Messages

1

Dystopian Wars / Re: Warcradle Friday Q&A Questions

« on: May 16, 2018, 05:55:25 am »

While you are right that probably most new players will want the new models, there is a considerable amount of gamers and collectors that want the older style of models as well. 

I know a good few 40k players who hunted for older models for various reasons (to paint, or because they didn't like the newer models).

I for example, when I used to play 40k, looked at creating a large Praetorian Guard army and stalked eBay for any and all Praetorians I could get. Even went so far as to try and get some of the original 40k imperial guard models from the 80s just to see what they were like.

Why? I really disliked the Cadians. They were way too bland. Unfortunately until I could build a large enough Praetorian force, I was stuck with the Cadians. In the end 6th ed finished my involvement with 40k and the Praetorian project, though I've enough lying around to make a squad or two if I wanted.

So there is a market for the older class of models. Just not enough to justify the investment in them. So in the end every player is forced to use the over the top nonsense Warcradle will be releasing in time. (I really really hope the front of that Prussian battleship gets redesigned. It's a false hope, but I hope nonetheless)

2

Dystopian Wars / Re: Warcradle Friday Q&A Questions

« on: May 11, 2018, 06:03:07 am »

What annoys me most about the fluff, is that it doesn't appear as though they even entertained the idea that they could easily have merged the fluff of both games together, rather than just make one games fluff invalid.

Considering the grander scale of DW, everything that had happened up to v2.5 wouldn't have impacted WWX in any meaningful way. Sure the FSA would have to change to the union, because thats what Warcradle prefer happened, obviously. But thats a mostly cosmetic change really.

The war could have happened in the same way as it already had in DW and WWX was happening in the middle of a massive world war. Would it affect WWX? Not at all.

The Enlightened could easily have been an off shoot of Antartica that's gone rogue. While the rest of the world call then the League of Crimson, they refer to themselves as the Covenant of the Enlightened.

It is stupid how easy it is to integrate DW existing fluff into the WWX fluff without completely invalidating it all and starting from scratch in the WWX universe and now making it that the world tetters on the brink of war.....Which defeats the purpose of a wargame that doesn't have a war in its background.

3

Dystopian Wars / Re: [Experimental Rule] Fixing 2.5 Entropy Generators

« on: February 24, 2018, 06:40:48 am »

I think I prefer the -1DR/CR option as it is the closest to the v1 UPG fluff.

For those that don't know the Ultrasonic Pulverizer Generator (UPG for short) was a weapon created by a Danish scientist, but used by both the Prussians and Danish militaries that shot out a sort of Jelly that would violently vibrate whatever it touched, making armour plating sag and buckle as it integrity basically vanished, and if it hit a person they would vibrate into a gooey mess.

The generator had one of those properties, but not the other which was a shame as I was the one who made the suggestion that got the generator to be usable in v1 (I suggested the 1 gives no result, 2-3 gave chaos and disarray, 45 gave shredded defenses and 6 was hard pounding. Although my suggestion was the 6 result should have been the old fusion leak result that lowered the DR and CR of the model)

So my thoughts in this are that the Prussian and Danish Entropy Generators should have both Hard Pounding and/or reductions in DR and CR to fit the old fluff.
While the Italians I think should keep the basic entropy generator. According to some people with Italians, the generator mixed with the Node Launcher is actually quite powerful.


That's my thoughts anyway.

4

Dystopian Wars / Re: DW SAS in 2.5 and beyond

« on: February 01, 2018, 01:41:51 am »

It's more a case of other rules within the rulebook prevent it. For example, there is no provision for attached models to ever detach from their parent squadron. Since there is no provision for this, in order to stay legal during the game CAP must always be Fighters, otherwise you are trying to force the unit to detach from the parent since only fighters can be CAP. But since there is no way to detach a unit, you've essentially broken the rules in retasking the SAS squadron, since dive and torpedo bombers cannot be a CAP and would have to detach from the parent. But again, since it can't detach you'd  be essentially making a unit that can serve no purpose to the parent since they can't help it in any way during the game.

So the only logical conclusion is that they can never be retasked under any circumstances while the parent is alive

5

Dystopian Wars / Re: DW SAS in 2.5 and beyond

« on: January 31, 2018, 08:29:30 pm »

Spartan Mike made the correction about retasking CAP from fighter to dive Bombers saying that it just cannot be done. Mostly because it would break the rules as only Fighter CAP can be attached to a parent models. Not dive or torpedo SAS. 

So they cannot be retasked by a carrier, But they can be replenished as normal. If they are destroyed during the game they can be re-launched as an unattached unit, because it is no long a CAP. And similarly, if the parent is desteoyed, it reverts back to its normal SAS state, much like escorts when the parent is destroyed.

Every other rule in the rulebook doesn't support any other interpretation than this as it would break too.many rules.

6

Dystopian Wars / Re: DW SAS in 2.5 and beyond

« on: January 31, 2018, 08:56:49 am »

SAS as a CAP function in the same manner as all attachments. I don't know where you got the idea that they can detach when the parent suffers a disorder though. No attachment can do that, and as such neither does the CAP.

Carriers can replenish the squadron, but they cannot change the CAP from a Fighter to a Dive Bomber for example as that would break the attachment, which the rules does not allow.
But the carrier can rebuild from the remains of that squadron if it is destroyed as normal.


I personally do not understand many players confusion with the SAS, carrier and CAP rules in v2.5. It is all there and not that confusing. Most of the time it's players reading test too much into it, or not reading the specific limits on such things because they are on a different page to the one that has the rule in question.

