Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - erloas

Pages: 1 [2]
16
Dystopian Wars / Re: Confused about SAS attacks and carrier actions
« on: October 04, 2017, 07:21:27 pm »
In addition to what Warbird said, someone from Spartan (Josh I believe) had clarified it in a thread on the forums.  I found it in a cached page and posted it somewhere on these forums recently.

Newly created SAS are unactivated, though this is one of the biggest issues some people have with the carrier rules.  If it becomes an issue in your local group I would just do a local change with your group.  (every indication is that the rules will be re-written when Wayland Games relaunches DW)

17
Dystopian Wars / Re: Fleet Action Plato Cruiser
« on: September 18, 2017, 03:27:46 pm »
I didn't get all of the fleet action ORBATs, but I know this was an issue in a few of them.  Basically what Spartan had said was that with the way fleet action merged some of the stats, special rules, and range bands there wasn't any good way to differentiate some of the units.  So a few units were left out going with the basic assumption that you could run either model for the stat card in Fleet Action.
While not exact, you could probably run the Plato as a Plutarch without too much issue.

18
Dystopian Wars / Re: community rules changes - ideas/direction
« on: September 13, 2017, 03:00:26 pm »
Without knowing lists and what happened it is of limited value.  For all we know the FSA player could be really good and the other players new or working with really weird lists.  (back when I played a game not to be mentioned the army I had chosen was considered sub-par, I went on to win something like 90-95% of the games I played.  My brother also mentioned how tactically inept so many of the players in the area are).

Was the Savannah the key to victory?  If the bombers did most of the work then what was the rest of the fleet doing?  And if the bombers were destroying everything then they clearly weren't being shot down and rebuilt constantly (because a shot down SAS unit deals no damage).  The Savannah was implied to be stratospheric the whole time, but did that actually make a difference?  If the FSA had clear air superiority it could have been just as one sided if it had never left obscured (which is what it could do in 2.0).  Would the outcome have been much different if the Savannah had been switched out for a San Francisco or a Saratoga?

19
Dystopian Wars / Re: 2.5 Orbat known issues
« on: September 02, 2017, 09:53:15 pm »
Looked through cached pages and this is what I could find on the Stolz

Quote
Update from Spartan Mike on the Stolz in General Discussions:

Firebrand Gun is (S), with Lethal Strike and Incendiary Munitions. Firebrand weapons excel at shredding surface targets, as such, also have the Hunter (Surface +1) MAR!

The DR should be 4. Speed brought up to 12" and CC to 2

20
Dystopian Wars / Re: community rules changes - ideas/direction
« on: September 02, 2017, 09:52:47 am »
It's not said in the rules ! they only say you need to have enough SAW ! And Trays are optional game help, lots of players play without trays...
This doesn't solve the issue...

Here is the rule text :
"The Carrier Model may then immediately launch the new SAS equal to the permitted Squadron size stated in the Carrier’s MAR. This new SAS can only be Re-Built from SAW casualties taken from a player’s Scrapyard. The newly created SAS must be deployed within 4” of the Carrier Model which created it."

So, it is not a mandatory to have loose a full SAS before, and SAW can come from the local air support looses. And nothing is mentionned about trays.
We all agree with the fact that there is an issu with that rule. we just need to find the proper way to solve it...
Except that we had an official clarification on RAI.

I think the key is the fact that the skill is re-build, not launch or build.  You can only rebuild something that already exists, so you can only rebuild a SAS if a SAS was destroyed.  That SAS is made up of SAW and the SAW must come from your graveyard.  The point being that you are rebuilding a SAS unit and you can only rebuild once it is destroyed.  SAS and SAW are not the same thing (related and interconnected, but not the same)

The problem with you're quote is you left off half of the rule, the full rule is:
Quote from: 2.5 rulebook page 189
Sometimes SAS will be completely eliminated by the enemy either through heroic Dogfights or sheer volumes of AA! In order to execute a Re-Build Carrier Action, a Carrier Model must spend 3 Carrier Points to Re-Build a lost SAS. The Carrier Model may then immediately launch the new SAS equal to the permitted Squadron size stated in the Carrier’s MAR. This new SAS can only be Re-Built from SAW casualties taken from a player’s Scrapyard. The newly created SAS must be deployed within 4” of the Carrier Model which created it
I have highlighted the key points you left out.

