/dcg/ Dropzone/Dropfleet Commander General

>ded thred
Lads pls

>>51343633
Do we need to bring back "topic of thread" or something?
If so:

>How do you feel about the current state of PHR broadsides
>of PHR toughness
>of battleship utility

Thoughts?

--------------------------------------
PHR 1500 - 1500pts
PHR - 14 launch assets

SR20 Vanguard battlegroup (360pts)
1 x Bellerophon - 180pts - H
1 x Bellerophon - 180pts - H

SR12 Vanguard battlegroup (280pts)
1 x Bellerophon - 180pts - H
+ Director (80pts, 4AV)
2 x Pandora - 100pts - L

SR7 Line battlegroup (214pts)
1 x Orpheus - 130pts - M
2 x Andromeda - 84pts - L

SR7 Line battlegroup (230pts)
1 x Orpheus - 130pts - M
2 x Pandora - 100pts - L

SR4 Pathfinder battlegroup (156pts)
2 x Medea - 78pts - L
2 x Medea - 78pts - L

SR6 Pathfinder battlegroup (180pts)
3 x Echo - 90pts - L
3 x Echo - 90pts - L
------------- dflist.com -------------

>>51343922
heavy bomber skew, seems like there are few medium gun platforms, could be interesting though, give it a try.

>>51343984
Fair point, I think I'll replace the second Orpheus +2Andromeda with a 2Orion group.

File: I have balled for 7000 years, primitive, and I shall for 7000 more.jpg (59KB, 610x400px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 610x400px

>letting the thread die
>again
Lads
P L E A S E

>>51346815
I cant just talk to myself man, ever since i posted my aggressively bad painting the threads are kill. its too late the DZC curse has caught up to us.

>>51346942
>I cant just talk to myself man, ever since i posted my aggressively bad painting
Lad, your stuff wasn't that bad. It could have definitely been thinner, and the camo less fine on vehicles, but it was an acceptable paintjob.

>>51347043
Too many dots on Scourge ships, painting them all is tough.

>>51346815
keeping this thread alive may prove impossible at this point

File: IMG_0668.jpg (290KB, 1210x908px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1210x908px

Finished up my first UCM box, waiting on a few more in the mail. Havent played a game yet but have watched a few. Trying to actually paint fast so it doesnt become an unpainted game that sits in a box like my DZC has been doing since it came out. Anyone play linked DFC/DZC games yet? Might actually paint my ground stuff after.

How much PHR stuff really has to be glued? I'd swear these frigates are holding together on their own.

>>51349843
id really like try a mixed game, I know i have enough ground forces for it.

Looks pretty solid for a fast paint, do you think youll go back and do another pass?

>>51349936
I would if I didnt have more to paint. In my opinion they look way worse in photos then at normal tabletop distance. I have touched up a few things I didnt see until the photo though.

>>51349837
Never say never, bucko.

>>51349934
If you're going to leave them on your shelf and never touch them, pressure alone would probably fine.

If you're actually going to play, glue that shit son.

>>51349934
The jaws on the frigates and most of the non-heavy cruisers should hold themselves in. But there's not much of a reason to leave them unglued if you're going to paint them, since jawswaps are nothing compared to the problem of magnetizing broadsides if you want to go modular.

>>51349970
mostly just the gun barrels for me, everything else looks fine, feel like the gun barrels need more definition, could be the lighting in the photo though.

>>51349843
>>51349936
I did a mixed game when it came out: It was a blast. Ground forces weren't firing up much, but crap and bombardment was raning down a lot. Ended up seeing a strike carrier explode and rain fragments on top of the Shaltari commander, nearly killing him.

>>51350061
>the problem of magnetizing broadsides

PHR broadsides are a straight-forward magnetization, but you have to know you are going to do it before you glue to two main hull-pieces together.

>>51350603
so you did the simultaneous game setup? How many people did you have?

>still haven't received my Commodore Pledge

At this rate, I'll fly across the Atlantic and punch them in the face.

So, how cheap do you think the Glass will be? I'm expecting 20 points.

For an anon too lazy to read the OP.

If I liked Battlefleet Gothic in the hoary old days, will I like Dropfleet?

File: UCM_Battleship_Beijing0.jpg (106KB, 797x532px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 797x532px

>>51353006
Considering how Andy Chambers cowrote the DFC rules, I have a hunch you might.

Download the rules in the OP and see if you can recognize any old BFG in there.


>DFC Rules and Scenarios
http://www.mediafire.com/file/li17bl14bute5ee/DFC_RulesScenarios.pdf
>DFC Units
http://www.mediafire.com/file/oa35v9pq7gfe1fs/DFC_Units.pdf
>DFC Fluff
http://www.mediafire.com/file/oysd2f64iytbd69/DFC_Fluff.pdf

>>51353006
More than likely, Id say it fixes alot of the less interesting and more random aspects of BFG, while adding alot of tactical depth and interesting choices.

Am I the only one who feels like the UCM models, overall, have the most love and care put into them?

Like, overall, all of the factions have the same amount of detail, but the UCM have better detail, if that makes sense.

>>51351571
We did only 1 board Dropfleet, 1 board Dropzone. The DZ players were on the center cluster, worth the most points, so naturally we gravitated to it.

It really was neat. We added the house rule that things that blew up over the objective caused the effect of 'falling debris' from Reconquest Phase 2 to occur, which helped add to the flavor as we rushed over to the battlefield and went 'That strike carrier looming over the battlefield explodes in flame, raining firey debris on you!' and then rolled where the things landed, wrecking buildings and so-on.

>>51353087
UCM models were designed first--- and I can see that. They feel like there's more care in them than the Scourge or Shaltari, which kinda look a bit more similar to their ground units. I do feel a lot of careful work was put into PHR though, as they're very different, yet having some similar elements to what you'd expect.

We're all in agreement on the following, right?

>2+ lock: Excellent, doesn't even need good stats or specials to be worth it
>3+ lock: Good, solid primary weapon regardless of stats or special
>4+ lock: Acceptable as a secondary weapon or as a primary with good stats or specials
>5+ lock: Utter shit, needs some amazing stats to make up for it
>6+ lock: Why

>>51353436
Yes.
The main difference remember in how you think of it:
From 3+ You're as likely to miss, as you are to hit, as you are to crit.
From 4+ You've lost half your chance to crit as compared to 3+, which is instead now a chance to miss. Your chance to hit only is unchanged.

That's huge, considering how almost everything has 4+ or better armor, and two factions are very 3+ heavy. That makes criticals worth MUCH more.

Don't forget also the effect of crossing an orbital layer: 3+ turning to 4+ is acceptable. 4+ turning to 5+ is garbage.

>>51353576
Interestingly enough, the following are the average-damage multiplier for the varying lock and armor combinations. As is obvious by inspection, any given lock versus 3+ armor is superior than a lock one greater versus 5+ armor.
The average-damage multiplier steps in increments of .555... in this way, so it can be generalized that increasing enemy armor by one point increases your average-damage multiplier by a little .5, while decreasing your lock by one point increases it by over 1.5

Conversely, increasing your lock by one point reduces your average damage multiplier by 1.5, while an enemy decreasing their armor by one point only reduces your average damage by .5

The average-damage multiplier effects the product of the weapons attacks and its damage, with the only difference between, say, a 4 attack 1 damage weapon, a 2 attack 2 damage weapon, and a 1 attack 4 damage weapon being the probability spread and variance of the damage inflicted.

File: 438456a226[1].png (3KB, 329x149px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 329x149px

>>51353741
Forgot pic*
multipliers used the usual formula of ([probability to crit] +[probability to hit!crit] *[probability of failed armor save])

>>51353741
Wew, what the fuck am I saying;
.0555* increments
multiplier by .15*
multiplier by .05*

I played two games yesterday against hegehogs.

Game 1 my opponent took 2 groups of Carrier/Mothership/3 Gates, 1 group of Bombardment Cruiser/2 CA Frigates and 1 group of 4 CA Frigates and a Gate.

He walked the game. 30" range bombers meant I was slowed right down having to course change and launch fighters, while he zoomed gates forward, dropped 6 troops a turn and got multiple intercept chances on anything I tried to drop.

Plus his frigates proved hugely effective, and his motherships just crawled along the back of the board.

In the second game my opponent had a Mothership, an Obsidian, a Basalt, a gun cruiser, two Impel cruisers, two CA frigates and 6 gates.

They moved their mothership a bit too far forward, I active scanned it and fired a double burnthrough at it for 4 damage, then bombed it dead by turn 3. They then had no troop launch at all, and I just used an Orpheus and Theseuses to blast their stuff off the objectives.

Sheltari are, it seems, a faction that noob stomps well but are easy to shut down.

>>51354682
That's more a case of a player doing something stupid and being punished for it. Only taking one mothership is a bad move, you need at least 2 for skirmish games and at least 3 for clash.

>>51354682

What fleet were you using?

>>51355345
PHR, I had an Orpheus + 2 Medea, 2 Theseus + 2 Medea, Orion + 2 Ikarus and Bellerophon.

My BTL and bomber rolls were stupidly good, I felt really terrible as I ended up critting ships off the board. The game was a real bad experience, I felt very WAAC-.y

>>51354682
Bear in mind if he has 3 gates above a cluster, he only gets one roll to blow your stuff up, not 3 if that makes sense.

>>51355456

I feel like you need the lucky dice rolls as PHR for dealing with Shaltari though, as usually they lack closing firepower, and with Shaltari having such a low sig rating you need to be closing at least a turn more than you would against anybody else.
Until he pops his shields, which is actually pretty much to your advantage since a LOT of your ships primary weapon systems are massed banks of 4+ gundecks that do most of their damage through weight of dice rather than critseeking like Scourge.

>>51354682
That is the shaltari's biggest weakness. If you manage to push on their motherships their ground game just falls apart.

Does anyone have the hapless commodore imae from back when kickstarter was happening by any chance?

>>51355456
>I felt very WAAC-.y
?

>>51353049

Reading the rules, I'm sold. Even if I don't play, I love the aesthetic of the models.

On that note, what's the best way to paint these? Back in the day I just thinned my paints and used a brush. Is an airbrush essential for these models? After looking at prices, I'd really rather not shell out that kind of money since i'm a filthy casual with no delusions of grandeur (ie: I want 'table good', not award winning).

>>51357100
Win at any cost, or powergaming.