7

Dystopian Wars / Re: PE model comparisons

« on: January 31, 2018, 07:16:18 am »

The Emperor is a brilliant little ship. Old, sure, but still quite usable. Though that was in v2, where it still had the calcification generator. I would always run it with the Calcification as then it gave me a very creditable late game boarding threat for a Large or Massive model.

Now though? I would probably still use it, But it's no longer the go to unit it once was. But as a Danish allied unit, it's still a very good unit since it gains the CQG rule and therefore is still very powerful.

The Eider Mk1, is obviously the superior ship though. CQG is extremely powerful. Really the only reason to take an emperor is sentimental value.  At least it is for me.

8

Dystopian Wars / Re: DW Rules and Stats UPDATED 9/13/17

« on: September 23, 2017, 03:31:02 am »

You probably should mention that they are player made stats and not official. To save confusion.

9

Dystopian Wars / Re: DW Rules and Stats UPDATED 9/13/17

« on: September 21, 2017, 04:00:10 am »

I'm sure you've see the Facebook post about them, but here are the Nation Specific TACs I put up yesterday

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_maQCSHmkfoZG13bDV1aHdUSzA/view?usp=drivesdk

10

Dystopian Wars / Re: DW Rules and Stats UPDATED 9/13/17

« on: September 17, 2017, 09:07:14 am »

@CDR-G I only posted what I was given. And I understood why they were increased in price. The Apollo was too cheap for the extra activations it brought to the table. For 2 Havel models I could have 4 Apollos on the table instead bring 4 extra activations. It needed increased in price.

The Merchantmen, probably could have been left alone, though. The Titian I think was boosted to 100pts just to round off the points for it.




@Ruckdog

I collected all of the Dominion of Canada Stats into a single file, and edited my original STO file to remove the changes I made to existing models. They weren't official so there is no point in them being there. But I added the Bunkers and the Dreadbot to the list as they were in the v2 files.

DoC
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_maQCSHmkfoeVhaekdfbEdsYjA

STO
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_maQCSHmkfoZDEyNWNyLTJVaTA

11

Dystopian Wars / Re: community rules changes - ideas/direction

« on: September 14, 2017, 07:46:51 pm »

The rulebook is quite clear as to how Re-Building works. It was even clarified on the Spartan Forums long before it shut down.

You can only re-build a squadron if One of the SAS you had on the table at the beginning of the game has died. It doesn't matter if the SAWs are taken from casualties of another SAS as the individual SAWs do not matter for the calculation.


To quote the important part of the rule from the rulebook, word for word:

In order to execute a Re-Build Carrier Action, a Carrier Model must spend 3 Carrier Points to Re-Build a LOST SAS.

It goes like this.

You start with 4 SAS on the table. At some point in the game one of those SAS is destroyed

4SAS - 1SAS = 3SAS

At a later point, a Carrier Re-Builds a new SAS

3SAS + 1SAS = 4SAS


Later in the game 2SAS are destroyed (or lost)

4SAS - 2SAS = 2SAS

Then the Carrier activated and Re-Builds a Single SAS as it does not have the points to create 2 of them at the same time

2SAS + 1SAS = 3SAS


See? Its does not matter how many SAWs you have in your scrapyard. They do not even come into the equation. It only matters how many SAS you have on the table and how many you started with. You cannot have more SAS than you started the game with and that is because the rule says you can only rebuild a LOST SAS. Not half of the loses of 2SAS, but one full SAS that has been sent to the scrapyard.



There is nothing wrong with the rule or the rulebook. Your just wrong. The rulebook is clear and it has been clarified before. And it is not hard to keep track if an SAS has died. You just look for a tray in your Scrapyard.

12

Dystopian Wars / Re: DW Rules and Stats UPDATED 9/13/17

« on: September 14, 2017, 02:46:59 am »

Finally got a chance to see them. You can take the Tesla Escort away from the Player made stats. Seems Spartan added my contribution to the lineup before closing down. Interesting that they called it the Schutz though when I asked for it to be called the Blitzschwert. Doesn't matter in any case though.

I'll make the changes to the stats in the file I gave you for the STO. I'll keep the changes I made to the existing models (Like the Aufseher getting Danish Assault boats as an option for Naval combat) and I'll keep the 95pts price for the Blitzdrache. That's what price they were in the file I was originally given, And after playing with them I can see why it was increased to that. It's really damn powerful.
The Eider will keep Piercing Munitions for it's broadside as I think it was just a mistake it was removed from the v1.1 file, since the Heavy frigate is armed with the same weapon and it has it. Plus again, it was added in the file I received and I think it was a more advanced copy than these ones.

13

Dystopian Wars / Re: DW Rules and Stats UPDATED 9/12/17

« on: September 13, 2017, 10:39:46 am »

Still no beta test files?

14

Dystopian Wars / Re: DW Rules and Stats UPDATED 8/29/17

« on: September 12, 2017, 06:34:58 am »

And here is the Operational Assets I received from Neil. They never did get round to completing it however as the Titans Troop Reinforcement is missing what it actually does.

If someone has a more advanced copy of it please use it, but for now I think this will do.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_maQCSHmkfoTV9OQnhIb2kzSDA/view?usp=drivesdk


Any movement on the other Unreleased stats Amiral X was talking about?

15

Dystopian Wars / Re: DW Rules and Stats UPDATED 8/29/17

« on: September 11, 2017, 05:30:10 pm »

Here is a link for Operation: Pacific Cyclone as one file instead of the many files Spartan released.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_maQCSHmkfoTlJGenh1ZXhnQWs

Here is also a link for a 1870 World Map I made. I know some people do not like the one spartan released with the kickstarter, so This might make them a bit happier

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_maQCSHmkfoMXhXUUZuSjRQbEk