Granted since the rules are moving into community territory we can change the "official" RAI if that is what we think is best.
I personally think keeping the limitation on SAS having to be destroyed to re-build a SAS is the way to go.  About the only change I would see is something alone the lines of "if the SAS was lost in the same turn it is being rebuild then the re-built SAS keeps the activation/not-activated status of the lost SAS, if the SAS was lost in a previous turn then the rebuild SAS has no activation marker"

21
Dystopian Wars / Re: community rules changes - ideas/direction
« on: September 01, 2017, 09:26:27 pm »
The question was brought up on the forums and clarified by Spartan Mike, though I realize at this point I can't actually back that up since the forums are down and anyone can make that claim. (Anyone tried the page caches on some search engines to see if much could be recovered?)

I'll paraphrase a bit since I can't remember the exact wording.
A SAS can only be rebuilt if a SAS is completely destroyed.  [key there is SAS, not SAW] And that you have to have enough SAW in your graveyard to build the new SAS unit.

So if you have 6 SAS units, lets say 3x5 fighers (Local air support), as well as 1x3 and 2x4 from carriers.  You could loose 1 SAW from each unit, and therefor have 6 in the graveyard, but you can't rebuild yet because no SAS unit has been destroyed.  If the 1x3 unit is wiped out completely it could be brought back as a 1x4 with the larger carrier (as long as at least 4 SAW are in the graveyard).  And the same way if a 1x5 (local air support in this example) is destroyed it could only be brought back as either a 1x3 or 1x4 because that is all the carriers can output.

Also in the rules clarification, the rules state CAP has to come from local air support and therefor has to be fighters.  He said that carriers can't re-task CAP, they have to stay fighters.

edit: so I was mistaken, it was Spartan Josh.  And yes, a decent amount of the forums are cached, no idea how long it will last but if there is something you have to find, I would find it sooner rather than later.

22
Dystopian Wars / Re: community rules changes - ideas/direction
« on: September 01, 2017, 01:49:20 pm »
The issue with getting 5 activations out of a single carrier is that it really isn't going to happen very often at all, and if it does, what you are getting is activations, not damage.  If a SAS is wiped out completely during its attack run it means it didn't shoot a single torp/bomb and has done no damage.  We *know* that having a SAS wiped out completely is not that common because if they were regularly wiped out during attack runs it would make them rather useless.  The fact that SAS are generally pretty dangerous means that in most cases a decent number survive any given attack run.  Short of having CAP on an already high AA model, or a very lucky set of AA rolls, statistics say you're not going to be wiping out a unit of SAS that started out at full strength.

A normal SAS unit (with DR2) at 4 SAW would require 8 hits to wipe out, and since AA is blue that means you have to have 12AD to have a 50% chance of wiping out the unit.  How many models/units do you know that have 12AA?  Even a unit of 1x3 SAW needs 9AA to have a 50% chance of wiping out, 9 AA is possible but not common.  And a 1x5 needs 15AA to take out.  That's just not going to happen.

There might be other reasons to change activation markers and relaunch actions, but that particular problem is a "paper problem" more than something you're actually going to see on the table.

23
News and Rumors / Re: SPARTAN CLOSING
« on: August 29, 2017, 10:57:19 am »
I was sorry to see this news although  never really played their stuff and I have to wonder about halo licence costs and if enough comp gamers where even bothered to make it worth while . as a none halo gamer but a space navel gamer  , I was never even tempted (plus I prefer a game to have 4 clear factions min )   its odd that the halo stuff its not motioned in the statement ?
They wouldn't have mentioned Halo because they were just licensing the IP and they probably have no control over anything that happens to it.  They probably also, likely thanks to lawyers, did not want to even imply there was any problems at all with the HALO IP.  Such as having someone search for HALO and seeing a business closing notice and think the HALO IP is dying.

There is a very good chance the HALO IP hurt them.  It was a gamble because the IP has a lot of potential value but capitalizing on that value is a big unknown.  The biggest issue there is that HALO used quite a bit of plastics and plastics have a very high start-up cost and need to move a lot of units before they pay for those up-front costs.  Until they sell X units they aren't actually making any money, they're just loosing less with each sale.  I don't know the costs exactly, but I've done some research on it previously and the mould production costs on things that size are probably in the $20k-50k range.  The main point though is that you have to move a lot of models before you've even paid off the moulds.  And if a retailer is selling the product for $40 there is a good chance Spartan gets about $10 of that (distributor marks up about 100% to $20, and retailer marks up 100% on top of that to hit $40).  And since they are made out of house, Spartan probably keeps about $5 and pays the person casting it $5.  But even at $10 per model and a $10k mould cost it takes 1000 models sold to even break even.

