Jump to content
Brother Glacius

Request for v2.0

Recommended Posts

I hope that in 2.0v of rules there will be some sort of table for what can hit what (including the need to hit). Also I hope that there will be some change in Line of sight - like that if you can see you are also seen by the other.

Also I hope for better ruling for torpedos that are shot from flyers (I mean when did they hit the water).

 

And I realy hope for some limitations on exploding dice - something similar to DL or Armoured clash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that in 2.0v of rules there will be some sort of table for what can hit what (including the need to hit). Also I hope that there will be some change in Line of sight - like that if you can see you are also seen by the other.

Also I hope for better ruling for torpedos that are shot from flyers (I mean when did they hit the water).

 

And I realy hope for some limitations on exploding dice - something similar to DL or Armoured clash

The one way line of sight is important, it allows frigates to effectivly shield battleships as per a legitimate navel strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just since im not that ofae with the rules 100% yet how do frigates shield a battleship as the battleship is two points higher?, i.e., medium -large

 

It's not so much the shielding, as the non-reciprocal nature of the situation which seems to confuse many folks. 

 

So if a frigate is parked between a battleship, and let's say an enemy destroyer, the battleship can target the destroyer without penalty (as it is 2 size classes larger than the frigate).  The destroyer, however, cannot target the battleship, as the frigate "blocks" its line of sight. 

 

It seems more reasonable to think that if a firing line can be drawn between two points, then ordinance should be able to travel in both directions ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slowest thing in the game is trying to find the right token for damage effect's. But I would hate to see DW dulled down more in the sake of quickness I think 2-3 hours for just over 2000pts a side is acceptable. Largest game I have played is around 4500 a side took around 4 hours.

My request for 2.0 is for more ship's some slight tweaks to ships here and there and a bit more variety in weapon type's and to figure a way of cutting down on tokens with out taking away from the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slowest thing in the game is trying to find the right token for damage effect's. But I would hate to see DW dulled down more in the sake of quickness I think 2-3 hours for just over 2000pts a side is acceptable. Largest game I have played is around 4500 a side took around 4 hours.

My request for 2.0 is for more ship's some slight tweaks to ships here and there and a bit more variety in weapon type's and to figure a way of cutting down on tokens with out taking away from the game.

Looking for tokens is indeed annoying. So don't!

 

1)Red and green micro-dice to mark HP and AP loss help. They're easy to find, and easy to tick up when the model takes more damage, and represent the most common form of damage

 

2)Our group all use those multi-compartment pill organisers, with something like 30 small compartments for token organisation. They stop the rest of the tokens getting mixed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and when exactly will the new rulebook be published? I m hoping very hard that this time there will be a little more tidiness within the book. it s a little cheesy for each question which comes during the game to flick through the whole book (ok, unless i m not willing to memorize the whole thing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing i would like for 2.0 is the option to get TFTs similar to the new firestorm ones or infantry tokens. Ofc i would not like to HAVE to change them but the option would be nice, especally if they offerd them a a little upgrade pack with the dice in the centre and everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to plead with you to hire some contract technical writers to organize your rulebook as a reference document. The current version of the rules make finding simple questions extremely time consuming and take away from the enjoyment of the game. Organize the content by keywords and provide everything that relates to that keyword or unit. As someone has said, include a Glossary and a comprehensive index. Have a group of new players extensively test the document as a reference. Don't be afraid to repeat yourself if it makes the rulebook more usable.

 

I've tried to introduce many players to this system and the usability of the rulebook has been a big deterrent to bringing new players into the fold.

 

Thank you for reading this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are many other ways to improve the speed of the game.  More organized and streamlined rules, less complicated boarding actions, less referring to MARs, updated stat sheets, integrated status effects rather than an abundance of tokens, and the reduction/need of tallykeeping...etc.

 

There's a lot of ways to optimize how the game plays for next edition, but most importantly, you don't want to detract from what makes a naval wargame a naval wargame, which is a game played through movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would appriciate some limitations i army composition. Something like what exists in FSA v2. Some of the guys I play with keep playing 3 or more large ships on small battles like 800pts or so. It is not impossible to beat but it is not much fun to play against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love openness and immense variety of the game in terms of fleet compositions and strategies, plus the the ship configurtaions and MARS. The integration of the land sea and air is also a factor that really makes DW stand out. I don't mind the abstract nature of infantry tokens, as  l slice off my tiny flyers they become models any way. Lets keep that layer of complexity as it is.. 

 

Yes the rule book needs to be more accessable and I'm certain that will happen with 2.0. The comment about "No Take Back" on ship movement makes a lot of sense, I say this knowing that I will be utterly condemed by such a rule as certain club memebrs like to remind me of my knack for collisions.

 

An alternative to fixed cannel might be to let it become a 90 degrees arc of fire or even 60 degrees. 

