/dcg/ Dropzone/Dropfleet Commander General Don't Let th

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

117KB, 820x1050px

Just a friendly reminder that /tg/ is too fast for this thread to survive more than eight or nine hours during the night, and that the general idea of a general is that it has enough discussion or active posting to keep it alive without needing regular bumps.

How well do low to medium launch lists tend to work? I'm thinking of starting off building a 1500 point list with a group of 5-6 Andromedas as a bomber/fighter source, but I'm not sure if that's enough or going all in on them is a better idea.

>>53150450
They work pretty well in the case of the UCM/Shaltari, their lists tend to be pretty low-launch, but Scourge and PHR generally take advantage of their superior launch platforms.

5-6 Andromedas would work pretty well, I think, but I'd personally go with 3-4 Andromedas plus an Ikarus.

File: Scourge_Cruiser_FleetCarrier_Hydra1.jpg (94KB, 637x424px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 637x424px

pls no kill

>>53149889
More like Someone Else Save The Pasta edition.

>>53152966
Woah, anon. At least spoiler that shit. This is a blue board.

File: PHR_Battleship_Minos1.jpg (12KB, 390x233px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 390x233px

>>53153331
It's the only way I can get you fuckers to respond.

>>53153412
Everyone knew PHR ships were sluts. At least the hydra wasn't full-on presenting.

What would be a good plot hook if wanting to run a dark heresy/only eat game set in the dzc/dfc universe?

>>53155832
I think the preeminent one would be PHR or UCM advanced recon team sent to link up with local resistance warlords, ply them to the cause, and then help execute an invasion

>>53155832
>>53155923
A game where the players are either a PHR recon team or UCM MFR team trying to sway forces on Asgard could be cool.

Alternately, going full total war with a squad of legionaires deep in the shit in the opening days of Eden could be fun.

>>53156482
How about a resistance game, pre-reconquest? Perhaps even touching on Foley's attempts to reactivate a foldspace node

>>53156482
>>53155923
Hmm, maybe one using death watch to show Valkyries, sirens, or even a small group of Medusa?

>>53157406
Alternately Black Crusade with the various cults refluffed as species in the Scourge host. Destroyers for nurgle chaos marines, razorworms as khornates, maybe vampires as slaanesh or that screamer?

>>53157406
>>53157488
It's interesting how the 40k RPGs work well, but what about any other systems besides Total War, Dark Heresy, and Death Watch?

>>53157529
Maybe eclipse phase? I'm only using these ones cause they're the only ones I know of in a similar universe.

>>53157593
At this point, it may be easiest to make a composite homebrew from scratch based on the 40k RPGs.

>>53160243
Man, that's one butt-ugly rifle

>>53160437
Space Hugo Boss expended all their aesthetics on the armor.

File: 1492929587400[1].jpg (75KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 800x450px

>already a week into may
>still no PHR or Shaltari BCs
Reeee

>>53161617
The ks ones aren't all that expensive on eBay, but yeah, I'd like to see their new sculpts.

>>53161617
Command cards WHEN?

>>53162659
They're already out supposedly, people have gotten them, but Hawk doesn't have them on their webstore for some reason and US distributors aren't restocking US retailers for some reason.

What are some possible themes for faction X to be onna ground?

>>53164146
Grey goo.

Saratoga Anon from last thread here. Sent Hawk an email on Monday, was told that my order might be a bit delayed because Saras are popular as fuck and they're still casting the damn things.

Received the dispatch email on Tuesday and they're sitting on my shelf right now.

I love you, Hawk.

>>53157529
Shadowrun, played from the perspective of a PHR infiltration team running a deep cover op on one of the UCM core worlds.

>>53165484
no that sounds like a load of fun, but I really need to see how shadowrun plays compared to the other ones that were posted.

>>53166401
biggest "problem" would be stripping mages out of the system, which isn't really a problem at all: just don't use mages. Other than that its just the usual note that you'll need all of the d6s to play

>>53167586
More or less than the wargame?

>>53169820
>"Use Their Guts to Grease our Tanks" J. Wade
>Luciana "Top Gun" M. Cato
>Samuel "Punished" S. Helburn

>Marcus "Cybercock" Barros
>Jocasta "Bunny Hop" Caine
>Aurelia "Sleigh Slayer" Felix

What heroes might we get in phase 3?

Have there been any rumors or comments that detail how famous admirals will work? I haven't played DZC so I'm only familiar with them from their rules pages, so I'm curious if there are any problems with the system in practice that might be improved on in DFC.

>>53172639
I hope we get a genuinely cowardly resistance commander. Someone who will always just go "fuck this, I'm not losing shit for anything."