Which is of course why only really big companies tend to make much in plastic.  The production costs go down as well as the original mould design costs, but the machinery to even start that is a huge chunk of money too. 
Resin, and metal, have very low mould costs, but the cost of each casting is higher, so it is a lot more practical for low volume sales where you have fewer units to cover the start-up costs.

If it costs you $3 worth of resin to cast a model or $0.50 worth of plastic you can clearly see the savings, $2.50 per model cast.  But a $10k mould vs a $100 mould means you've got to sell 3960 models before you realize the savings.

But the other side of resin is that you can only go so big with a model before the cost really hurts you.  The cube-square law says that as you double in size (length x width) you've quadrupled the volume.  So a 2" by 0.5" ship might cost $1 in resign, but a 4"x1" ship costs $4 and 8"x2" model (like the ice maiden) would cost $16.  And while the Ice Maiden is a very large chunk of resin, it is not all that big by plastic model standards (see all of the plastic models for sale at a place like Walmart).  So you can see why the largest models in HALO are almost impossible to make in resin.


I would note that many of my numbers were made up just to illustrate the point, they are probably "in the general ballpark" based on the research I've done, but it should be clear from the numbers that even small changes would make a big difference in the final math.

24
Dystopian Wars / Re: community rules changes - ideas/direction
« on: August 27, 2017, 08:14:38 pm »
With 2.5 just out
Shouldn't we give it some time and see?
I think most people had a pretty good idea of 2.5 by now.  Obviously there will be a lot that didn't too. 
I would personally base any adjustments off of the 2.5 rules, but without anything even approaching a community consensus on what we want to do, it is hard to do anything.  And many people coming in and saying "I would like to see it almost the same" is also a very valid response and if that was the case then we have that to go with.

Some changes too would come from ORBAT balancing, and we know that needs to be done because it was an unfinished job.  For instance games lasting into later turns could come from lower AD pools or higher defenses or more HPs and all of that could be done in the ORBATs.  Of course knowing whether or not people want games to go more turns is key to deciding to make those changes or not.  At the same time if people want everything to die faster then making any of those changes would be counterproductive. 

There are also a few RAI vs RAW questions that people have, and knowing which one to make "official" would be easier if we knew what most people want the game to play like.

Or a ship like the much maligned Stolz, does it suck because it has a fixed channel weapon or some other reason? Do fixed channel weapons simply need a change across the board or is it only an issue with a couple models, or is it not really an issue at all?

25
News and Rumors / Re: SPARTAN CLOSING
« on: August 26, 2017, 08:56:29 pm »
Wasn't there two Joshs at Spartan (as well as 2 Mikes) with one (of each) being FSA and the other being DW?

I didn't see a lot of hate and discontent in the DW section.  There was one or two people that clearly had a rather unique meta and it clearly changed their perception of the problems of the game but it never seemed bad.

As for Mantic, I don't know much about them, but it seems like their whole thing is that they are ex-GW employees that have just redone GW's games.  They also seem to basically live on Kickstarter. 
I guess it would mostly depend if their doing their own thing now or if they're still just trying to pick up disgruntled ex GW players that already basically know the games and models.

26
Dystopian Wars / community rules changes - ideas/direction
« on: August 26, 2017, 06:54:53 pm »
So barring someone buying up the IP the rules pretty much have to go to community based if they are to evolve.  And even if someone does buy up the IP, a community set of rules would give them a very good starting point for any revamp of the "new official" rules.

I would like to start with what direction we want the gameplay to go.  What do we want the game to play like?  Not things like specific rule changes like "I want to see the % large in list building change by 5%" or "ships X, Y, and Z in 'this' ORBAT need more defense/firepower/etc."  What are the goals of the rule changes, rather than what specifically are the rules.  Something like "a stronger focus on ship size diversity" or "more reasons or ability to take mixed theater forces" would be good though.

Personally I would like to see games last more rounds, not necessarily longer games but games that go 4+ rounds instead of ones that end in 2.

More advantage to out maneuvering or out flanks someone, which would in turn make smaller ships more valuable.

Simpler mechanics for fixed channel weapons.

Make rocket and torpedo attacks more thematic and function differently than "guns that can be countered with AA/CC."

More variety in scenario and win conditions, especially so no "one list" can be the best option for every scenario that might come up.

More focus on "balanced lists" so focusing on any one single type of thing is rarely going to be better than a more balanced, inclusive list.

More, too, but that seems like a good place to start for the OP.