File: Scourge_Battleship_Daemon5.jpg (123KB, 796x532px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 796x532px

>>51357425
Airbrush isn't essential, it's just useful considering how convoluted some of the contours can get, especially on the Shaltari.
In general, most ships can be painted by:
>primer
>base
>wash
>detail
Really simply; and you can get as fancy as you'd like with edge highlighting and all that.

Which faction are you most interested in?

>>51355456

>Reinforced brigade escorted by Carrier TF

Well, it's what I'd build with a fluff/RP-hat on, so can't help you on being WAAC'd out. Break the light cruisers and Orion down for frigates ('This task force has Bellerophon, we can't afford to give you an Orion as well, make do with a brace of Pandoras and Europas), I guess.

>>51357571

PHR first, then Scourge. UCM, and Shaltari tied for dead last.

>>51355456
Agreeing with >>51357676, you could drop the Orion for 3Europa or 2Pandora. I'd keep the Theseus, simply because they're a solid ship.

Also, is it just me, or do the ratios of tonnages feel different for the fleets, 1500 point wise?
>UCM
Fairly evenly balanced between all the tonnages.
>Scourge
Focused mostly on lights and mediums, but also with a good heavy showing.
>PHR
Very, very heavily frigate based with a lot of mediums; not many heavies save for the Bellerophon.
>Shaltari
Almost entirely heavy and superheavy in my experience, with the only mediums being the obligatory Emeralds and Basalts. Very, very few lights besides voidgates and sometimes Amethysts.

File: PHR_Battleship_Heracles0.jpg (65KB, 793x527px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 793x527px

>>51357817
Aesthetics wise or playstyle wise? I absolutely love the look of Shaltari ships, but the weakness of their lances and how much needs to be invested in 2-3 Emeralds, points wise, throws me off.

>>51357854

Aesthetics. For playstyle, PHR or UCM .

>>51357870
Having played a fair bit of both UCM and PHR, they're both really fun.
UCM can work with pretty much any fleet composition, but generally speaking their beams are the main stars of their roster, with their guns generally being relegated to their carriers or battleships, maybe a squadron of Osakas if you really like good arcs.

PHR broadsides are in a strange place right now, but are effective if you're clever with your maneuvering and positioning. Going Bellerophon heavy with lots of frigates is an amazingly solid composition.

In both cases, make sure to take corvettes. They make or break games when it comes down to actual scoring.

>>51358011

Ta. I'm going to pick up the 2p starter set and give things a go, see if it sticks as a game or if it becomes just a source of neat ships to paint.

>>51358011
>In both cases, make sure to take corvettes. They make or break games when it comes down to actual scoring.

WTF is a PHR corvette model?

CAW is only on the same orbital layer, correct?
Do catastrophic explosions effect ships on separate orbital layers?

File: 46ce642fc860b18b2061c0beee0c07bc_original[1].jpg (65KB, 639x426px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 639x426px

>>51358067
This guy; they haven't started selling them yet, but the renders are done.

File: 713eca6557b5a47183a213a69abe3f03_original[1].jpg (91KB, 639x426px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 639x426px

>>51358089
And here's the rest for the other factions.

File: fab2ba7dbb00e344d27d05b126335e16_original[1].jpg (59KB, 639x426px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 639x426px

>>51358098
This is the rear view of the Glass

>>51358067

Take a PHR frigate hull, take the Andromeda/Calypso prow attachment then attach a cruiser forward turret to it, leave off the rear ventral drive fin?

>>51358089

Hey, thanks!

>>51357538
I think he meant why did you feel that way.

>>51343694
I feel like all these things mostly work fine.

PHR aren't really that tough, they're just the toughest - that extra Hull Point doesn't always come up but when it does it can be pretty important. Still, they function fine.

Broadsides are all good besides the heavies on the Achilles, which are just pure shit for their cost.

In general, PHR are much like they are in DZC. They pay a little more than they really should for some units - the Achilles for example has no business being more expensive than the Moscow, and nor does the Hector, they're simply not as good - but they're still competitive with all the other factions.

One minor complaint I have is that the Ajax's broadsides are way overkill. They should be able to split their fire between frigates. It feels like the Ajax charges you for the ability to kill four frigates at once but doesn't actually give you it.

>>51359457
>One minor complaint I have is that the Ajax's broadsides are way overkill. They should be able to split their fire between frigates. It feels like the Ajax charges you for the ability to kill four frigates at once but doesn't actually give you it.
Get rid of broadsides entirely as a weapon statlines, replace them with linked batteries.

>>51359611
this would probably work well, but i dont think such a major change will be put in place anytime soon.

>>51359966
I have no idea why they didn't do this in the first place. It can't have been to save space, since there are a load of ships with 4+ weapon profiles.

>>51360881
The Leonidas would have 9 weapon profiles including CAW, but I don't think that'd be too bad.

>>51357838
I hardly feel the need to assemble Shaltari frigates having already built 4 Amethyst and 1 Opal.

>>51361629
>not having 4 Opal 4 Amethyst
Literally all you'll ever need.

File: IMG_1076.jpg (211KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 960x540px

>>51358107
>their corvettes are ayyfunnels
>my Shaltari are pale green
I know what color glow to give my lances now.

>>51360881
I suspect its because with the full broadside its a ship meant not necessarily to hunt frigates so much as hunt strike carriers in specific. The broadside wipes them out in space, but more importantly its enough shots to fish for hits in atmosphere.

Not saying splitting them wouldnt be nice, but I suspect thats the reason for the full battery to begin with.

>>51362336
But a split-linked set up can still pump all that firepower into a single target no problem, so that can't be the reason.

>>51343694
>>51359457
There were actually a few interesting ideas tossed around on the Hawk forums as how to make the PHR tougher so that they can get into proper broadside positions. Basically, they were:

>more hull based on tonnage, ranging from +1 to +4
>reinforced armor
>6+ passive save on medium, heavy, and superheavy ships
I feel like the first is just too much and would make the PHR just annoying to chew through, rather than being properly tough.
The second is horribly OP for a faction wide buff.
The third is interesting, since it doesn't make them that much tougher, but it certainly puts a chunk in most of the damage the PHR take.

>>51358076
CAW can cross layers at the usual penalty to-hit
Explosions and other death effects are only are same layer.

>>51362466
I found it interesting to note that as the "toughest faction" they actually only have 1 more hull point and better saves on their small ships compared to UCM so being able to survive crits occasionally is tempting

>>51362466
They don't need to be tougher: They're already the toughest ships in the game, and a full broadside firing is already slightly better than most cruiser's usual output.

Just, some variants have poor weapon selections. And they play different. Stuff like the Bell and Orion / Theseus are pretty optimal.

File: d96748b313[1].png (12KB, 826x825px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 826x825px

>>51362834
I think the main complain among the forums and other plebe sites is not the damage, but rather the difficulty PHR ships have in getting into good positions against competent opponents.
Them being tough is the means by which they're able to get into position, but they're not tough enough to tank enemy fire enough to properly get into position.

On the other hand, it may just be that normie PHR players are just retarded who can't into maneuvering. I've actually had great success with using Theseus or Orion wolfpacks coming in at the corners towards the center diagonally and doing one of three things, pic related:

>Grey
Starting vector on turn 1
>Red
Loop around through center towards enemy corner to get behind them if there's a large clump heading down that edge.
>Orange
Stay mostly on my side of the board if there's a wide line of enemy presence and no safe holes to slip through.
>Purple
Inflect around centerpoint and get behind enemy if there's a large clump on the other side of the board.

In the Red and Purple situations, it's entirely possibly to get one, two, or even three double broadsides off.

>>51358011
>with their guns generally being relegated to their carriers or battleships
>forgetting based Moscow
Rio I can understand, it's nothing special and can be overshadowed by Seattle. But Moscow is a fantastic brawler.

>>51364871
On everything but weapons free it's just a slightly tougher Rio.
On weapons free it kicks ass.

>>51363199
This is generally the stuff I keep in mind too.

I've found a lot of other PHR players are minimizing broadsides entirely and just swamp their enemies with bombers. I can't do that because I love the Orion and the Leonidas way too much.

What is better; two battlegroups of two medea and three echo, or a battlegroup of four medea and a battlegroup of six echo?

>>51367063
That's a good question one gets you sr 4 on the stroke carriers. Depends on how important that is.

>>51367063
I'd go for the first option. The second gives your Medeas a slightly lower SR which could be good for avoiding CA frigate kill teams, but it also forces you to group all your corvettes together.

>>51367965
>but it also forces you to group all your corvettes together.
Open, bruh

>>51367997
Outlier*

>>51367997
Echoes only get outlier.

>>51368027
I know, see >>51368013

>>51368186
Outlier only removes battlegroup coherency requirements. They still need to stay in coherency with their group, and since all ships of the same class in a battlegroup form a group the corvettes can't split up.

>>51368318
>They still need to stay in coherency with their group, and since all ships of the same class in a battlegroup form a group the corvettes can't split up.
That's a shit rule that's represented by an illegal battlegroup in the rulebook anyways; me and my group homerule that away, and we fully expect it to be fixed in DFC 1.1.

I think it's generally agreed by everyone that groups in lists should correspond to groups in games, except the guys who want to cheese stuff like 18 Djinn.

>>51368511
I don't think it'll get erattad honestly. It's likely meant to keep people from stuffing duplicates into one battlegroup, since they'd then have to activate together and stay near to each other.

>>51368552
I don't really see why that's a problem; it allows for more maneuverability in smaller games, and drastically decreases the variety of stuff you can take in larger games if you abuse it.
Think about it; you could have a pathfinder battlegroup of three 2Djinn squadrons, but that takes up an entire battlegroup for something that could easily be one squad.

In any case, you could have a compromise, something like "Ships of the same type in a battlegroup automatically form as many groups of their maximum group size as possible, while respecting minimum group size.

For instance; a battlegroup of two groups of two Theseus would become a battlegroup of three Theseus and one Theseus.

Or, more precisely, you could simply make it a list building requirement.
"For any given number of a specific ship within a battlegroup, those ships must be distributed among groups in a manner such that it results in the most largest sized groups possible while remaining a legal list"
Example:
2 Djinn: 1 group of 2
3: 1 group of 3
4: 1 group of 4
...
6: 1 group of 6
7: 1 group of 5, 1 group of 2
8: 1 group of 6, 1 group of 2
etc

Alternately, not even worry about it any just let people cheese group distribution.