>>53173357
One of thr key things with the DZC famous commanders is that they each have their own personel, tricked out vehicle to command from.

Not sure if that'll be the case for Dropfleet, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're still deciding that.

>>53172639
We don't have a scummy UCM commander. Resistance has Sally and Gunnarr, PHR has Caine, and both the Shaltari and Scourge have their entire miserables species. But no real shitbags for the UCM. Seems like an oversight.

>>53174998
Is Caine a shitbag?

>>53175056
She does always leave a survivor with a fucked up message from her raids so...

>>53175056
>On three separate occasions, forces under her command have descended with swift ferocity on unsuspecting UCM recon patrols, slaughtering them almost to a man and without mercy. It is known that these raids were her work, as she always leaves a single survivor in place, usually with a taunting message of some sort intended to send any UCM commander that reads it into a fury.
We don't know how much of it is her being a shit and how much is good ol' psyops, but she's not what I'd call a nice person.

>>53175149
>>53175192
Further proof that Barros is the best posthuman to ever grace the galaxy with his augmented presence.

>>53170528
about the same, maybe erring on the more side but not by much

File: You're a big scorpion.jpg (68KB, 820x576px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 820x576px

Keep the thread alive, commanders.

>>53173357
>>53174491
I feel like they are going to have custom ships for the admirals; the highly modular nature of them lends itself far more easily to cuhrayzee variants.

I'm still curious if all Admirals will be mounted in superheavy or heavy ships, or if we might get some medium admirals.

>>53177071
On the one hand it would add variance, but on the other hand mediums can go down quick and battlecruisers are already thematic for a faster admiral that prefers lighter ships. Maybe a more cheap and disposable one.

A famous admiral in a CA frigate dedicated to brutally fucking up the enemy before dying would be pretty fun.

>>53180263
There could possibly be some variant of that bodyguard rule in DZC; something like the following:

Whenever a famous admiral's ship is destroyed, roll 1d6. On a 6, they are killed.
On any other result, they successfully board an escape pod.

If they escape, choose one ship that is within 24"; if it's within 6", on a 1d6, a roll of 4+ will mount the admiral in that ship.
If it's within 12", a roll of 5+ will mount them.
If it's within 24", a roll of 6+ will mount them.

Otherwise, the admiral's escape pod is considered to have escaped the battlefield and they are to be considered dead for that battle.

>>53176846
man that story is still hilarious for how incompetent the UCM and the PHR seem. in the game of RAGE versus A E S T H E T I C never side has time for careful thinking.

What's a good faction rundown with regards to game play? I have never seen this game played in person, mind you.

>>53186195
Assuming you're referring to the fleet game

>UCM
Best fire arcs in the game, least overall firepower, much worse fighters and bombers, best and most accessible beams/lasers, second toughest

>Scourge
Fast, fragile, extremely powerful close range weaponry, efficient carriers, lots of memery with stealth

>PHR
Tough, extremely tough, most overall firepower, firepower is split between two broadsides, best fighters and bombers, combat carriers, multi-role ships

>Shaltari
Fast, most fragile, lots of consistent but low-damage weapons, shields to make them the toughest, multi-role ships.

>>53186288
Opps, I meant Dropzone Commander. Sorry. Thank you though for the writeup

>>53186351
Ah, in that case

>UCM
Reasonably efficient ground forces.
Varied infantry, high utility, even if they're not the most efficient.
Useful artillery
Powerful air presence
Overall the most "combined arms" faction

>Scourge
FAST
Fragile
Very high damage, but short ranged
Lots of cheeky infantry shenanigans when it comes to CQC
Lots of synergizing units
Can also go (somewhat) tough with their crabs, rather than hovertanks

>PHR
SLOW
Tough
High damage, decent range
Lots of big stompy mechs and even BIGGER stompy mechs
Excellent infantry
Excellent artillery
Can also go (somewhat) fast with their hovertanks, rather than walkers

>Shaltari
FAST and MOBILE due to teleportation shenanigans
Fragile, but they have shields
Long range
Lots of gimicky weapons
Hovertanks and big stompy tripods
Big hovertanks and little stompy tripods
Second best air presence after the UCM

Is there anything in DFC right now that strikes you as exceptionally unbalanced?

>>53190400
Orpheus is too cheap for what it can do and there's not much of a downside to just throwing up 3+ assault troopships. Needs 25-30 extra points dumped on it.
Akuma is able to go weapons free with good arc guns that average 8 damage every turn with no consequences, and still puts out an average of 3 damage while silent running. Full cloak is an insane skill and the Akuma is completely optimized for it.
Other than that not really. Diamond, Voidgate and Glass definitely were but they got nerfed to become more reasonable.

so I'm reading the rulebook half asleep, but the way I understand it is that both strike carriers and corvettes can go down into the atmo but can't leave? is that correct?