27
News and Rumors / Re: SPARTAN CLOSING
« on: August 26, 2017, 06:25:21 pm »
There are a lot of companies who wouldn't mind adding those lines to their portfolio, but you'd need someone with enough heft to add a pretty extensive line, who also had lots of capacity and experience in resin casting, and has some money on hand.  I'm not sure who fits that bill.

I think that rewriting the rules to go with the existing models is certainly possible.  Warzone changed the rules and also the models, and I guess they're doing okay with it. As long as you have a well supported product, I would expect people who already have fleets on hand would probably mostly just roll with it.

I expect that an Epic style community rules revamp would be mostly the current ruleset with some tweaks and fixes, because that's the easiest thing to get everyone to agree on.  I would want to start from scratch, myself, as the DW rules have a bunch of issues which are fundamental to the rule concepts (but that's just me).
Yeah, its really hard to guess what something like that would be worth. You could probably get a reasonable estimate on moulds just with a model count and they've got a sort of known cost.  The CAD files are worth exactly what Spartan thinks they are worth, as are the rules, because they can't really have a "market" value.  They've probably got a decent amount of capital in their shop to make everything, but chances are anyone wanting to buy the IP would already have the capability of making it.  Not to say they wouldn't want more equipment to expand, but that all depends on their current capacity vs expected increase from picking up the new IPs.
In the end it probably mostly comes down to the creditors and what they think they can get out of it.  Which could be anything from almost nothing to quite a lot.

As for community rules, I couldn't see starting from scratch as you're too likely to make the new rules so much different than current players (the only ones the IP is worth anything to) won't even see it as the same system.  I think there are probably a few "cornerstone" ideas/designs that could be changed.
I'll start a thread in the DW section for what sort of ideas everyone has for a direction a community set of rules would take.

28
News and Rumors / Re: SPARTAN CLOSING
« on: August 26, 2017, 02:02:20 pm »
I would imagine all of the Halo assets default to Microsoft instantly and it would be entirely up to them to sell them again if they see fit.  Although I think some of the Halo models were contracted out because they were plastic and Spartan doesn't have the machinery to do in-house plastics.

The question of the value of the DW and FSA IP is pretty open.  It clearly has a solid, if very niche, market and it doesn't have much for direct competition.  But the thing about gaming systems is that most developers have way more ideas than they have the ability to make them (see Spartan...).  So I would wonder what gaming company would buy someone else's dead baby when they have many ideas of their own that they haven't got out yet.  A lot of the initial work is done, but it would be hard to put your own spin on the system without destroying what value the IP has, the existing players.  Change it too much and it isn't the same game any more, but leaving it the same would make it harder to embrace it as a developer.

Just the ideas from fans on the forums you could see a dozen different direction the game could go if they had their say.

Of course you have some miniature makers, such as Reaper, who are really just in the business of making models and not having their own game systems.  They make generic models in certain genres and let the players do what they will.  There could be some value there for them.
I could also see someone like Catalyst Game Labs take it, they tried to make a game called Leviathans, which seems to be pretty much dead, but a similar theme.  But it is hard to say if that would be a good direction or be at complete conflict.

As an aside to all of that, I would be interested in working through a community based set of rules and ORBATs.  The main issue for me is that while I've got a pretty good idea of game theory and statistics and technical writing, but I just don't have anyone to play with so couldn't do much for actual playtesting.

29
News and Rumors / Re: SPARTAN CLOSING
« on: August 25, 2017, 08:58:18 pm »
I might look at picking up some things when they hit clearance, but I'm not sure.  Sunk quite a bit into the KS so haven't been playing to spend much on anything else for quite a while, and now that I'm not even getting that... well it is just disappointing.
Was really wanting those LoC models just to paint.

I could see a very bad illness taking down a privately held company in the USA, though I thought the UK didn't have those problems.
But yeah, it just seemed like a perfect storm of the wrong things happening at the wrong time.  Given that they even bothered to launch the FSA kickstarter and Neil's recent involvement in the forums makes me think they thought there was a way through their troubles but something else happened to end it.  Unless maybe the FSA kickstarter was their attempt at showing a potential investor the strength of the brand and it failing to fund right away said "there is too much uncertainty in the market to give you a loan extension/more money/etc."

There was two people on the FB post that expressed interest in potentially buying the rights but there is no way to know how much legitimacy there is to that idea.

This could be my exit of the TT gaming scene.  No way I'm going back to GW and 28mm infantry is just overdone for me.  But there doesn't seem to be much of anything else out there.

Pages: 1 [2]