>>51368511
I'm pretty sure I know why they did it. Without the combined groups rule you can grab multiple small groups of your cheapest frigates and active scan with all of them, effectively using them as ghetto Limas. A tester probably got 3 active scans out of a 3 Gargoyle battlegroup or something and so the rule was made in response.

>>51368511
>>51368708
Or you could not cheese them, and actually follow battlegroup formation rules as they are written until errata says otherwise.

The whole purpose of the identical groups => one group on the table clause is to force people to obey cohesion rules so you can't just toss all your corvettes/strike carriers/Limas into one battlegroup, spread them as if they were independent, and call it a day.

>"Ships of the same type in a battlegroup automatically form as many groups of their maximum group size as possible, while respecting minimum group size"
That keeps half of the spirit of the restriction, but adds a non-negligible amount of bookkeeping to both player's workloads and also ignores the fact that Hawk leans heavily towards avoiding spam lists.

>>51369228
That's an extremely good point.

>>51369252
Another good point, but my main issue with the rules as written is the fact that it allows for really bullshit cheese, especially in the case of massed CAW frigates. On the other hand, what >>51369228 said is more of a problem than the odd "12 Djinn" BG, so I don't know.

I personally feel like, as it's written now, it's just a clunky method to rectify some problem in play testing without modifying other rules in the game to provide an elegant solution.

>and also ignores the fact that Hawk leans heavily towards avoiding spam lists.
It'd only factor in to spam stuff in the case of massed frigates. If you're worried about the bookkeeping, make it a list construction requirement rather than a "game initialization" thing.
I just think its silly to be able to have four Amber groups, or two Beijing groups, or other stuff like that.

>>51369228
Except you can't really run that many small groups. Your battlegroups are limited to 3 individual groups at the standard point level.

I mean, if you want to do that, you could just mix up 3 seperate Frigates. But the limitation is not nearly on who can do it, but the order requirement for the group (unlike Limas, who can scan while Avalon or Moscow-senpai goes weapons free)

>>51370072
Honestly, I really dislike the 'group combine' thing. It devaluates unit size as a balancing mechanic because there is no unit size.

It's not like a 'mere' unit of 6 Djinns wasn't going to slaughter anything it jumped anyway.

>>51370072
That's 3 active scans a turn for about 100 points, and it's not like you're giving anything up by having a BG of 3 strike carriers. Mixing and matching can't even come close to comparing. You need 2 extraneous ships and the whole thing costs nearly twice as much, not to mention that those ships don't work together nearly as well as they would with others of the same class.

Limas do it slightly better since they can be spread throughout a fleet, but Limas are an important part of their faction and were designed solely for active scanning at the expense of everything else, so that's to be expected.

>>51370167
I honestly wouldn't want to use more than 6 CA frigates in a group, they'd just get in each others way and prevent me from splitting up to pursue multiple targets or prevent explosion chaining. Going through PD again without fighters isn't that big of a deal when you're talking about 12 Djinns. The target isn't going to have a fun time anyway.

Out of curiosity:
http://www.strawpoll.me/12184762

Note, for some reason Strawpoll likes to turn colons into "'"

>>51370974
i think >>51369228 is right and this is to prevent active scan abuse with frigates so without changing how that works I dont think you could change the rule

So, how useful are people finding corvettes?

Aside from the Echo, they don't seem that great to me.

>>51373405
They can kill things in atmos, and they're basically the only ships that can efficiently kill things in atmos. 6+ lock is a motherfucker.

>>51373440
Personally I let the Orpheus/Ajax do that when one is handy.

All those shots WILL hit something.

>>51373405
They're dead killy against strike carriers and can interdict Scourge frigates when they're being cheesy little shits.

>>51374983
Fair enough, but they're supremely inefficient at doing so.

http://anydice.com/program/a81e

>>51374983
>average of 2 hits for an entire broadside
>not 2 damage, 2 hits
It's true that PHR is better equipped for atmos fishing than anyone else, but corvettes make even 12 shots from orbit look like a bad joke. A single corvette puts out around the same average damage as a light broadside firing into atmosphere. You have to factor in PD for all but the Glass, but considering that the things are cheap as hell and meant to be taken in groups that isn't too much of an issue.

>>51375173
This; three Santiago/Nickar/Echo are almost guranteed a kill from their CAW.

An interesting fact is that it takes only 3 Glass to effectively kill a 4+ or 5+ strike carrier (UCM, Scourge) per activation, while it takes 4 to ensure a reasonable probability to kill a Medea.

With the Shaltari's scan advantage, I have a feeling that the properly costed glass will actually be extremely effective, as well as being a useful "weight of fire" supplement in orbital combat.

Anyone have advice on how to magnetize the PHR ships from frigate all the way up to the battleships?

Bump for bomber spam

>>51377905
You know, bombers aren't as scary as expected.

Because unless you're in knife fight range, they're a turn delayed. Combined with PD, and how fighters really do counter them strongly in their total output, they don't perform great when not in complete fighter superiority.

Now, a shitload of Belleraphons are scary though. In part that even if the bombers get blunted, that's a lot of BTLs.

File: Athena-2_1024x1024.jpg (69KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 900x600px

The Athena is the only Fast Mover I've even seen mentioned in any sort of tournament list, casual or otherwise.
Is it because the PHR's only other option for air attack is the Njord, and thus the Athena becomes a viable option through scarcity? Or is the Athena a bit better than the other interceptors somehow?

>>51379881
What sticks out for me immediately is its R(c) range for its rail repeaters - 24" is pretty damn long, often times long enough to place you outside reaction fire range of local air defenses (certain units excluded of course). That, coupled with Supercruise pushing Reaction Shots to +3, means that it can be deceptively difficult to put down. Also, dont forget the giant fuck off cruise missiles it carries as well, those things do a number to structures. It's a damn good interceptor.

As to why other Fast Movers dont show up, I dunno. I've yet to see a resistance list without a Hellhog, and roving pairs of Archangels can be a royal pain as well. I will say I don't see Warspears much.

>>51379881
The best fast mover is the Archangel. This is because it is very suited for its mission of taking out light units and it is dirt cheap. It is also cheap enough you can suicide it and take out something key while not feeling too much of a loss.

Fast movers are almost never taken outside of casual play. The reason being is that fast movers are generally a poor idea in a competitive sense. The problem is that they might not come on for half the game. Even when they do arrive from reserves there is still the dice roll to strike. There are a lot of points of failure to getting them when you need them .They are most effective turn 1 and turn 5-6. Turn 2 the AA bubble will be in place and they are very vulnerable on any run they make. Turn 3-4 is when they are most likely to be needed, yet there is no guarantee a good enough path has been cleared to ensure they don't waste points.

Turn 5-6 they are likely to be effective, but by this point a lot of their crucial-ness has been mitigated. You are already in position with your ground forces. Many of their key targets will be gone and the hole game could have already been decided.

The Athena isn't bad, its just fast movers are kind of bad. I am surprised you see any outside of casual games at all.

>>51379881
It's pretty multi-role, and it excels at dropship killing with its 6 shots at 4+

>>51380361
>relatively durable
>strong, medium range, high ROF standard weapon
>pair of fuckoff missiles for demolition or a Hail Mary run on a hard target
>stealth missile if you're feeling sassy
>compare this to Shaltari and Scource FMs
Okay, now I'm seeing why the Athena might see niche play where the Warspear or Corsair (bless its poor soul) don't.

How's this look, thread?

--------------------------------------
Scourge Frigate Funtimes - 1500pts
Scourge - 5 launch assets

SR13 Vanguard battlegroup (271pts)
1 x Akuma - 205pts - H
+ Fleet Master (80pts, 4AV)
3 x Nickar - 66pts - L

SR8 Line battlegroup (206pts)
1 x Hydra - 140pts - M
3 x Nickar - 66pts - L

SR10 Line battlegroup (190pts)
2 x Yokai - 190pts - M

SR13 Line battlegroup (346pts)
2 x Ifrit - 220pts - M
3 x Harpy - 126pts - L

SR5 Pathfinder battlegroup (215pts)
5 x Djinn - 215pts - L

SR6 Pathfinder battlegroup (192pts)
2 x Gargoyle - 64pts - L
2 x Gargoyle - 64pts - L
2 x Gargoyle - 64pts - L
------------- dflist.com -------------

File: akuma.jpg (34KB, 480x281px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 480x281px

>>51382689
Looks pretty cheeky. Hard to say what I would go after from the other side of the board.

>>51382689

>All of those Atmosphere capable frigates

Jesus christ, the entire game would just be spent with the other player shaking his fists at you as you hide under the a shields of 6+ to hit, scan range only.

I'd spread your Gargoyles out to other battlegroups since they have open. Then use the freed up Pathfinder slot to take a big old group of Scyllas for extra dickery.
For example:

1499pts
Scourge - 5 launch assets

SR13 Vanguard battlegroup (331pts)
1 x Akuma - 205pts - H
3 x Scylla - 126pts - L

SR8 Line battlegroup (206pts)
1 x Hydra - 140pts - M
3 x Nickar - 66pts - L

SR12 Line battlegroup (304pts)
2 x Ifrit - 220pts - M
2 x Harpy - 84pts - L

SR14 Line battlegroup (318pts)
2 x Yokai - 190pts - M
2 x Gargoyle - 64pts - L
2 x Gargoyle - 64pts - L

SR4 Pathfinder battlegroup (172pts)
4 x Djinn - 172pts - L

SR4 Pathfinder battlegroup (168pts)
4 x Scylla - 168pts - L

Of course this lacks a Fleet Master. You may want to drop the Harpies from the Ifrit group for that.

>>51383440

Wait, I got that wrong and gave the Akuma Scylla's instead of Nickars.

Do that and you have the points for a 40pt Admiral.

File: 1483856058705.png (160KB, 616x864px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 616x864px

>>51383440
>4 Strike Carriers at 1500

File: 5ae2672da9[1].png (160KB, 588x869px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 588x869px

>>51383527
>that that

>>51383527
>>51383612

Hmm, I must have missed putting another pair somewhere. My bad.