 

In terms of trun sequence, I think the unit by unit activation works very well and should not go. What might be analternative is simultaneous movement and staggerd or iniative based firing by both sides. If they engaing different ships than that would pose few problems in the case of each other an intiative roll becomes critical.

 

Boarding, I'm in two minds here, I think it adds a huge ammount of drama and narrative to a game and is great as it is. However a small adjustment might be to factor in the ships crew for the defenders giving then a seperate defensive roll of 5 or 6 (non exploding) or even just a 6 based on the remaning hull points of the vessel and rolled after the marines have fought. That means even if all the marines are dead some one can still defend. While an intact capital ship becomes a tougher prospect. This would not negate the power of boarding just balance it a bit. 

 

My final adjustment would be that in naval games fortifictions, towers and players installations can only be placed on islands reefs and sand bars, not in open water. This is purely a personal asthetic bias thing, but it bugs me when I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would appriciate some limitations i army composition. Something like what exists in FSA v2. Some of the guys I play with keep playing 3 or more large ships on small battles like 800pts or so. It is not impossible to beat but it is not much fun to play against.

 

I have to agree.  I've just started FA and I like this feature.  Here's hoping it makes it into DW 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree.  I've just started FA and I like this feature.  Here's hoping it makes it into DW 2.

 These limits are already there, in the front of the 1.1 book-Page 42.

 

 70 % of 800 pts is 540. I suppose you can get three cheap larges into that.

 

If  you're playing people who currently refuse to use fleet composition percentages, and just put down whatever they like, what makes you think they won't just ignore any fleet composition restrictions 2.0 has as well, and carry on putting down anything they like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope they don't "streamline" movement, its the most important aspect of the game, precise and careful movement makes the game. Yeah sometimes I "scoot" my frigates if there's no obvious obstructions but part of the fun is trying to get your ships out of a clusterfun of other ships without causing a collision. Movement is where games of dystopian are won, shooting and boarding are just probability, taking away complex movement and you might as well just roll some dice and declare a winner.

 

And why is it exactly that everyone wants to "speed up" dystopian so much? We're wargamers, wargaming does require a certain time committment, and before coming to this we probably played games that took a lot longer than this. The fact that dystopian only takes 2 hrs to play is a god send compared to other games. Anyone ever played flames of war? Yeah, go play a 1750 game of that with two infantry companies and get back to me about how "long" dystopian takes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certain games require certain times

 

And certain games have tactical focuses in areas which are different from other areas

 

I don't think that speed is a weakness of Dystopian Wars. I think that it's a feature, because the speed of the game is very much a result of the deep tactical considerations that come from a game where movement and fire arcs are so vital. Incidentally, Dystopian Wars is very different from Firestorm Armada here, and it provides a tactical depth in the movement phase with Firestorm does not focus on, instead looking more at targeting as a critical tactical decision. Which is also very cool!

 

So where the game takes it's time on that is fine.

 

However other forms of time-extenders can be improved. This is why clearly laid out rules are important. 

 

Honestly, if Dystopian Wars was cleared up right now, rather than rehauled, it would be a fine, fine game. We will have to wait and see what the new edition brings. I am sure that the playtest team will put their formidable minds to it, however, and that what we get will be an improvement on the current game, without sacrificing what we have now. After all, the developers love Dystopian Wars, they aren't going to hack it to bits (unless they think they can improve it by doing so!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imho 2.0 needs more stringent and specific limits. Ala highlander otherwise you can't stop spamlists

As an optional rule maybe, but its already an optional rule from the standpoint of getting with you opponent before hand and adding it to list building requirements such as which core and howmany points. I would be utterly amazed (and personally disappointed) if highlander format were forced, would a model company really limit the number of models you could buy? So once you have a unit of everything for a faction your done? I hope not, the collector in me cringes, i like collecting different versions of things or various options. That would also severely hamper say an australian list as they only have so many options or any of the other smaller factions. That would make those of us that like to play a pure faction force (all aussies, or all EIMC in a list) be forced to play smaller games depending on the faction or force us into allies/mercenaries which does not sound fun to me either.

That being said i would be all for more limited availability on things, restrictions on dreads needing at least 1k points in a list that sort of thing so that way people can not take a double dread list at 750 points. Which for the CoA highlander format does not address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope (And recommend highly) that for D.W 2.0 Spartan includes a Glossary of the terms since it would speed up searches and help the players out and make the game faster.

 

The best rulebooks of any systems I have used over the years have three things:

 

Glossary

Index

Sequence of Play.

 

I think a Sequence of Play is really important for people to learn good habits with rules. It's the best way to ensure players are not missing anything and, IMHO is almost like having a game designer running through the rules reminding players when to apply special rules, order of phases like boarding, and the "housekeeping" rules that can be missed in the end phase (repairs, removing tokens etc). 

 

A comprehensive index is a must. I want to be able to find rules really quickly. A game isn't fun if players spend too much time flipping through the book trying to find something!

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.