Jump to content
Toxic_Rat

The Beta Lives!

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, RuleBritannia said:

There seem to be a couple of ways to play them.  You can either attack a target within twenty inches and the SAS/TFT/SRS stack nicely for your convenience and attack in the endphase, and give you bonuses for assaulting.    Or you can Long Range Sortie .  Instead of placing its SRS tokens in the Play Area, a Carrier model may place them on its own unit card. These SRS tokens are said to be on a Long-Range Sortie. They remain on the Unit Card until the Operations Phase of the following turn when they are stacked in base contact with one or more models in the Play Area. A Carrier may not Launch SRS tokens in the same Activation that it has a Long-Range Sortie on its card.  However you can't dogfighting or AA them.

 

Long range Sortie seems interesting choice. And with lots of carriers you can keep the distance and rely on that action. Howevev you can only launch them every 2nd turn? Or can you wait one turn, then from then on launch every turn onto a long-range-sortie? The alternative, activate them within 20''. You don't need LoS I geuss then?  20'' is within 2nd range-band in the new system. 

Would you play them as long range weapon system or  move forward with them?

 

How much do you use SAS offensive versus defensive?  If I could apply them defensively AFTER I know where the attacker has placed their tokens, then defensively  purposes of SAS will be far more potent. I would never (almost never) place defensive SAS on a ship if the attacker can attack an other ship instead. I guess these things will be determind by initiative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't played the game since 2.0. New stats to go with 2.5 was never finished, and I'm still worried that dystopian wars classic models will not be playing the same way I used to. I liked fire, flamethrowers, submarines robots of death, kill 1 AP rule, corrosive special. I started to like how 2.5 did a lot of the generators, so I would miss the sonic generator if it's not re-implemented. If the EoBS gets the new disruption generator instead of nullification generator, I will find that sad, cuz old disruption node generator was NASTY fun. I would miss the old boarding rules, where you not only needed to keep track of how many HP you had, but also how many AP you had left.

 

But, that being said, there is one thing I'm actually looking forward to, and that is the Carriers rules is one of the things I'm excited about in the new rules.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Burson_Carpathian said:

Thanks I hate it.  

But seriously this is a good approach and I hope Warcradle continues with it.  The artwork is nice bar the absolutely ridiculous way the iceberg gen is represented.  However the revealed stats show painful amounts of faction bleed and where the heck are the American torps being released?  Also if its supposed to be the Philadelphia in reference to the so-called Philadelphia experiment wouldn't it be an experimental portal gen?  But its great that Warcradle gets this stuff out pre-release so we can discuss it genteelly, this is all early experimental stuff since models aren't even finalised.  I really don't like Arc Weapons/Tesla weapons going beyond the Prussians and Torps rather than Rockets feels very unamerican and reduces the Kingdom's specialness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EXCITEMENT!

Darn I like those Relthoza designs! Though I kind of hope they don't got for the last one - I like the idea of a huge ship with spider-web like linkages, but the sane part of me thinks that it would be a nightmare to cast. Super thin parts that will be susceptible to snapping when just cleaning mould lines off. But still looks really cool and the basic concept of the ship designs is creative and I think brings out more of their spider influence. For all the greatness of the Spartan designs they never really said "spiderships made by superspiders" in the same way as their ground models did for Planetfall; which I think captured their designs far better as a species. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RuleBritannia said:

Thanks I hate it.  

But seriously this is a good approach and I hope Warcradle continues with it.  The artwork is nice bar the absolutely ridiculous way the iceberg gen is represented.  However the revealed stats show painful amounts of faction bleed and where the heck are the American torps being released?  Also if its supposed to be the Philadelphia in reference to the so-called Philadelphia experiment wouldn't it be an experimental portal gen?  But its great that Warcradle gets this stuff out pre-release so we can discuss it genteelly, this is all early experimental stuff since models aren't even finalised.  I really don't like Arc Weapons/Tesla weapons going beyond the Prussians and Torps rather than Rockets feels very unamerican and reduces the Kingdom's specialness.

It's one ship in the entire Union fleet that has the arc technology. It's special because its unique. 

Union can have all sorts of rockets. You can replace any Heavy Gun Battery with a Heavy Rocket Battery

Torpedoes launch out of the torpedo tubes that the ship has on its prow. 

Why would it be a portal generator? That's a little 'on the nose' isn't it? I'm all for a homage but come on Danny. I thought you held us to much higher exacting standards.  :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the Russian ships in the art properly now I'm really liking some of the changes I see. The first is that the round engine section has a clearly defined "front" to it, which I appreciate in the design - spartan ones had a front but it wasn't always quite as clearly defined or obvious. I'm also really liking the look of the deck guns and the ice generator. I get a really strong "Defenders of the Earth" vibe off the art style and designs (pew pew lasers). 

 

Russians were always a fleet I wanted to build and never got too so seeing them appear would be great. I just really hope that they get their own air-armada this time around. Whilst I respected Spartan's desire to have variety in ship types and the Russians did get some freaking awesome looking allied flying aircraft carriers; I still felt sad taht the great bear didn't get a flying fortress of its own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Warcradle Stuart said:

It's one ship in the entire Union fleet that has the arc technology. It's special because its unique. 

Union can have all sorts of rockets. You can replace any Heavy Gun Battery with a Heavy Rocket Battery

Torpedoes launch out of the torpedo tubes that the ship has on its prow. 