[memes intensify]

--------------------------------------
PHR Only Troopship - 1495pts
PHR - 10 launch assets

SR17 Flag battlegroup (385pts)
1 x Minos - 285pts - S
+ Vice Director (40pts, 3AV)
2 x Pandora - 100pts - L

SR20 Vanguard battlegroup (360pts)
1 x Bellerophon - 180pts - H
1 x Bellerophon - 180pts - H

SR10 Line battlegroup (265pts)
1 x Orpheus - 130pts - M
1 x Ganymede - 135pts - M

SR10 Line battlegroup (265pts)
1 x Orpheus - 130pts - M
1 x Ganymede - 135pts - M

SR3 Pathfinder battlegroup (90pts)
3 x Echo - 90pts - L

SR3 Pathfinder battlegroup (90pts)
3 x Echo - 90pts - L
------------- dflist.com -------------

>>51379881
It's survivable and has a bunch of very nice guns that work against all sorts of targets.

The other human factions have viable FM as well. Hellhogs are stellar, I'd say they're even better than Athenas. Archangels are cheap enough to be expendable while being able to fuck up dropships and other lightly armoured units, and Seraphim bring some good demo. Both the alien fast movers are steaming piles of dog shit though.

>>51385399
The hellhog is great because once it manages to get on the table you can keep it there as a gunship. Also space brrrt. As a groundcattacknoption it's solid. As a interceptor/AA option it's pretty shite.

Lads, how useful are Battleships?

>>51388489
This isnt about usefulness you WAAC, this is about FUN, you use battleships because go big or go home.

Seriously they are mostly ehhh to solid depending on faction, Shaltari stuff is great, PHR is pretty solid, UCM is hit or miss, and Scourge kinda same as UCM. Will probably see a greater boost in usefulness when command cards hit the game and admirals become more of a thing

>>51385898
This. It's weird seeing a fast mover have remarkably mediocre AA - I mean, the missiles work, but you get two, and that's it, and then that means you're only getting what, three shots of BRRT before it become a flying bag of useless?
Thing is, with Resistance, you either have really powerful AA with few shots (Zhukovs), or lots of shit little AA (Gun Technicals/Wagons/AA on Lifthawks), so even as mediocre as the missiles are, they still add a bit of weight to the faction.

File: T.jpg (349KB, 1920x1285px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1920x1285px

Here, have a DZC table. No, I don't know why it's so dark.

>>51388982
Nice. Where'd they get the buildings, looks like MDF

>>51388830
i dunno ive decided to take the extra ammo for the BRRT, and skip the missiles, the resistance have the ability to throw out so many AA shots from so many places I dont think the AA missiles are worth it. The BRRT however allows that thing to go somewhere go into hover mode, and delete some annoying edge unit, like a hiding command vehicle or artillery. Because it can just stop and then fire and stay in hover you can avoid having to run the gauntlet of AA, and just not get reaction fired. An especially dick move to use it for is to skrag PHR phobos, they cant shoot backwards, having only a F/S arc, so if you fly in from behind them, and then stop you can BRRT one, or two down and never get reaction fired. Unless the PHR player is savvy with his placement and puts them back to back.

So, seeing as how battlecruisers are slated for the summer, when do you think we'll see renders?

When do you think we'll get DFC 1.1?

File: Blue-Ringed Octo.jpg (72KB, 560x420px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 560x420px

I still can't decide between 'blue-ringed octopus' or a variant of the standard washed chrome for my Scourge.

Time to sacrifice some frigates on the altar of creativity.

>>51389848
>sacrifice
I S O P R O P Y L

>>51389865
Are we talking 99% isopropyl overnight in a covered container here?

>>51390729
91% in an open container over a few hours, but it's plastic, so it should be fine anyways.

>>51389599
don't the kickstarter backers already have the models? or are they different to the ones we plebs will get?

>>51391456
They're different. Backers got unique sculpts that are upgrades for the cruiser sprue.

File: dropfleet-commander-core-rulebook.jpg (325KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 800x800px

>>51388489

Depends on faction

PHR probably have the best ones with their Crippling weapons and excellent health pools. Shaltari come next with superlative strike craft supply or immense firepower coupled up with limited gates so that losing your Emerald isn't the end of your game.
UCM's aren't really much to write home about, but the fact that they get more variants than the other is interesting. The New York seems good on paper, until you remember that UCM strike crafter are the worst in the game, and Torpedoes need to be in Brawling range to work and the New York is NOT suited for Brawling. The Tokyo is actually kind of interesting, given that it's not only the cheapest, but it's also the only craft in the game so far that can bombard multipe sectors in a single turn. So it's actually a pretty good way of denying supposedly secured clusters to the enemy. The Beijing is just... there I guess?
Scourge
Probably the worst stats but the best models. It's a real damn shame as well as they are fantastic looking models. They're on par with the UCM, but unlike there the Scourge Battlecruisers really do outclass them. If the Demon had 2 more points of fighters or maybe an extra dice for it's CAW's it'd be worth those extra points. Scourge Torpedoes only inflict corruptor 50% of the time and when they don't the opponent will most likely only take 2 points of damage from them, and they're just not worth it.
If they had Stealth, or Regenerate or hell, even the Beast rule they would be worth it. They don't though.

I still love the model though.

>>51391494
I disagree about the New York. People continue to state that UCM strike craft is the worst in the game and that's true, but being the worst and actually being bad are very different things. I've torn up ships with my Seattles' bombers and fighters are incredibly useful even if you miss out on a couple inches of range. Battleships are universally tough as hell and even though the NY can't put out that much direct firepower it's far more likely to survive long enough to fire those torpedoes than a smaller ship would be. Can't confirm until I play a game with it, but I wouldn't write it off just yet.

Beijing is a fantastic brawler from what I've played. Just remember to use silent running at first unless you want everyone to be able to shoot you (which you might if you need a distraction or something, I haven't tried that)

>Scourge Torpedoes only inflict corruptor 50% of the time
Do we know that? The rulebook was rather ambiguous as to whether corruptor only kicks in on crits or whether that just applies to the initial fire effect.

You're right about jelly battlecruisers outdoing their battleships simply due to how busted full cloak is, but if you don't compare them to the superstar golden child they're by no means bad. The Daemon is an extremely hardy tank in a faction of shit armour values, and is capable of damage output that makes my Beijing jealous.

>>51391766

>but if you don't compare them to the superstar golden child they're by no means bad.

Yeah, but, you kind of HAVE to though. You can't just ignore the elephant in the room on this one.

>The Daemon is an extremely hardy tank in a faction of shit armour values, and is capable of damage output that makes my Beijing jealous.

The problem with the Daemon is that to get the most out of it you have to go weapons free, and that ups it's sig to 26" that's over half the board just with Sig alone. Although in fairness by the time you do this everything is probably in range of him anyway.
You know what else would make the Dragon a good choice? If it had Stealth so it could launch it's torps and fighters whilst on silent running.
Also, an errata that removes the sentence below Silent Running on page 43.

I still the NY pays a lot to try and force something that isn't really the UCM playstyle, but yeah, it's still a battleship. Ultimately I do think the Tokyo is the most interesting tactically of the UCM BB's as aside from being a Battleship, it also contributes to the Objective Taking/Denial.

If it took a page from the Diamond and Platinum and was able to launch a single Bulk-Lander a turn it would be amazing. Even if that increased the cost by upto 10 points.

Or maybe less, since Battleships in Low Orbit can be an idea that ends badly.

>>51392132
>The problem with the Daemon is that to get the most out of it you have to go weapons free
That's pretty much a non-issue. If your opponent really wants to shoot the battleship they'll scan or laser it. And since it has a lot of hull and is the only thing in the fleet with those sweet 3+ armour saves, they'll need to shoot it a lot to bring it down and that draws fire away from your more important/fragile support and objective ships.

>You know what else would make the Dragon a good choice? If it had Stealth so it could launch it's torps and fighters whilst on silent running.
That might make it a little too strong with the torps+3 strike craft+that juiced up furnace cannon on silent running, and on a very tough ship no less.

Honestly what would make Scourge battleships (and heavy cruisers as well) good would be to tone down the battlecruisers somehow, because right now they're bullshit. Not game changing bullshit like the Panther in DZC, but bullshit enough to easily outshine all similar units. The Akuma in particular is just a no-risk cruiser deleter that can weapons free all day and suffer no consequences.

Who has the dimensions of a UCM battleship?

LxWxH?

>>51392740
Honestly, the only thing I can see is bumping both Scourge BC's up by like 5 or 10 points, or doing something freaky with cloak.

>>51393159
Truescae? All of this ships have their dimensions innabook.
Beijing is 1293 meters long, 383 meters high, and 421 meters across at the beam.

>>51393184

I mean the model so I can grab some foam.

>>51393261
>http://www.waylandgames.co.uk/3951-dropfleet-commander
142 mm long; 43 mm wide; 47 mm wide

>>51393283
Whoops, ignore that link

>>51393184
Nerfing full cloak in some way would do it, though I can't think of any solutions off the top of my head. The problem could probably have been avoided entirely if the Akuma was based around multiple narrow arc weapons. That way the no turn penalty of weapons free would actually matter.

>>51393424
One idea I had was the ability to give full and partial cloak a number of limited "charges", respectively 6 and 3 (as a rough starting point), with that ship being able to spend any number of charges on its activation to remove one minor spike per charge.

>>51393491
Actually, now that I think about it, give both partial and full 6 charges. Full just gets the ability to spend two per activation.

Just poked my head in because it looked interesting.
Convince me this game is worth playing. I like the aesthetics, but how in depth are the rules, lore, and how's the balance?

>>51394479
If you're curious about the rules, there are scans available in the OP. I recommend giving it a look, the books are gorgeous, and the rules solid enough. The setting has actually advanced over the years, and the balance between factions is great, with only inter-faction balance being a bit wonky - some units are just not worth the points cost in comparison to others, despite being usable themselves.

Hawk has issues with grammar though - it's not a Hawk product if the rulebook is flawless. More amusing than anything else, really.

>>51395087
>inter-faction
Intra-faction*, you mean

>>51394479
>objective based gameplay
>big focus on manoeuvring, with dropships in DZC and orbital layers/cover/variable ranges in DFC
>quite a few subsystems in both games, but they're pretty easy to use once you get the hang of them
>lots of combined arms required for doing different stuff, spamming a particular unit generally gets you nowhere
>there are good combos but they're fairly limited, they don't decide games by themselves like they do in Warmachine or 40k

Lore is some surprisingly good stuff for a wargame imo, it's been developing over time too. I'd wait until UCM and PHR players get into another argument here if you want the full lore experience.

