorm Armada Fighters are effectively fighter-bombers, and I don't think anyone really uses them.

[Grand-Stone 153]

On sas

You could have 

-sas with AP

-flame thrower sas for EOBZ

-infantry as sas Token

-ramming ones...

 

[Grand-Stone 153]

They could also cost extra if neccesary

[Veldrain 376]

3 hours ago, Grand-Stone said:

-sas with AP - Small one-two man planes don't have enough room for a squad of marines.

-flame thrower sas for EOBZ - Other than the flame crit what would separate this from the dive bomber.  Moreover, why would I use it when I can only score one HP while the dives almost guarantee me a 2HP crit.

-infantry as sas Token - Why?

-ramming ones... - Again, what would the rules be except for single use dive bombers?

 

On one hand you say you want to simplify the rules, but then you propose to double the amount of SAS types which are the most complicated part of the game.

[Grand-Stone 153]

Veldrain: By being slightly more structured, you could do both, add fun new elements AND make things slightly.

What I want is, once you have understood the basic rules, ALL rules needed for a give unit should be in the unit stats! And all things that modify the rules should be in mars. Then I know where to find them. It easier to let all SAS have -1 to be hit kind of mar against X, Y and Z, than to have to know the rules of how to use SAS before hand. I would then know that, the to-hit number is 5+, cuz it says so in the MAR. Likewise, making rockets get SHIELD penetration MAR instead of having to know that shields behave differently for rockets, is far easier. Further, it's nice to says that all EOBS primaries causes fire, but it would not hurt to give all EOBS primaries that MAR explicitly in addition.

 

I want all rules, to be standarised, and have all modifications be in MARS!  Cuz what makes the game difficult are all the small details hidden here and there and everywhere.

 

For SaS, it is actually just one tiny part of my post. Saying, jupp, it could be fun with more emphasizes on the tiny parts also.

1) Imagine infantry in steam-punk power-armor with jet-packs which behaves like SAS (or any other tiny unit), have speed of 8'', and have 2AP for each token.

2) Let say, the EOBS could do the fallowing:

for 50pt, you could add a wing of dive bombers with the Corrosive and fire starting MARs. There is nothing complicated about adding more SAS. What is complicated is that the rules for them are here and there and everywhere. Having different stats and some different MARs is easy.

3) For the Land based game, infantry should be able to be used independently of other units.

 

SAS is an important part of the game,  and you could add a lot more feel to it. Adding specials SAS at an extra cost would add to the game in my view. This way they could incoorperate some of the ideas from dystopian empires into the dystopian wars! And I atleast would find it fun.

 

But, this is just one of the things I would find fun. If you don't, that's fine with me. The main point was, I want to add some fun and exciting new things in ADDITION to fixing some rules and rebalancing the things that don't work.

[Veldrain 376]

34 minutes ago, Grand-Stone said:

Veldrain: By being slightly more structured, you could do both, add fun new elements AND make things slightly.

What I want is, once you have understood the basic rules, ALL rules needed for a give unit should be in the unit stats! And all things that modify the rules should be in mars. Then I know where to find them. It easier to let all SAS have -1 to be hit kind of mar against X, Y and Z, than to have to know the rules of how to use SAS before hand. I would then know that, the to-hit number is 5+, cuz it says so in the MAR. Likewise, making rockets get SHIELD penetration MAR instead of having to know that shields behave differently for rockets, is far easier. Further, it's nice to says that all EOBS primaries causes fire, but it would not hurt to give all EOBS primaries that MAR explicitly in addition.

This is mind boggling insane.  So all modifiers must be in a models list of MARs because otherwise they are to hard to remember and national MARs need to be stated in each models list as well.  I would rather just learn the complete rules rather than have an additional 6-7 MARs added to each Britannia capitol ship.

Where do you draw the line on what constitutes a "basic" rule.  Do all primary weapons now gain a MAR that they suffer -1 to hit models in RB1?  Sounds pretty basic to me but it does modify the target number so I guess.  Does every weapon except AA need a MAR saying they can't target SAS or is that considered "basic".

Everything you are asking for here can be accomplished on a single page cheat sheet.  Take a look around, those sheets were created several years ago.

 

53 minutes ago, Grand-Stone said:

1) Imagine infantry in steam-punk power-armor with jet-packs which behaves like SAS (or any other tiny unit), have speed of 8'', and have 2AP for each token.

No thanks.  I will take a pass on the whole "slow corvette that is invisible to big guns" idea.  We already have our hands full with Turtles, viking motor boats, and several other units that are basically what you mentioned.

[Presidente 655]

Defiantly less sas

[Booboohamster 55]

A lot less sas and a toning down of fliers in general.

There is so much that needs redressing with the balance, but a more concise, structured and organised Rules/Rule book would be great.

I would love them to develop a 3.0 or 2.5 or whatever and produce as a Alpha free digital download for community review and corrections.  Let the community help build the updated version as Spartan seem to be desperately short of developers.

[richomack88 229]

1 hour ago, Booboohamster said:

A lot less sas and a toning down of fliers in general.

There is so much that needs redressing with the balance, but a more concise, structured and organised Rules/Rule book would be great.

I would love them to develop a 3.0 or 2.5 or whatever and produce as a Alpha free digital download for community review and corrections.  Let the community help build the updated version as Spartan seem to be desperately short of developers.

The community would never agree to anything - far too many thoughts and opinions ! 

 

[Booboohamster 55]

They don't have to agree, I would still expect Spartan to have the over riding decision, but imagine if the current rule book had been released as a Beta, how much better would the final product have been.  How many simple additions and corrections could have been included to make for a better book.

[Sebenko 978]

49 minutes ago, richomack88 said:

The community would never agree to anything - far too many thoughts and opinions !

