Jump to content
Guest Delboy

Dystopian Wars Playtester Thread

Recommended Posts

Hi Delboy,

 

you mentioned that there will be changes in fleet selection. Does that mean that players are forced to bring a more balanced list (e.g. at least 20% of the points for small models, not more than 50% for large/massive models...)?

Hope dies last...

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to guess up to 60, while some MARs like lethal strike, or incendiary rounds were moved into the munitions type part of the new rules previously mentioned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Delboy

Hi Delboy,

 

you mentioned that there will be changes in fleet selection. Does that mean that players are forced to bring a more balanced list (e.g. at least 20% of the points for small models, not more than 50% for large/massive models...)?

Hope dies last...

 

Thanks!

 

The full write up for Fleet Selection will have to wait for now....but....

 

The Game now exists on a level of 'Mutual Agreement'.....where players will agree on the type of game they want to play and then go off and make a list. ... something most folks do anyway!

 

Players agree on:

Their respective Core Forces, use of Allies, The Maximum Force Size [MFV] and the Rules of Complexity [How Many / Which of the Force Restrictions they wish to play.]

 

A conversation like.....

 

"Wanna game of D-Wars next week? I'll be using my French Naval."

"Sure, I'll try out my new KoB Naval. Can I use some FSA Allies?"

"Cool, I wont be using any though. 1500 points OK?"

"Yes. Full 7 Rules?"

"Great, see you then"

 

Simple really. :)

 

The above conversation has 2 players playing a 1500pt game of at least 60% KoB Naval and up to 40% Non-KoB Naval [that includes at least 1 Capital Squadron and 1 Non-Capital Squadron of FSA] against at least 60% RoF Naval and up to 40% RoF non-Naval. Both players have agreed to use all 7 of the Rules of Complication.

 

So next week they would turn up with their lists, with the Tactical Action Deck they were planning to use, and hand both over to their opponent to look at.

 

Because the players decided to play the most complicated game possible, inside each list, there MUST be at least ONE Massive/Large Squadron, ONE Medium Squadron and ONE Small Squadron [Rule1], A Commodore MUST be assigned to a Large/Massive model [Rule2], at least 60% of the MFV MUST be in the predetermined Core Force [Rule3], the Force can have no more than 60% of the MFV in Large or Massive, 60% in Mediums or 40% in Smalls [Rule4], any Advanced/Flanking/Reserve Forces MUST be clearly assigned [Rule 5...more on that later!], Local Support MUST be noted [Rule 6] and finally, the list must have its Tactical Action Card Deck to go with it [Rule 7].

 

Once everyone is happy....Game on! :)

 

Hope that helps?....although I'm sure it will elicit more questions...which is cool B)

s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Delboy

I'd like to echo the request to hear about heat lances.

 

I'm glad to hear everyone will get all the SASs.

 

What single model do you think has been the most changed?

 

The Heat Lance has changed to be....well....a Lance! :P

It allows the RoF player to use Piercing Ammunition to cause a Crit Effect to be rolled even if only the DR is reached, debilitating the enemy as the RoF Force closes.

 

The Heat Lance also has Incendiary Munitions so each time it does Damage it causes a Raging Fire Game Marker to be placed......which ALSO has to be repaired.....

 

Finally, the Heat Lance has the Redoubtable MAR, ensuring it is relatively resistant to damage...and the Pinpoint MAR which allows any roll on the Crit Table [incuuding those done using Piercing Weapons....] to modify the result by +1.....giving the RoF player the ability to control the Crit Rolled in the same way as the CoA Energy Turrets could previously.

 

Why is this important? Control. The preferred RoF Crits are Half AD/Hard Pounding/Half Move allowing them to insulate themselves from boarding, reduce incoming fire and maintain Alpha Strike potential.....the Heat Lances provide an means and manner to achieve this.

 

 

Regarding the question of 'Which model has been the most changed'....its hard to say. Everything has changed to some degree due to mechanics changes within the game. I guess my answer would be moving Tiny Flyer Tokens into the models camp and calling them Support Aircraft Wings....who form into Support Aircraft Squadrons.

 

This allowed us to have MARS that 'crossed the divide' between Tokens and Models.....by getting rid of the term 'Token' from the game! Their interaction on the table top is entirely different now. The synergy with Carriers works, allowing players to actually use Carriers for their intended purpose beyond simply bringing aircraft to the table - you can actually DO carrier actions now in-game without waiting a week.... :rolleyes:

 

Cheers for the questions!

I hope that helps?

d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Delboy

How many MARs were there in 1.1 and how many are there going to be in 2.0, he asked, in a leading sort of fashion, because he really likes the answer to this question?

 

Lead away....I'm keen to rabbit on about MARS......   :P  cos I'm sad that way.... :D

 

The old 1.1 had a number of reduncancies in it that made it very difficult to write new models up for it WITHOUT creating new MARs...... this became most apparent with Fleets like the Covenant who have a wide range of weirdness attached to them!