Balance is pretty good between factions. Internal balance can be a little messed up in DZC depending on your army, but the vast majority of units are at least usable and most are viable. DFC is better in that regard, with only a few dud ships across the whole game.

It's good stuff.

>>51395087
You mean intra-faction. Inter-faction means between factions.

>>51395161
How's the rules depth compared to something like Battletech, and does it have an active presence at FLGs?

>>51395186
Game store presence varies, its biggest in UK and europe but its not unheart of in US, although hawk isnt warhammer tier knownness antywhere.

>>51392132
Just FYI: all ships are directly prohibited from using Launch Assets while on Silent Running or Max Thrust as per the special orders section. Stealth does nothing to change that.

>>51395186
You'll need to find a Battletech player to answer that, afraid I don't know much about it.

As for LGS presence, that depends entirely on the location and store. It's starting to take off more now thanks to the recent release of Dropfleet, but it initially had a poor start in the US thanks to bad choices regarding distributors. Like many smaller games it's either in your particular store or it isn't, and the only way to change that is to introduce it.

>>51395186
hard to say, I dont think there is as much detail on a per unit basis as battletech, but the overall amount of depth and interaction is pretty solid for both DFC, and DZC. Active presence is going to vary by region, its generally lacking in the US and other outlying regions. UK has the best scene.

>>51395320
>>51395305
How much cash are you looking at to get a decent force built?

>>51395333
Dropfleet wise? 3 starter fleets and possibly a battleship is more than enough for the normal 1500 point game, being around 150-200 dollars.
If you know exactly what you want to build you could possibly whittle it down to 120.

>>51395308
Addendum: thank you mobileposting for giving me tunnel vision.
That clause has good reason to exist, though. Getting to dump fighters at close range while at max burn doesn't quite make fluff sense, while launching under Silent Running gives you a spike while under the order condition and is impossible to indicate with the base wheel. Not to mention how bogglingly brutal those tactics would be.

>>51391494
>The Beijing is just... there I guess?

The Beijing is a fucking incredible weapons platform. It has the firepower to strip ships down to the bone and the durability to survive going Weapons Free early on and well into the late game.

The New York is burst damage. The Beijing can dish out colossal hurt every turn until it goes down.

>>51395161
>I'd wait until UCM and PHR players get into another argument here if you want the full lore experience.

This really is the one fluff argument we ever get, isn't it?

It wouldn't happen so often if everyone just learned to accept that the Spaceball knew what was best for them. Orbis Vult.

Curious anon here again.
Two more questions:
Can you give me a quick summary of the setting, and what's the average game length for standard point value?
I appreciate the help.

File: 61234`234.jpg (8KB, 130x130px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 130x130px

>>51395161
>>51395135
Yes, I get it, my grammar is about equal to Hawk.

Good to know, though.

>>51396416
Setting summary is basically this

Earth has pretty shit time of things, gets fusion and gets off its ass.
Has it's own set of shitty colonies. Meet the hedgehogs. Hedgehogs sohw us the way to fancy A grade colony planets, let us have them. Eventually find out hedgehogs wanted us to be soldiers for them vs other tribe of hedgehogs. Tell them to fuck off, keep the planets.

Some time later, the tennisball arrives. Tennisball hacks most of south america, delivers vague warning of doom, go to this location in one years time.

Some people believe this, some dont, misc strife. "abandonists" initiate a minor skirmish at the RV point at military fleet, small war happens for an hour before the leavers all get coded message of hyperspace coordinates, leave.

Days later, mysterious alien fleet arrives at earth, begins royally fucking up humanity. The scourge / jellyfish.
Humanity loses hard, flees to original crappy colonies. Spends 150 years working themselves up into society powered by pure anger to reclaim homeworlds. Shortly before it happens, the cyborg technochad descendants of the sphere followers show up, say "its totes a bad idea brehs", get told to fuck off, humanity begins the reconquest.

>>51396416
>Can you give me a quick summary of the setting

So, we start off with standard warpig humans that over-industrialize Earth and blast it to shit with their constant fighting. Then, in quick succession, fusion power and FTL are discovered, and this brings the age of war on Earth trundling to a halt. Humans start making their first tentative steps toward the stars, gradually uniting as a planet, but it's slow because, while FTL is instantaneous in Dropuniverse, it's also wildly inaccurate unless you have a beacon node at your intended destination. Mankind finds a lot of planets but not all of them are very nice.

Then the Shaltari appear. The Shaltari are a race of spiny ayys with a strong martial culture and a tech level well in excess of anything humans can achieve, who have achieved immortality via cloning and mind-swapping into new bodies. As they potentially live forever, they have a terrible fear of death that is entirely at odds with their own culture, which heavily glorifies risking one's life on the battlefield - you earn the right to a real name and access to the clone-swapping tech solely by being awesome in combat. The Shaltari are divided into a multitude of tribes that war and politick amongs one another, and one of these contacted humanity, revealing that they'd been watching mankind for some time. In return for an alliance, they guided mankind to a whole load of lush, beautiful planets that would come to be known as the Cradle Worlds. Humanity settled these planets, taking care to keep them pretty and not spoil them as they'd spoiled Earth, eventually forming the EAA - the governing interplanetary body of mankind. More adventurous types often sought out further flung worlds that were rich in resources but less hospitable, colonizing them in private endeavors, and these became the backwaters of humanity's territories. For a while, all was good, but then the Shaltari turned out to be big spiny dicks.

>>51396646
Turns out the tribe that contacted mankind, who called themselves 'The Friends', wanted humanity's assistance in a war of extermination against another Shaltari tribe. Mankind collectively noped out, and that ended that relationship, though there was no conflict involved.

A couple of hundred years later, a white sphere roughly the size of a tennis ball hits Earth, and is quarantined immediately as it's obviously nonhuman tech. It's some mad eldritch hit, cool to the touch but showing incredible heat under thermal imaging, small yet taking several men to lift, etc. One of the dudes studying it has the grand idea of giving it ethernet access, and it immediately shuts everything down and hires a bunch of mercenaries to liberate it. Shortly after, it hacks every single human communication system, simultaneously, over interplanetary distances, and delivers a warning telling us we're fucked and we need to leave, everyone has to meet over Vega in a year.

There's mass hysteria in response and the EAA declares it a hoax to control the situation, but it doesn't work. A year later people are getting any ship they can grab and flying out to Vega, roughly 5% of mankind's population on board. The EAA sends a fleet to stop them, when both fleets get there they get another message telling them to jump to a bunch of coordinates. There is a brief but bloody fight in space but most of the abandonists get away.

A day later the Scourge arrive in the greatest fleet humanity has ever seen and utterly roflstomp the Cradle Worlds, killing or enslaving 95% of humanity. The only survivors get away by jumping to the backwater colony worlds and switching the foldspace beacons off behind them. What's left of mankind is mad as fuck and decides to rebuild their society solely to fuck the Scourge. A little over a hundred years later, they're ready, and that's where the game timeline begins. It's moved on quite a bit from there.

>>51396416
>and what's the average game length for standard point value?
Don't know much about DZC, but DFC runs about 1.5-2 hours for a 1500 point game, if both players are well versed in the rules.

>>51396765
Oh, and it turns out the Scourge were bodysnatches and the vast majority of mankind has been screaming silently for the past 150+ years while they puppet their bodies around.

The guys that left with the Spaceball built a cyborg republic with super advanced tech and are also returning to be stake their claim on the Cradle Worlds and also do weird inscrutable things.

There have been quite a few reveals since this point, but I'll keep them to myself for now.

So how is the change to 1250 point tournaments going to change your lists?

Tianlong class when
Drake and Wyrm classes when?

>>51396933
Orochi dread when
Odysseus class when
UCM Little-South-by-Southwest-Hamptingtonslestershire-on-the-Moor class when

>>51396827
This a new thing for DZ?

I don't know if I like it. Basically increases the amount of shelf sitters.

File: 6703f5b5d9[1].png (151KB, 631x836px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 631x836px

>>51396416
Pic related, basically.

>>51397146
Diomedes class when
Alexander class when
Houston class when
Iridium class when

First crack at a Scourge list. Any advice or feedback? I'm looking to take it to a tournament in two weeks and not get crushed. I was thinking of replacing the 2x Charybdis with 3x Nickar, but corvettes aren't out yet.

--------------------------------------
Test - 1499pts
Scourge - 15 launch assets

SR10 Vanguard battlegroup (205pts)
1 x Basilisk - 205pts - H
+ Fleet Enslaver (20pts, 2AV)

SR10 Vanguard battlegroup (205pts)
1 x Basilisk - 205pts - H

SR12 Line battlegroup (315pts)
1 x Hydra - 140pts - M
1 x Chimera - 105pts - M
2 x Charybdis - 70pts - L

SR7 Line battlegroup (204pts)
1 x Hydra - 140pts - M
2 x Gargoyle - 64pts - L

SR12 Line battlegroup (314pts)
1 x Ifrit - 110pts - M
2 x Gargoyle - 64pts - L
1 x Hydra - 140pts - M

SR6 Pathfinder battlegroup (236pts)
2 x Gargoyle - 64pts - L
4 x Djinn - 172pts - L
------------- dflist.com -------------

>>51397225
1 troopship 6 strike might be too much, but it's not bad.
2 Basilisk is excellent
3 Hydra might be a bit much; max launch skew is kinda iffy on its effectiveness at times. I'd replace one of the Hydra with another Ifrit.
Nickar not being out yet isn't a problem, since they're in the rules and as such can be proxied. I'd say at least 3 is necessary to a list.

I'd do something like this, personally; The Charybdis are a good idea, if only to have at least some bombardment.

--------------------------------------
Anon Modified List Scourge 1500 - 1491pts
Scourge - 10 launch assets

SR10 Vanguard battlegroup (205pts)
1 x Basilisk - 205pts - H
+ Fleet Champion (40pts, 3AV)

SR10 Vanguard battlegroup (205pts)
1 x Basilisk - 205pts - H

SR13 Line battlegroup (286pts)
2 x Ifrit - 220pts - M
3 x Nickar - 66pts - L

SR12 Line battlegroup (315pts)
1 x Hydra - 140pts - M
1 x Chimera - 105pts - M
2 x Charybdis - 70pts - L

SR7 Line battlegroup (204pts)
1 x Hydra - 140pts - M
2 x Gargoyle - 64pts - L

SR6 Pathfinder battlegroup (236pts)
2 x Gargoyle - 64pts - L
4 x Djinn - 172pts - L
------------- dflist.com -------------

>>51397151
Apparently Las Vegas Open is going to be 1250 based off of early drafts of the tournament pack? At least that's the reason I heard. Might just be time constraints.