>>53191091
I'm going to guess you're getting that from a combination of "ships in atmosphere are reduced to 2" of movement" + "ships need 4" of movement to go up a layer"? The paragraph right after that says that ships leaving atmosphere and entering low orbit do so at the start of their movement and ignore that penalty.

>>53191161
Yes, that would do it. That's what I get from reading the rules 2/3rds of the way to sleep...

Alright admirals, how do we fix the Chimera without reducing its point cost?

>>53193461
Make it a light cruiser for ~95 points

>>53193461
Either give it more troop deploying capacity, armor deploying capacity, the option to go into atmosphere or give it a very limited fighter and bomber launch capacity.

>>53194272
I feel like Hawk wants to keep all bulk landers the same and a 10HP PD6 ship being able to atmos dive could break the entire game, but you might be onto something with the strike craft. Something like launch 2 maybe?

File: Marcus salute.jpg (62KB, 800x447px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 800x447px

>page 9 in 2 hours
gg /tg/
This makes me wonder, is Dropfleet failing to take off just as Dropzone did in so many places? Or are 40k 8th, Sigmar, and the morass of "geek culture" threads just that busy on /tg/ these days?

I guess it just feels like a waste to force a general if it keeps getting killed by inactivity.

>still no prototype for Krell's Jaeger
Hawk pls

>>53195546
I think the thread just needs to have people actually POST about the damn game. I've noticed that discussions here generally don't go for more than three or four replies, maybe five; if we made more effort to reply and to just keep discussions going (as well as analyzation of batreps, if anyone ever posts them), the thread will live.

But yeah; nearly falling off in two hours in the middle of night in burgerland is a bit worrying.
I'm not letting this thread die until we can celebrate the first anniversary of k-day, though.

On the other hand, now that Hawk has two games, their update/expansion schedule is likely to be a bit more busy, and we'll possibly have more stuff to go on about.

>>53195590
I've got a grand total of two people interested in the game and currently building ships who should be ready to play in a couple weeks and one guy who bought half my kickstarter but never goddamn plays, so I'd like to put work into some battle reports when the time comes.

What's k-day?

File: YOU-SEE-EHM.png (832KB, 1151x504px) Image search: [Google]

832KB, 1151x504px

Please stay alive through morning hours, thread.

>>53195679
>What's k-day?

The day some anon publicly ousted a super autistic shitposter that had been haunting the kickstarter for a few months as being a hyper-degenerate furfag. I believe it was December 15th, or around then. It's named k-day for the autist's name; Khell

>>53195712
>k-day
>http://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/50632738/#50676261
13 December, never forget

>>53161617
Holy fuck that Scourge one looks amazing.

>>53174998
Isn't there one UCM commander who is on a personal crusade against the PHR, to the point of prioritising them over the Scourge?

>>53197692
Yeah, Helburn. But to be fair they orchestrated the resistance betrayal on Asgard and wiped out most of his unit. So it's not like he hates them without reason.

Whats the community like in your area?

I've got like a dozen dropzone and a dozen dropfleet players, not everyone plays regularly, but pretty decent

>>53199926
I've got one player per faction in dropfleet, myself included. Only one other guy has bought into dropzone though, putting either his UCM or more often his PHR against my scourge.

Plus side, the shaltari DFC player has started grabbing PHR, and the UCM player has a shaltari fleet on the side, so there's a little bit of variety, but not much.

>>53174998
The UCM scum is in their high command.

>>53197534
Man, I still remember being there. That shit was utterly amazing. It was like watching a playground bully get shit poured all over his head. Just fuckin amazing.

>>53161617
Are there any other images of these?

>>53200468
I wept for how hard I was laughing at the shitposter failing so hard to save face

>>53200493
>Rereading that thread
>seeing all the action as it played it, including Khell's goddamn hilarious reply "talking in hypotheticals" and locking his account
I need to find the thread after where Hawk sent a private message to the guy who posted all that info, I remember it being surprisingly classy.

File: Hawk classy as fuck.png (103KB, 586x747px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 586x747px

>>53200557
Found it!

>>53200637
Best damn way they could have handled it, right there.
>>53200477
There's another handful of them from two or three threads ago, but I didn't save them sadly.

>>53197692
He's also cut off from UCMA command, so he has the benefit of defaulting to personal judgement, rather than just being insubordinate.

>>53197665
>>53200477
>>53200702
I'll post the rest I got in an hour or so, if someone else hasn't already

>>53200894
Good man. That ribbed for her pleasure torp on the other scourge hull is too lewd for words

>>53200427
So, like most militaries?

