Jump to content
Veldrain

Dystopian World 2.5

Recommended Posts

So far most of their statements look good.

Drones - Well Spartans track record on this unit for the last five years sucks so I'm not holding out any  hope they get it right this time.  Sorry CoA players.

Weapons, Munitions - Small changes here and there should be fine.  I would like to see Heat Rays not be able to target submerged models. 

Deep Diving and Stratospheric - A fair enough change.  Minor boost possibly to the heavy bombers on turn one.  Big question would be if they change deployment rules to allow starting at these heights.

Generators - Is there a small chance they actually listened to us about most utility generators having useless ranges??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Veldrain said:

Drones - Well Spartans track record on this unit for the last five years sucks so I'm not holding out any  hope they get it right this time.  Sorry CoA players.

Don't apologise for being right.

8 hours ago, Veldrain said:

Generators - Is there a small chance they actually listened to us about most utility generators having useless ranges??

With a little luck it'll be the simple but required change of defaulting to activating after movement. Who though having the Aristotle being within 12" of a model worth target painting for an entire turn was a good plan?

One change I am hopeful for is the allies change- although the battlegroup system was good in theory, it screwed over some players who had bought single models to bolster missing elements from their fleet- one of the guys from my old group bought a Zamiec to help his russians, which hasn't left the box since the release of 2.0 on the basis of having to shell out £50 just to get the required non-capital squadron needed to field them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds quite good from the blog, just hoping for boarding to get streamlined with working out of the dice pools. As can remeber last time played in a campaign game, the prussian team was competeting to see how many of my italian Battlecruisers they could take home.. heh XD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

boarding needs some streamlining indeed. As a PE player, I've gotten used to it, but last match I used my FSA and my opponent actually managed to board me. Took him some time to figure out how to do it tough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.. well, I have always found boarding quick and easy once I got my head round it. Not too tricky to teach either. I would be hesitant to change the mechanic too much since it is such a key weakness of big ships in smaller points games. Most changes I can think of that would simplify it make the defender a fair bit tougher.

SAW rules could use a looking at, there are so many many rules and mars that complicate them. I know after a while it gets easier to remember which out of acrobatic pilots, vertical dive or big fuel tanks applies, but I bet it could be simplified. 

Targeted shot rules need a review since they are simply never used.and could add to tactical options. Could be a useful mechanic with simple alterations (e.g. choose a targer system out of generators, engines or weapons and take a -1 to hit penalty. If you beat the dr apply the effect and 1hp of damage)

Most generators are easily fixed by activating at a more appropriate point in the activation.

Designing a model sounds very... intriguing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well once you get your head around boarding it is quite simple indeed. However, if you don't use it that often it is a bit tricky at first. I agree with you on the fact that it is a major weakness (and thus balance) of larger models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If new 2.5 Dystopian Wars Rulebook comes with Fleet Actions rules inside, could we no expect DW:FA downloadable rules for a while?

And, this new 2.5 rules will live more than one year before Dystopian Wars 3.0 arrives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the master rule book, quoted at 260 pages, in handy hard or paper back I must admit my dismay at the thought of having to lug what portends to be a brick of print work around with me.  Would it be too much to ask for a version of the rule book with no fluff, no stats, no pictures of models, no other pictures except those used to explain or give examples of the rules? A rule book with just the rules the whole rules nothing but the rules and only the rules in one slim lightweight paper back volume? OK maybe an electronic copy for the non-luddites as well? Perchance with an outstanding set of contents, a masterly cross reference and a comprehensive index section in an easy to read and find things format? Can this be achieved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 06/12/2016 at 0:42 AM, Presidente said:

The current one is considerable, so the new ones should follow suit, hardback=big book, softback=just rules:)

Not so fast.. Below is a picture from the blog of the two rule books. I'm happy to be corrected but one just looks as fat, and heavy, as the other. If any one knows better please let me know. So my original plea still stands.

 

Not Final Book Covers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is my info also. Both the hardback and softback contain the same info as far as I know. 

Personally I prefer hardbacks as they hold up better getting out in and pulled out of my game bag all the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is what I just asked:

Is there any plans with 2.5 to revisit the victory conditions and built-in scenarios? Things like Strategic Value really only work as a balancing mechanism when you are playing standard conditions (most tournaments and many players like more objective and variable win conditions), and even there they are really only an issue when you're trying to hit 70% VP.

Area control, holding, attacking, and defending objectives, all make for much more interesting games in my opinion. 
And I know scenarios in general are written up by various people on the forums.

 

And this is there response:

There is a whole new section in the book on organised/tournament play and [] the area of 'winning a game' is being looked at.

Hope that helps. All the best.

 

So I'm really happy about that.  One more of the many bits the forums have been talking about that Spartan is actively looking at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but SV has not had the effect it was designed to address. You can still bring a Dreadnought in a low point game (1250pts and under) and completely dominate the game. You can still bring two dreadnoughts to a game and laugh as your opponent struggles to hurt them, outside of Boarding (a mechanic I think needs toned down to stop instant kills of dreadnoughts and other Large models*)...though I do accept that this is not the best thing to do with the limited points available. But the point is clear.

 

SV only matters "IF" the model is killed. That's it's biggest problem. There's no reason to not ignore it as a bad thing. At least that's how I feel about it.

(Who pays attention to the SV of a model when building a list? I certainly don't)

 

Limited Availability may have been clunky, but it at least did do what it was designed to do.

 

Outside of the hard caps that firestorm has on list building, which I am loathed to see added to DW, I'm not certain what would be a better way to limit the use of some models.

 

(*I'm a firm believer that all Larges should get Security Posts 2 as standard and all Mediums should get Security Posts 1 as standard, while Dreads get SP3, as a balancer from instant kills from boarding. They are huge vessels and I refuse to believe that they don't have areas under the deck that act as chokepoints incase of boarding)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know dreads aren't the only massives... but we can probably safely assume any massives are not likely to see use in small engagements. What if there was just an additional limit for massive models? Something like 20-25% so you wouldn't see dreads in 1000 points and lower lists. Wouldn't address all uses of SV but it would be simple and shouldn't cause many unforeseen issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • 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.