>>51398136
If 1250 is the new standard that's pretty deep desu. That's barely above skirmish and really limits the types of stuff you can take. Gonna start pricing out large units and so forth. Not really a fan. 1500 was a solid point value just enough for good diversity not too much so everyone takes one of everything.

>>51398136
Issat for ground pounders or spaceships?

>>51398548
Supposedly spaceships, because it takes about as long as 1500 of zone dropping. But that could just be a choice the LVO guys are making

>>51398534
I've played a few games at 1250, and list building is definitely harder, but mah Daemon still has room

>>51398534
From what I heard the tournament pack and FAQ for dropfleet was supposed to drop two days ago and hasn't, so take my rumor with a grain of salt.

>when you realize that the Scourge occulus beam is equivalent to the UCM 6400 turret, and that their arrays and phalanxes are nothing more than the Scourge version of 2x and 3x turret banks

>>51399892
They have meaner crits

>>51399892
What? They have scald and do 2 damage each.

>>51400118
>>51400230
Probability wise, they're similar but with differing distributions.
Scald is definitely a plus, but this is just based off of non-scan-range.

http://anydice.com/program/a857

>>51400313
In general; the Occulus array has a much higher chance (almost three times) as the 2x 6400 bank to do no damage; the 6400's have a much better chance to do 1 or 3 damage, they both have a 37.5% chance to do 2 damage, but the array has almost three times as much chance to do 4 damage than the turrets.

I understand each fleets strengths and special gimics in DFC except for UCM. Is our main special selling point our BTLs?

>>51401296
Yes

>>51401296
>BTL's
>Best overall spread of firepower; our side arcs are nearly as powerful as our front arcs
>carriers are all heavily armed
>L I M A
>jack of all trades, breddy gud at most

>>51401296
It's all about the little things. Good BTLs, superior active scanning, well armed carriers, tough ships, highly versatile guns, etc.
UCM is a lot harder to pin down than the other factions because they don't really have a gimmick, just a bunch of nice stuff. They concentrate more on disrupting the opponent's fancy bullshit than pulling off their own.

anyone have experience building up a scene? we have a lot of blood bowl, warmachine and a bit of 30/40k around, and i'm very interested in playing this, anyone have an idea of the best way to go about this?

>>51401592
mainly dropzone, not so much fleet

>>51401592
if you have any personal friends try and get them into it and then game at the store. If not maybe get a 2player set and see if anyone would wana do a demo game.

>>51401592
Get multiple fleets/armies and play demo games. Grab friends first if you can so there's multiple people who know/care about the game.

http://www.strawpoll.me/12199260

>tfw you realize nested dice sort of work in Anydice
>except for arbitrary dice, which sort of don't
Fuck; anyone know how to work around this besides just working out the probabilities and enumerating/collapsing them?

http://anydice.com/program/a85f

>>51403752
Seriously, the fuck is this shit
http://anydice.com/program/a863

>>51401592

Grab two armies, grab a friend, go to game night, and do demo games. Worked on me.

>>51397344
Shit, I thought BCs were superheavy?

>>51404990
Nah famigo; corvettes and frigates are light; light cruisers and cruisers are medium; heavy cruisers and battlecruisers are heavy; battleships (and presumably dreadnoughts) are superheavy.

Night bump

File: 1471379608940.jpg (16KB, 169x184px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 169x184px

>>51396933
>>51397146
>>51397216
Hematite never ever

>>51407197
I want my Scourge Chupacabra

>>51397216
Alexander is already a tank in DZC.

But hey, maybe we'll get Iskander or Alaksandus.

>>51403280
>50% Santiago
>33% Echo

HUMAN SUPREMACY.

>>51407363

>[Silent Death flashbacks intensify]

>>51405014

MOO3!!!

File: 1467941405793.jpg (55KB, 500x447px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x447px

>>51410574
>MOO3
Don't remind me of that thing; worse than SotS2

File: how to interact with the police.jpg (48KB, 550x412px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 550x412px

>>51408631
GET FUCKED BASELINES
JUST GIVE IT TIME
THE ECHO WILL SURELY WIN
WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE ECHO'S

>>51410607
What's important is that both xenos races are BTFO.

>Nickar
>zero votes

My sides are orbiting the Tlalocan Moons at the velocity of a Dark Matter Cannon slug.

>>51410607
>>51410682

I think all three the Echo, Nickar, and Glass look very plain in the render. However, fully painted models might be different. That was the case with both xeno fleets.

What do you guys think of this fleet? Expanding from the normal starter fleet to 999.


--------------------------------------
UCM 999 - 993pts
UCM - 3 launch assets

SR22 Vanguard battlegroup (432pts)
1 x Perth - 195pts - H
+ UCM Captain (20pts, 2AV)
1 x Moscow - 163pts - H
2 x Lima - 74pts - L

SR10 Line battlegroup (237pts)
1 x Seattle - 132pts - M
1 x Berlin - 105pts - M

SR7 Pathfinder battlegroup (194pts)
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
3 x Santiago - 66pts - L

SR3 Pathfinder battlegroup (110pts)
2 x Taipei - 78pts - L
1 x Jakarta - 32pts - L
------------- dflist.com -------------

>>51410599
bullshit nothing is worse than sots 2

>>51411140
MOO3 is Sots2 turned up to 11.

File: Stephen_Gyllenhaal.png (356KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 720x540px

>>51411140
>>51411165

Kids! Kids! They're BOTH just... just awful.

>>51411165
what no it isnt, you can at least finish a game of that without it crashing, sots 2 crashes at the damn race select menu, and that was after a whole year of patches, the AI doesnt exist, its basically not an actual game, there is nothing there.

>>51411224
Sots2 at least looked somewhat nice, and the armor penetration system was pretty cool.

>>51411140
MOO3 is pretty bad because of the hype. It is basically spreadsheet simulator the game.

>>51411260
And regardless of what people say, the movement and station systems were fine.

the interface needed work for both, but the go-and-return was perfectly reasonable.

>>51411307
>movement and missions
>fine and reasonable
"Needless bureaucracy for the sake of fluff" is not fine and reasonable.

>>51411165
>>51411140
>Not playing 4X light with Sins of a Solar Empire and various mods

DFC mod when.

>/dcg/: anime and space 4x

>>51411436
I would, if I had any competence as a modeler or modder and/or even had the time to work on it.

>>51411391
Play hearts of iron ore Vicky 2.

>>51411865
Nah, that's grand strategy and is expected of the genre and studio.

Hey, I just played Stellaris as the UCM.
Went Military Republic

First race encountered: Fucking cyborgs.
REEEE.

4 or 5 Genocidal wars later, ends the game accidentally becoming the Imperium of Man, having toppled disgusting ringworld dwelling reptiloids.

File: FUCKING XENOOOOS.png (138KB, 524x458px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 524x458px

>>51412050
Excellent work, Legionnaire.

>>51411953

Yeah, like 90% of the complaints people have about Stellaris was that it wasn't autistic enough for them.

Whereas those of us who wanted something that felt like Masters of Orion with a dash of SotS thrown in got EXACTLY what we wanted.

Got a Wolverine pack on top of 2 starters for UCM. What should I outfit them with? Should I go 50/50 or all one type of gun?

>>51411953
That's what it was going for though. SotS1 as EU3, SotS2 as Vicky 2, to extend the metaphor. The age of empires and gunboat diplomacy.

And they fucked it all up forever, so now we'll never get it ._.

>>51412497
Stellaris was pretty cool. It's only real issue is how stupid the War System ends up being in practice, even if it's idea of having limited, objective-based wars makes sense.

But the fact that it can never become a total war (even against -1000 eternal hatred enemies) is a problem. Also weird issues like how bombing a planet hurts their morale worse than bombing it, then having your troops overrun and slaughter all defenders and occupy the populace...

Also, the sector requirement was dumb.

File: 14572973_10153913119751720_2880986151183378268_n.jpg (47KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 960x720px

Finally put my pledge together and I'd like some general Scourge advice.

>Has anyone had success with double battlecruisers and what support do they need?

>How important are Hydras in your games and how many do you feel are necessary in a given list?

>How many strike carriers and landers should I be looking at for 1500 point games?

>How necessary are frigate swarms to a list (i.e. 6x Djinn Pathfinder groups)

>What are the general strategic group values a list needs to hit?

>>51413738
Haven't tried double battlecruiser yet, though at least for scourge it sounds like a hilariously good time.

Hydras have been hit or miss for me. The scald bombers can work wonders, but I've routinely found myself wishing for more conventional firepower, and admittedly my local meta (of all of four other people) doesn't rely much on CAW or bombers so the fighter screen isn't so useful.

Strike carriers I'd say 2 minimum, 4 ideally. I haven't found any need for more than the one lander.

Frigate swarms are good fun, but I haven't seen a point to more than 4 djinn in a single group; thats generally been enough to slaughter any single target of my choosing and still have survivors enough to mangle or destroy a second HVT before they go down. Part of that is the ability to dive for atmosphere to avoid reprisal. I haven't been able to find much use from the other scourge frigates save the harpy, though. The bombardment is just wimpy, and the !not submarines are similarly lacking in teeth.

>>51413879
Eh, the Charybdis is useful if only as token bombardment; non-specialized bombardment really only works with high attack weapons, which the Scourge do not have.

>>51412959

The AA version is much better than the ground variant. Go all guns.

>>51411436
Don't fucking even, I was the one who did the BFG mod the way their guns are laid out would make UCF drive me insane.

That said at least DFC missiles make sense and track which was one of the biggest problems with BFG

all that said, I'd totally do it if I had someone to do the 3d modelling for me, I lost contact with my tame artist.