 

So when Neil approached James and I to write 2.0, the first thing I said was....

 

"I will be swinging an axe at the MARs!"

 

In 1.1 there were about 80 MARs in the Core book, if you include the TFT MARs...and these were designed to cover the Core-4 Nations at the time. By the time the re-write was gathering pace we have about 500+ Models and 180 MARs...In fact I must confess I don't know how many we got to in the end...210+ maybe? :unsure:

 

So enough was enough as far as I was concerned... I squirrelled myself away, cutting and trimming until I got down to 50 MARs..... but.... as the design process advanced it became clear that my draconian topiary might have gone a bit far, so we reluctantly started to add MARs slowly. We needed to cover 500+ models in a game that uses 3 Core Theatres..... and my goal of 50 HAD to change. 

 

Now, to broaden out the MARs and make them more adaptable I used a simple system of situation+numerics to allow more flexibility within a single MAR.

 

In the 1.1 there was Dash+Elan and Gas Alert..... one gave you +1AD when boarding and the other gave you +2..... so in 2.0 I created a MAR called Terror Tactics [x] where 'x' is the bonus dice..... nothing new really as we had been using the system for some time in the Alliance Fleets.

 

But the situation+numerics system is even more flexible than that, allowing Metzgers to be Terrifying in Boarding, Pack Tactics [the old Pack Hunter] to be more specific and so more balanced by making the Orion have Pack Tactics [Torpedoes, +1], etc...

 

Basically, the intention is that we shouldn't NEED to create more MARs after these, as we have them in a variable format.....of course never say never.... :rolleyes: .... we all secretly like a good MAR, we do..... :blink: ... but the volume should never reach the heady heights of 1.1

 

 

"Shut up Derek.....just answer the question!" :angry: 

 

:unsure:

".... there are 75 MARs in the game."

 

...I know I could have just said that at the start.... :rolleyes:

 

Cheers,

d

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Delboy

Hi interviglium.

I'll answer in-post

 

Thanks for the info so far Delboy - I have a few questions!

 

I notice some of the stuff is sounding similar to FSA 2.0, which I thoroughly enjoy. Did you happen to take any steps towards FSA's model of boarding? Specifically with regards to the simplified dice pools of attacker vs defender, rather than assigning dice (either AP or AA) to individual models?

The Boarding mechanic in DW2 is essentially the same as 1.1 only explained better. The pooling system and 1-shot-deal method in FStA works for that game but not for DW. The assignment principle exists throughout the DW game in Counter Attacks, Firing, etc and Boarding should follow the same principles.

 

Is there anything special that was done to Energy Turrets to make them suitable core turrets, or was it just bumping up of AD to match post-aerial support ET numbers?

The CoA Energy Turrets are very similar to the Turrets from the Euclid Box Changes. The MARs and Rules are the same BUT.... its in the new Linking Rules that these weapons get their bonus.... by getting more dice. :) 

 

Specific models I'd be interested in knowing about would be the Epi I guess, but I'm guessing I'd need to know the new drone info to make the most of it.

Correct. The Drone rules are similar to the standard SAS rules, only more.....er..... Drone-like.....innit. :wacko: 

 

Thanks!

 

 

Cheers,

d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoy things you're saying to us, thanks D.

 

But, about Fleet building percentages... 60% of Large/Massive seems still way too much... or maybe Massive/Large costs increased?

Is Limited Availability standardized on most of models? It would be cool to prevent spam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got some questions concerning my beloved penguins.

You already said, that the teleportation mechanic will change.

What changes will there be at the energy weapon front?

In particular, will there be something like the current Fresnel MK I and how will it work?

 

Will there be more Wave lurkers?

 

Thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Delboy

Hey Delboy, thanks for your work on and offline.

I would love to ask you about a few ships specifically, some because I think they would give a good indication of the way that the whole faction has gone, and one because I love that ship specifically.

So could I ask about these ships and what kind of changes they have going for them?

Ruler Class Battleship

Tribal Class Cruiser

Attacker Class Frigate.

Also the Vengeance Submarine (I love this thing so much, don't tamper with it too much!)

 

The KoB have had a pretty solid change.

 

All KoB Primary Turrets have the Redoubtable MAR.In addition, ALL KoB Capital models have the Engineers [Experienced] MAR allowing them to +1 to the dice roll in the Repair Phase

This coupled with the new Linking Rules makes them a long term player in-game.

 

 

The main change to the list you mentioned was the Tribal, which try as we might we couldn't get the twin turret version to work without costing the model at 95-100pts - The single turret Tribal with the Generator is fine and very well balanced in game terms

 

..... so those of us with Twin Turret Tribals had better go root out the external generator to replace it....this shouldn't be a problem really as these of us with the old Tribals were supplied with the metals anyway.

 

 

And the Vengeance....... is pretty much the same....I like it too

 

Cheers

d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I ask what was done to the Reiver, Jager, Hussar, and the Arminius?