Obviously the answer would be to only include things I approve of. I'm always right, as we know.

[richomack88 229]

[Sebenko 978]

When have I ever steered you wrong, scions of Spartan?

Behold, my decrees of improvement for DW:

• First, no additions to the main rulebook. Only streamlining and rewrites for clarity. None of this "more SAS types!" tomfoolery
• Add the things that are said to exist, but don't: Factional, National and Heroic Commodore cards and the like. Seriously, how long has DW2.0 been out?
• Decree the third, tying in with Heroic Commodore cards, add some characters. The world is still rather threadbare to play in. What happened to the heroic commodores such as Piriya Kumar? Why can't I have my force led by Arturo Forza? Off the battlefield, who is even the Prime Minister?

[CDR_G 201]

Some streamlining would be nice. See the tables and reference sheets from Element 270. These put it all together.  Particularly the to hit modifiers. Provide as parts in a section in the rule book and as separate download.

From DWFA- the one thing I like that should translate to DW is the SAS movement mechanic. It represents the speed difference well  and simplifies the use, minimizing the SAS spam effect. The actual attack mechanics could stay the same.

Downloadable stat cards or Orbat formatting that allows for the card based stat print outs should be achievable and a big help. Having pics in the Orbats, really would be a nice (even gray scale).

 

[Kapitan Montag 83]

[Presidente 655]

Sailor Bob u say

[fracas 349]

 Wiki the trial rules?

 

[Grand-Stone 153]

17 hours ago, richomack88 said:

The community would never agree to anything - far too many thoughts and opinions ! 

 

 

Well, to me it seems like there are a few key points that people will agree upon, but some of you take the least important part of my wishes and comment on them, instead of the important part.  To me it seems like there are a few things which everyone seems to agree upon:

-more streamlined rules

-card play doesn't seem to be optimal. Anyone disagree on that one?

-tweaking of stats and things that don't work.  For the EOBS the sonic generator does not work for example.

-and it seems everybody want something new now and then.

Now how to achieve does objectives, is an other issue.

[richomack88 229]

Problem is that if you tweak the range of a sonic generator others will want their gen ranges tweaked also to make sure it's "balanced" (whatever that word means these days)

Streamlined rules - great buzz word(s) but how would you streamline them?

[ethicalengineer 29]

My own list of improvements and balancing:

1) As Sebenko posted: content 'that are said to exist'. Additional TACs are necessary;

2) Revised battlegroups. Maybe similar to planetfall helixes system in DWars: list of required units = uniq TAC as a profit;

3) Force Composition Rules. Percentage system is a way to Hell for beginners. Maybe it must be attached to revised Battlegroups system;

4) Revised Special Squadrons, and Squadron Support Mars. I don't want squadrons of 3 models that must be 4 or 5. I want an ability to complete them to full strength;

5) Revised TAC cards rules. Your opponent can cancel any of your TACs at a cost of card or two. You can't be sure that your action will take it's place, so if you need this additional 1+d3" from Flank Speed, don't be so sure;

6) Revised Special Forces rules. Flanking forces are useless. You send your force to Outflank, your opponent deployes his forces at the opposite side of a table. You need 1-3 turns to arrive and 1-3 turns to take into action. Dystopian Wars 2.0 game length is ~4 turns. Maybe player with operational advantage must choose Flanking border after player with Strategic Advantage deployed his forces? Or how can I use my Outflank?

7) Revised DBots rules. Shooting variats are much more stronger then Close Combat. Seriously;

8) Why Torpedo Ordnance can hit surface skimmers?!

9) Revised rules for Aces: How much points you can spent to them, what type this point have, and so on. Maybe special 'heroes' to SAW with uniq abilities (For example EoBS SAW hero that can sacrifice himself to roll for crit table for opponent unit in 4" :-) );

10) Rebalancing of turning templates for land units;

11) Revised to 2.0 deck of Event cards. I want to play with objectives, and what about you?

12) Tournaments mission pack. Not only "kill am all" mission, but organized play balanced scenarios. We can still use fleet orders or similar to them as secondary objectives, and ingame objectives from event deck to bring some unpredictable events to our games.

13) And the final one: we need community manager. Special guy who will collect all feedback, rules questions, and other community info.

You can name it 2.5, or 3.0 as you want. But I will buy it and will play it. As many of my friends. That will finish DWars as a serious game.

 

[Grand-Stone 153]

2 hours ago, richomack88 said:

Problem is that if you tweak the range of a sonic generator others will want their gen ranges tweaked also to make sure it's "balanced" (whatever that word means these days)

Streamlined rules - great buzz word(s) but how would you streamline them?

Sure! Ofensive generators in general could need a second look.

In my view, one of the problems is that 'stats' are 'mixed' into the core rules in too large extened. Reading stats of a unit is easy. Remembering all small details about everything is difficult. But if the game rules was remade with the goal that a stat card should include all rules, or refer to all rules needed to play a given model, things would be easier.

[Presidente 655]

Node generators should probably be one use only

[richomack88 229]

3 hours ago, Presidente said:

Node generators should probably be one use only

That's fighting talk.

[richomack88 229]

4 hours ago, Grand-Stone said:

Sure! Ofensive generators in general could need a second look.

In my view, one of the problems is that 'stats' are 'mixed' into the core rules in too large extened. Reading stats of a unit is easy. Remembering all small details about everything is difficult. But if the game rules was remade with the goal that a stat card should include all rules, or refer to all rules needed to play a given model, things would be easier.

Only problem with that idea is that I don't fancy lugging A3 sized cards to my local club

Most of what's in the rules is stored in my brain and I can 99% of the time remember all the finer points (with the odd little rulebook look up) however you ask me to tell you my wedding anniversary date - no flipping idea.

Damn you DW