>DMC compared to Particle Triad
Holy shit, I think the Diamond is the only BB in the game that I would not feel conflicted about taking.

http://anydice.com/program/a88c

>DMC does an average of 3.67, 4, and 4.33 damage respectively against 3+, 4+, and 5+
>Triad does 5 damage on average; 93% chance to do at least 4 and 58% to do 6
>DMC has a 75% to cripple per firing
>depending on the exact rules for particle, whether all hits count as critical or whether only normal criticals count for crippling, the Triad respectively has a 99.5% or 87.5% chance to cripple per firing

>Triad overall as a 50% chance (in the worst crippling case scenario) to bring a heavy cruiser to crippled, AND cripple it on its crits
>58% chance in the best case interpretation of the rules
Christ almighty

>>51413738
Why would you magnetize the top part of a scourge cruiser....

>>51415567
Eh, it's a pipe dream, I know. But I've sunk so many hours into Sins that a man can't help but dream.

>>51415567
>Don't fucking even, I was the one who did the BFG mod the way their guns are laid out would make UCF drive me insane.
What's wrong with it?
t. Non modder

>>51415938
in sins all weapons exist in a single arc, they can fire either front, left right or rear, they can not be turreted, they can not fire optionally in either.

This means when trying to imitate systems where such things do exist we either need to split the guns so that some fire forward and some to the sides (as we did with chaos prow weapons and imperial dorsal mounts in BFG) or we have to lock them into a single arc and just say fuckit (which we should have done with the prow and dorsal mounts to make gameplay work better)

for those interested the problem with torpedos ala BFG in sins is that it's actually surprisingly difficult to make an attack that flys in a straight line with no tracking and explodes on impact, we couldn't find a way to make a skill work without first requiring a target. the closest we ever got was launching fighters that had no turn speed and exploded in proximity

>>51416505
Why not just have multiple identical weapon systems, each in their own arc, with the condition that only one of them can fire at a time?
Is that even possible?

How solid do you think this is for 1500? Is two motherships /8 gates enough with a battleship?

--------------------------------------
Shaltari 1500 - 1500pts
Shaltari - 8 launch assets

SR17 Flag battlegroup (350pts)
1 x Diamond - 270pts - S
+ Star Elder (40pts, 3AV)
2 x Opal - 80pts - L

SR10 Vanguard battlegroup (200pts)
1 x Ruby - 200pts - H

SR10 Vanguard battlegroup (200pts)
1 x Ruby - 200pts - H

SR12 Line battlegroup (275pts)
1 x Basalt - 145pts - M
1 x Emerald - 100pts - M
2 x Voidgate - 30pts - L

SR12 Line battlegroup (275pts)
1 x Basalt - 145pts - M
1 x Emerald - 100pts - M
2 x Voidgate - 30pts - L

SR8 Pathfinder battlegroup (160pts)
1 x Turquoise - 115pts - M
3 x Voidgate - 45pts - L
------------- dflist.com -------------

>>51413738
Haven't tried double battlecruisers so I can't help you there. Carriers, objective ships and some sort of CA ship killer that can defend the big guys seem appropriate though.

Hydras are some good shit, but you shouldn't feel obligated to take more than one.

4-6 strike carriers, 1-2 troopships. If you have more of one you can afford to bring less of the other.

More than 4 Djinn in a group is just overdoing it. In fact I'd say 4 is the magic number for Scourge frigates in general. Harpies in larger groups minimises the chance of fucking up and whiffing entirely (though pairs are fine for supporting bigger ships), Scyllas have a great gimmick but lack damage output so you need a bunch to actually make them useful, and Chars only become good at bombardment once you bring 3 or 4 of them.

Have one battlegroup with a small SR for speedy activations. Put some Nickars, Gargs, Djinns or maybe Chars in there. Strike carriers are a particularly popular choice since they're very important and vulnerable out in the open.

>>51417328
Nothing?

>>51416861
in short, the only way that would even remotely be possible is with a manual toggle, but even then I cant remember if that was possible, unfortunately sins under the hood is not very smart.

That said, they're working on sins 2 and some of the things it'll have is turreted weapons, so when that happens you can bet your arse I'll be looking for an artist and making the shit out of a DFC mod.

>>51421381
I correct myself, apparently they haven't stated they're working on sins 2 and I'm full of shit.

it's really a shame that the modding support for the homeworld remakes isn't all it was promised to be, that'd be perfect.

>>51421594
Fuck you don't toy with me like that. You think I enjoy madly googling to check the validity of claims while desperately trying to keep my hype under control? I fucking do.

>>51421381
>>51421594
RIP; besides Homeworld, the only other game I can think of is SotS, but that wouldn't work all that well either.

Fucking GeeDubs for not allowing mod support for BFGA.

>>51421781
I actually used to make a mod for the Spring engine, which was intended to port over total annihilation to a fully 3d environment. With a few tweaks that would have worked really well for approximating Dropfleet, because the ships would have been forced to act as "gunships" flying over the surface, you could have had actual structures on the surface to attack and take over, and had actual ground troops represented, and that engine did units with multiple turrets and fixed weapons well enough. Wouldnt have been the best but a decent approximation.

>>51417328
You have enough gates, but only 2 motherships is a little risky. I guess it might be alright since you've got the battleship too.

A single blue ball ship is also not likely to be overly helpful on its own unless you plan on using it mainly for the CAW.

>>51422202
>A single blue ball ship is also not likely to be overly helpful on its own unless you plan on using it mainly for the CAW.
Mostly for the CAW in all honesty, but the bombardment is pretty good too; it's only two attacks worse than the Madrid, and will help to even out my lack of overall troop power compared to other fleets with bulk landers.

Speaking of, how do you guys feel about the Palladium/Sapphire? Meme battlecruiser, or interesting loadout that may see play?

Looking to possibly getting into dropfleet as I recently learnt there is a fairly healthy community in my area and space is cool. What I'm curious about is with the Kickstarter (which was/still is apparently a shitshow) what exactly was exclusive, was it actual units that I will never be able to get or just alt models? Also, on average, how many miniatures per side in a standard game?

and who has the cutest girls?

>>51422389
PHR, as you can see.

File: Moscow-Chan.jpg (123KB, 929x860px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 929x860px

>>51422389
>What I'm curious about is with the Kickstarter (which was/still is apparently a shitshow)
It's bad, but not *that* bad. Hawk was just shit at communicating in the later stages and has been dragging their feet on shipping the last of the last of the last, but people are getting their stuff.
>what exactly was exclusive, was it actual units that I will never be able to get or just alt models?
The only exclusives are the 2-up Beijing (display model), the 2-up Ajax (display model), the Princess class liner (game piece, but just an objective) and all the battlecruisers, but the latter will have new, non-exclusive models released sometime in this summer.
>Also, on average, how many miniatures per side in a standard game?
Generally speaking, for a 1500 point game, it's 8-16 frigates/corvettes, 3-5 light/cruisers, 1-4 heavy cruisers/ battlecruisers, and 0-1 battleships.

UCM

>>51422271
I guess if nobody is in CA range you could send a few potshots at an industrial or military sector. Just fyi bombardment kind of sucks at killing troops until you take out the entire sector.

As for the Sapphire I have absolutely no idea. It's such a weird ship I can't even really speculate. I expect actual play will be required to understand it.

>>51422678
>I guess if nobody is in CA range you could send a few potshots at an industrial or military sector. Just fyi bombardment kind of sucks at killing troops until you take out the entire sector.
Eh, at least 2 crits will get through on the average and do 2 collateral damage, and along with the non-crit hits that should be enough to pop one or two armor assets a turn. While not a lot, it's certainly something.

But yet, it's mostly for the CAW.
CAW is limited only to that orbital layer, correct? I can't imagine it'd be cross layer.

>>51422854
Your imagination needs work then, boyo. CA weapons can't fire into atmosphere but they can fire between low and high orbit with only the normal lock penalty.

>>51422938
Shiiiiieet, good to know famigo.

File: Midget urchin in a tin can BTFO by superior cyberwaifu.jpg (117KB, 820x1050px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 820x1050px

Late night bump

>>51342086
>>51422465
Any more Dropfleet ship-girls like these?

>>51423955
Mothman - the guy who drew both of those fine ladies - says he has a a Scourge botegirl in the works. I haven't seen him post in these threads for months though, so IDK what the outlook is.

>>51421767
actually there is one statement from the devs saying yes they are making it but as of 2015 to not expect it for a while
http://steamcommunity.com/app/204880/discussions/0/492378806382986632/

>>51421781
as I'm apparantly the only one who actually liked SotS 2 after they fixed the bugs (the release was terrible, I'll admit freely to that) it's unfortunate sots 2 doesn't support mods, sots 1 on the other hand does but with limitations and I'd have to figure out how to handle the custom ship building thing and how to modularise them properly. I'm always keeping my eye on these games though to see what I can get away with. It's just a shame my tame artist up and vanished from the face of the planet.

>>51422271
As a vouple other anons pointed out a while back, the fact that it can fire everything without weapons free is pretty nice.

Question for the thread: What would need to change for torpedoes to be considered viable? Personally, I think removing the once per game rule would be best.

>>51426277
Torpedoes are already viable. Have you used them?

>>51426381
Not myself. But I've played against people who have used them and between being destroyed by debtis fields, maneuvering to dodge/delay them, you only have one shot (which gives your ship a spike), and the fact that they strike at the end of the target's activation makes them pretty lackluster against my Scourge in my experience. I want to like my Manticore and my battleship platform, but they have stiff competition.

>>51424086
Hrm, the Star Swarm stress test and the engine mentioned in that link is impressive. That would suit a Battlestar Galactica game incredibly well.

File: I HAVE NO SHIPS AND I MUST SCREAM.jpg (206KB, 1300x866px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1300x866px

>>51356818
Long overdue but this?

>>51422389
>>51422465
I don't have my ships (basically a double order of everything) and I was early in the campaign and finished the pledgemanager the day it launched. After two emails with two weeks of waiting in between I finally got a generic, uninformative 'we'll get yours packed and shipped as soon as we can' response.

What seems to have happened is that Hawk literally ran out of product and have been ordering it as fast as they could to try and fulfill pledges. A person posted a response email from Hawk on the KS comments, but I can understand if you don't trust that source.
>Missing Commodore pledge but received as reply back from Hawk after I requested where is was.
>'We sincerely apologise that you have not received your pledge as of yet. As with a number of other backers your order had not been exported from our database and your details have been manually forwarded to our packing team, however it is taking longer than anticipated to process all these additional orders as we were awaiting a restock of products last week to fulfil these pledges. We have been informed that these have now arrived in our warehouse and will ship your rewards as soon as possible.