I would say that the Jager and Reiver would have had a decent amount of work on. But I'm also curious if my favorite small and favoured medium have been nerfed (Arminius) or buffed/nerfed (Hussar) and how much tinkering was done to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What single model do you think has been the most changed?

 

I'm going to disagree with Del on this on :o ....probably due to the factions I play.

 

For me the things that have changed the most  are Robots, in particular the boarding focused ones. They've had two major changes, which make them feel right to me now.

 

How many people had something like the following happen in 1.1?

 

A Arronorax is teleported into your fleet, the activation you react with- say dive bombers- fails to kill the thing- and it swings round, blasts a frigate or destroyer squadron with the Particle Accelerator, and then viciously assaults something with it's mighty  tail, and carefully flicks  AP off the target model. :blink:

 

This didn't quite feel right to us, so now:

Robots have to have their target in front of them - an Ika may have flexible tentacles, but they can't reach behind it.

 

Robots don't attack a models AP, but instead they roll against it's DR/CR- a Metzger doesn't bother killing the AP, it just rips the turrets off! And yes, these big nasty robots do have the  dice to do that kind of damage.

 

 

I really enjoy things you're saying to us, thanks D.

 

But, about Fleet building percentages... 60% of Large/Massive seems still way too much... or maybe Massive/Large costs increased?

Is Limited Availability standardized on most of models? It would be cool to prevent spam.

 

 Is this a problem with 60% in itself,  or with the balance between small/ medium/ large models?

 

In our tests,  it is very rare for forces to  have 'almost 60% ' of mediums or larges. Doing so meant the rest of your force tended to  be rather weak, and this weakness matters much more now.

Most competitive lists we and the beta team  have been writing have a good balance between size classes. If we found that several people were spamming or avoiding a particular unit, then we looked at the unit. In short, spam is unlikely to do you much good now. :)

 

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will damage taken from a robot boarding assault be unrepairable in that case should the model not be destroyed? This kind of makes sense really.

It would be hard to repair a weapon system that is no longer there, or repair a hull breach that is the size of Metzger's fist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this a problem with 60% in itself,  or with the balance between small/ medium/ large models?

 

In our tests,  it is very rare for forces to  have 'almost 60% ' of mediums or larges. Doing so meant the rest of your force tended to  be rather weak, and this weakness matters much more now.

Most competitive lists we and the beta team  have been writing have a good balance between size classes. If we found that several people were spamming or avoiding a particular unit, then we looked at the unit. In short, spam is unlikely to do you much good now. :)

 

J.

It's a problem with the 1.1 actual fleet setup and the actual 70% :P

Most of list have a small squadrons (not even complete sometimes), one medium in the same situations, and all the rest in Large or Massive models because they are usually way more competitive in term of resilience, HP, firepower... In 1.1, 60% of large/massive would be still too much, that's why I ask if it's balanced in 2.0 where it wouldn't be the case in 1.1 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear beta crew,

 

I got a few airborne questions for you.

 

1) Former TFTs: From the Operation Shadow Hunter pictures I came up to a conclusion that players recieve only one tiny plane squadron as a local air support. Do I understand that right or is there an option to buy additional squadrons with points?

 

2) Airforces are often treated as a naval/land support or filler. Will we be getting more small class planes (KoB especially) to be able to play air-only battles with more options?

 

3) Will all flying models (large and massive) have the ability to fly low above sea to for example protect exposed convoy (Custom "Protect the convoy" missions).

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main change to the list you mentioned was the Tribal, which try as we might we couldn't get the twin turret version to work without costing the model at 95-100pts - The single turret Tribal with the Generator is fine and very well balanced in game terms

 

..... so those of us with Twin Turret Tribals had better go root out the external generator to replace it....this shouldn't be a problem really as these of us with the old Tribals were supplied with the metals anyway.

 

 

 

So, just to clarify, two turret Tribals won't be legal, or will just be exorbitantly expensive like the upgunned East India cruisers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, just to clarify, two turret Tribals won't be legal, or will just be exorbitantly expensive like the upgunned East India cruisers?

 

 

What Delboy is saying is that the Tribal in 2.0 has one turret and a generator.  There isn't an option to field a two turret version.  

 

I had one squadron of each myself, so I've had to do some modifications and touch-ups on my fleet too.  

 

 

So dash and élan, and gas alert are gone, name wise? just they sound cool:( terror tactics ... sounds a bit meh

 

So much less confusing though.  That sort of thing is one of the reasons I started making cards; who can remember the difference between the 4 or 5 MARs which subtly modify how boarding works?  To say nothing of MARs like Ice Engines that are only on one model and aren't really all that useful or interesting.

 

Terror Tactics (X) means that you can remember what the MAR does without having to look it up and it's extensible for future models without having to add more rules baggage.  It's elegant and efficient and works really well in practice.  You lose a bit in terms of evocative names, but it's really worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.