Why would it be a portal generator? That's a little 'on the nose' isn't it? I'm all for a homage but come on Danny. I thought you held us to much higher exacting standards.  :D

 

Now that is the clarification I need.  So I don't like that the Yanks get Torps, Its faction bleed, as is the unique model, which looks at this point very competitively pointed and a bit of a must have.  What I liked about classic DWars is how different fleets had different strategies because they had limitations.  I know this is something that Warcradle feel differently about, but I worry it will dilute the feel of each fleet even if you as an individual get more choice of how your fleet may look.  Also I must admit the Torpedo tubes on the prow still look like cowcatchers to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that all ships should ideally be priced well for what they perform on the tabletop otherwise there's the risk that some really cool stuff gets left behind or just never performs well enough to sell. 

Things such as unique limits can easily prevent players losing an army's theme. Being able to only take one unique ship per 1000 points, for example and even just one of any specific unique type in a fleet already cuts down on the potential to lose army theming. 

 

I agree armies want to keep their visual and weapon based identities because those play into their designs a lot; at the same time I think some cross-over ships is a neat way to represent several aspects:

1) In world alliances, former and current. When two factions are allied in the lore then on the table a unique ship type that blends features of both can appear for the faction. This gives them some real visual element that ties them together in the game; even if in the practical battle sense they might gain no bonus otherwise when fielded at the same time in doubles games. 

2) Technology theft. In a techno world many races might well steal each others tech and make limited use of it. 

3) Joint tech ideas. Eg a faction that uses electricity might steal torpedo tech from another and produce a ship that uses lightning torpedoes. They might only have one such ship; but it represents a technology fusion that might otherwise not happen. 

 

Also I'd not expect to see every faction get blending from every other. Not only would that dilute the faction diversity in itself; but at the same time it would also dilute the range and end up bloating it with too many unique "one sale" products. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Overread said:

I think that all ships should ideally be priced well for what they perform on the tabletop otherwise there's the risk that some really cool stuff gets left behind or just never performs well enough to sell. 

Things such as unique limits can easily prevent players losing an army's theme. Being able to only take one unique ship per 1000 points, for example and even just one of any specific unique type in a fleet already cuts down on the potential to lose army theming. 

 

I agree armies want to keep their visual and weapon based identities because those play into their designs a lot; at the same time I think some cross-over ships is a neat way to represent several aspects:

1) In world alliances, former and current. When two factions are allied in the lore then on the table a unique ship type that blends features of both can appear for the faction. This gives them some real visual element that ties them together in the game; even if in the practical battle sense they might gain no bonus otherwise when fielded at the same time in doubles games. 

2) Technology theft. In a techno world many races might well steal each others tech and make limited use of it. 

3) Joint tech ideas. Eg a faction that uses electricity might steal torpedo tech from another and produce a ship that uses lightning torpedoes. They might only have one such ship; but it represents a technology fusion that might otherwise not happen. 

 

Also I'd not expect to see every faction get blending from every other. Not only would that dilute the faction diversity in itself; but at the same time it would also dilute the range and end up bloating it with too many unique "one sale" products. 

It is very easy to justify it in fluff, but in crunch terms I still worry Warcradle is thinking like a designer of skirmish games, not as a designer of a battlefleet game.  The main advantage of having a slightly fantastical setting is that unlike a historical setting where everyone would end up pretty much the same but but different quality of training and material, an alt history setting can stress the divergence between fleets, with the element of weapon specialism and unique classes.  These unique boats to be harsh should wait until the theme and wider fleets are settled in design, like some of Spartan's wackier alliance fleets.  At this point we need a strong throughline that suggests what makes these fleets unique.  From what I can see the British battleship in sketches has 3 hard points facing forward which can be turrets or rockets and can have forward facing torpedoes.  The American battleship has 3 hardpoints facing forwards which can be turrets or rockets and forward facing torpedoes.  The turrets, rockets and torpedoes even have the same stats, and the main difference seems to be the look of the turrets and boats.  This is certainly more historically accurate, but a lot more dull.

 

Therefore what you get is your 'unique fleet' but the faction providing only an aesthetic detail, rather than under Spartan where your play style differed a lot based on your choice of faction, since it determined weapon types, ideal range, hard point layout, boarding ability etc.  This is more important in a fleet game compared to a skirmish game, since a skirmish game gives models extra rules in terms of deployment and army building, that fleets don't tend to have.  That's my opinion anyway.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figure at launch its going to be a skirmish game functionally anyway. With the way Spartan was winding down things near the end and bleeding players and with how its taken WC a long time to bring it back and they are doing a full make-over chances are many gamers will have small fleets at the start. So it might take a year or two before we get to a majority having bigger fleets on the tabletop. Plus we'll need that time for WC to have time to release more ship variety and airships as well. It took spartan years to build it up originally so its going to take a while to get the game back on its feet once again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Overread said:

I figure at launch its going to be a skirmish game functionally anyway. With the way Spartan was winding down things near the end and bleeding players and with how its taken WC a long time to bring it back and they are doing a full make-over chances are many gamers will have small fleets at the start. So it might take a year or two before we get to a majority having bigger fleets on the tabletop. Plus we'll need that time for WC to have time to release more ship variety and airships as well. It took spartan years to build it up originally so its going to take a while to get the game back on its feet once again. 

That doesn't deal with my point that faction bleed doesn't help with differentation and that out ofvthe block Spartan had clear and unuque visions for factions.

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.