So unfortunately what this means, to me at least, is that Hawk literally took product that should have been for kickstarter backers and sold it to retail outlets effectively double selling the product. Who knows, maybe the felt that it was necessary to get as much cash in as possible due to the dip in the GBP.

But I definitely feel taken advantage of.

>>51427033
Or, if you don't want to keep implying that Hawk is some malicious company out to get you, maybe they set aside all the product they thought they needed for backers aside first before letting what little was left go out. But, as they said in that email, their system missed people, which isn't surprising considering we've seen before that they weren't ready for this level of success.

Finally got my DFC kickstarter in. Scourge stronk.

How do I Scourge?

File: hawkemail.png (41KB, 727x159px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 727x159px

>>51427109
In the Dec 14 update they said '20 packages left plus late backers then to work through people whose information didn't export correctly.' and then their response to my inquiry afterwards said my pledge was exported correctly, but hadn't been packed/shipped despite one kickstarter update saying all exported pledges were packed and ready to ship.

I don't think they're malicious, they're just unable to deliver at the level they sold themselves as.

>>51426563
well that just sounds like the people using them are doing it wrong. Dont forget in order to juke the torpedo you need to take a minor spike (come to a new heading/full speed) that doesnt even guarantee that you will. You also upset your battlegroups special orders doing that, so you cant active scan/weapons free etc. You will be forced to possibly make a move you dont want. Finally if you are flying through a debris field to strip the asset you are possibly going to take damage anyway, and make it more difficult for you to shoot back.

Even if the torpedo doesnt make it, the threat of it hitting and doing serious damage may force your opponent to put his ship out of position and disrupt what hes going to do, that in and of itself is worthwhile, especially in this sort of a game.

>>51427033
What? That's not what double selling is at all. Even assuming they did do that it's nothing but re-allocation of stock. You're still going to get your shit, just a little later. Hawk is just a small company that was completely unprepared for the number of pledges they ended up having to deal with, and tbqh I doubt the bullshit accusations of criminal conduct are helping things.

>>51426953
Thats the one. thank you

>>51427303
Not that guy, but the options I have for torpedoes seem grossly inefficient given how they work. The Achilles will never be as consistently nasty as a Bellerophon and the DMC on the Heracles has proven way more effective than the torps on the Minos.

The DMC has consistently oneshot the ships it targets, and there's nothing they can do about it. Six immediate damage followed by two (usually, some ships can go to 6 without being crippled) crippling rolls is often the end of a cruiser or heavy cruiser.

File: Reconquest Phase 1.gif (688KB, 664x714px) Image search: [Google]

688KB, 664x714px

>>51427155
Become the crow, anon.

CAW CAW CAW

File: THESHITPOSTINEST.jpg (115KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 640x640px

>>51427440
This is my favorite one of those made though.

File: dropfleet memeander.png (428KB, 600x730px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 600x730px

>>51427375
>You're still going to get your shit, just a little later.
> just a little later
>Three months past retail release
>just a little
>JUST A LITTLE

>>51427375
I'm not hating on Hawk, and am still going to support them and the game, but it's not "just a little later" at this point.
It's gone past the point of "Yeah, they're late but it's not that bad compared to other kickstarters" to "Yeah, it's not as bad as other kickstarters, but they're still pretty damn late"

t. Commodore

>>51427574
I've found expecting to get anything out of kickstarter to be an unhealthy attitude. It's not a preorder, it's an investment that may or may not pay off at all, and will most likely pay off late.

They are quite late though, I'll admit it's definitely past 'a little' at this point.

>All this shitposting about the kickstarter
The only good thing to come out of the dropfleet commander kickstarter drama was the ONI VICTORY

>>51427993
>shitposting
I wouldn't quite call all of this "shitposting", anon.

>>51428369
Don't worry It'll get there

>>51427993
never forget the eternal btfoing of khell.

So Kickstarter bullshit aside, how is the actual game? A few people at my club are thinking of jumping in. Any big mechanical issues or unbalanced trash?

>>51428499
>So Kickstarter bullshit aside, how is the actual game?
Breddygud/10, in general. It's fun, it plays well, there's lots of tactical decisions to make at every step of the game.

>Any big mechanical issues or unbalanced trash?
No big mechanical issues, and inter-faction balance is pretty damn solid.
Intra-faction wise, the PHR do much, much better with carrier and beam spam than they do with broadsides.
The Shaltari particle lances are lackluster, and are only useful on their bigger ships.

>>51428601
>PHR do much, much better with carrier and beam spam than they do with broadsides.
I haven't found that to be the case at all. Broadsides are extremely effective if you use actual tactics with them, they provide a solid and highly dangerous brick to send forward while your lasers and non-Ikarus carriers hang back.

>>51428601
>Intra-faction wise, the PHR do much, much better with carrier and beam spam than they do with broadsides.

Wat.

The Orion, the Theseus, Europa and the Leonidas are rock solid broadside delivery systems. Generally you'll want your heavy cruisers to be Bellerophons but broadsides do a lot of the PHR's offensive work. x1 Orion + x2-3 Europa is the standard core for a PHR fleet.

The PHR does have some internal balance issues, but it's not that broadsides aren't good. Their problem is that ships like the Hector and the Achilles are overcosted and the extra points spent on them are better thrown into the aforementioned Orion-Europa battlegroups.

>>51428947
>>51429427
Sorry, I must be spending too much time on the facebook group and hawk forums; I've started to drink their coolaid.

Hundred point Perseus with fixed heavy guns when?

>>51428499
It's a good game.

All the factions are well balanced against each other. PHR have some internal balance issues, in that one or two of their ships are sort of defunct at their price, but as a faction they're still competitive with everyone else.

In my opinion the ships could stand to be a bit more durable. That's my only mechanical gripe with the game, and I'm not even sure I'm 100% right about it.

>>51427155
Prime all ships banana yellow.

Become the banana peel under the heel of the UCM's reckless charge

>>51427574
>eight month delay on Kickstarter
>egregious
Kingdom Death took literal YEARS to deliver its first project. Unplanned success kills any timeframe.

That said, I'm hoping Hawk handles the apparent supply issues and gets this behind them by springtime. The lack of an updated website and constant cries of "they sold my stuff >:(((" is only hurting them.

File: IMG_0975.jpg (115KB, 540x610px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 540x610px

>>51428947
>get a Theseus past midfield at full health
>enemy response fire bounces off its 3+ save
Say goodbye to those Limas.
Worst case scenario, a modest broadside group makes for an amazing fire magnet while your carriers and troopships get set up.

>>51430308
>My shit stinks worse so you have no right to complain about your shit stinking!
Dude, both situations suck. Just because something is 'not as bad as' another thing doesn't mean that it's just not bad.

Getting stabbed 50 times is worse than getting stabbed 10 times. And I'm sure I'd be justified in complaining about being stabbed even once.

Post things you really wish Hawk had done, ship wise

>Atlantis/Johan has its 6400 batteries linked, or even combined into a single 8 shot profile
>broadsides split into linked-batteries
>UCM 4200 turrets able to shoot in the rear arc, linked to their normal second turret on the BBs and Avalon/Perth

>>51430416
The best feeling is when I get my 1 Leonidas, 2 Europa, 1 Theseus brick into enemy lines.

Everyone forgets how fast the Leonidas is.

>>51431492
>mfw 2Leo/Aggy 3Theseus vanguard group
>tfw I don't have a face to adequately describe the sheer amount of R A E P

So, which Santiago is the Santiago named after?
Chile, Spain, Cuba, Dominican Republic, or Philippines?

>>51432002
Which Perth is the Perth named after?

>>51432030
Perth, North Dakota obviously.

We're all in agreement that changing all particle lances to 2+ lock is not untoward, right? Nor that giving the Granite those upgraded lances with linked, complimented by a points increase, is unacceptable either?

http://anydice.com/program/a8b1

>>51433139
I'd say give it linked, but leave the 2+ for the larger vessels. 2+ linked granite would effectively invalidate the obsidian, and giving the obsidian all 3 linked to compensate would be ridiculous in a fashion I just can't get behind.

>>51434062
Not really; 2 particle lances is still far inferior to 2 disintegrator batteries overall, even with 2+ lock, and the Obsidian is still solid even needing to go weapons free for its third gun, seeing is how it would have an outright 50% chance to cripple a heavy cruiser. It's an excellent opportunity utility for it.

Does the Moscow invalidate the Rio, or the Onyx invalidate the Amber?

>>51434221
No, the bigger vessels would not invalidate the smaller, but I feel that giving the granite 2+ -and- linked would effectively render the obsidian pointless. It just wouldn't be worth it, I feel, to take that extra gun.

File: dropfleet frigates.jpg (163KB, 1328x747px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1328x747px

So I've got my test ships painted to see how the fleet will turn out, and I'm liking the results. Apologies for the mediocre pic; the lighting I've got available sucks. I'll try and get a better shot tomorrow before I get started on the battleship.

>>51434432
The thing is that the Obsidian has a capability that the Granite doesn't; the Obsidian, on weapons free, can cripple a cruiser or heavy cruiser on a single firing with a slightly more than 50% probability. Otherwise it's identical to the Granite, but it can pop much, much bigger game in a single turn.

>>51434525
oh i love the green on the scourge. The UCM looks great.

What method did you use?

>>51434525
Aggressively bad paint scheme anon here so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Really like the green scourge looks nice. The UCM looks well painted but like you said the low light makes it hard to see well. Looks pretty good if day you should be satisfied.

>>51434977
>Aggressively bad paint scheme anon here so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
Mate, are you still mad about that? The anon was just shitposting, it was an acceptable paintjob, if not executed as well as it could have been.

>>51434969
>>51434977
Green scourge anon here. Funny enough the technique I used I picked up something like four threads ago when a different anon was showing off his daemon. Both ships are painted with a metallic base (leadbelcher; all i've got are GW paints to hand), then the base color was done entirely by layering washes on. Biel-tan green for the gargoyle, drakenhof nightshade for the toulon. It took about three to four coats to get the base color right, then I touched on the details after.

I'm gonna be hopefully throwing down with a buddy's UCM tomorrow, and the flgs will have better lighting. I'll try to get a better shot of both there, and I'll drop pics once I get my dragon and moscow painted.

>>51435033
I'm not mad, I'm just rolling with it for fun, like the prepainted meme.

I look forward to seeing more of green scourge anon's ships.

New thread, commanders.

>>51436147
>>51436147
>>51436147