File: 1492876207182[1].jpg (1MB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1536px

>>53201550
Here we go

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

138KB, 524x458px

And that's all

File: Zeus-3_1024x1024.jpg (118KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 900x600px

Yikes.

>You know, vanilla core-rulebook force mixes seem to be working out for me lately.
>excepting Valkyries, of course

>>53204060
I can't imagine anything making Type-2s obsolete without being a direct upgrade on their statline. They plain don't give a shit in a straight fight.

>>53204150
Type-2's are still the nastiest death star, but any devastator or E11+ weapons still trash them ultra hard.

They were relatively harder in stock DZC when very, very few attacks were E11+.

>>53204507
there really arent that many more E11+ attacks in the game than there were in vanilla, UCM has 3 more than they did, Scourge have 3 more, and Shaltari have maybe 1 more

I don't really like how troops sharing a sector prevent you from bombardment, so thinking of trying a house rule where you can target those sectors, but to hit rolls of 1 damage your own troops. Assume the troops are giving targeting info to the ships but sometimes shit goes sideways. Anything obviously bad about this idea I'm missing?

>>53204966
yeah the fact that half the factions would not indiscriminately bombard their own troops, this isnt a precision cruise missile strike, this is inaccurate bombardment from space.

The PHR would absolutely never risk potentially killing their own troops because they cannot afford it, the UCM is angry and wants to murder Ayys not their own guys, and the Shaltari probably consider it wasteful, the Only faction I could see considering it would be the Scourge cause they just dont care.

>>53205106
True, but I was thinking more in terms of the gameplay and not the background. Or just make it a command card for Scourge.

>>53204966
There's two kinds of bombardment.
The bombardment called down by the Kodiak, for example, is nothing more than one of the ventral PD laser turrets on a New Orleans. That's "precision bombardment"

The bombardment from Madrids or Charybdis or Turquoise is the kind of stuff that devastates multiple city blocks per warhead/attack, and is used to reduce entire city districts to smoldering rubble.

>>53205213
because it allows you to have your cake and eat it too, you shouldnt get to attack the enemy with ground assets and then also bombard them, thus allowing you to kill more of their assets, also most of the sectors have like 4 hull points so you have a high chance of just killing all your own crap

>>53205309
>most of the sectors have like 4 hull points so you have a high chance of just killing all your own crap

Hah yeah I guess that is the biggest issue with it, I completely forgot you're damaging the sectors too since I was thinking too much about the troops. Oh well!

>>53205402
Dont give up though there is a fairly useful way to incorporate OB into the ground game, just fight some of the sector battles as DZC games (even a smallish one would be fine) and use the rules from the book to give the guy with OB assets nearby some one use Tactical bombardment strikes to use in the game.

That is unless you are trying to streamline the combat, or dont have DZC forces

Is there issues with the Echo, or is the Hawk forums just being reactionary and trying to fix something that isn't broken again?

On a related issue, with the Glass weapons reduced to CAW(beam), are they fixed now?

>>53206408
The latter, mostly. It might be a little expensive (I'd be happy dropping 2-3 points), but if you aren't shooting people with those guns whenever possible you're wasting your Echos. With a full 90pt group that's nearly an entire medium broadside that you can put out in the front arc while silent running. Think what the Glass used to be, but not as fragrantly overpowered.

I thought the ion lances became normal CAW rather than beam. Either way, yes they're fixed. Their damage has always been about the same as that of other corvettes. Range was the big issue.

>>53206747
>fragrantly
Whoops. Meant flagrantly.

>>53206747
>The latter, mostly. It might be a little expensive (I'd be happy dropping 2-3 points), but if you aren't shooting people with those guns whenever possible you're wasting your Echos. With a full 90pt group that's nearly an entire medium broadside that you can put out in the front arc while silent running. Think what the Glass used to be, but not as fragrantly overpowered.
Interesting; the thread on the forums is going on about how they're too good, and that they should be increased by 1-2 points, or that their gun should be reduced to a light caliber weapon, or just reduced to a single attack.

>>53206839
Oh. Nah, they're fine. They can average 2 damage for 90 points and also do corvette duties, but they can't do both at the same time and are still very fragile and (by corvette standards) slow. To contrast, the old Glasses could put out 5 average damage for 108 points. They might be above average, but nothing more.

>>53207005
pretty much this, they're decent skirmishers that can go atmos when necessary. They pay a bit for that but they also get to do a better job once the fights done.

How noob friendly is the PHR? I love the look of their ships and their troops.

>>53209377
In the fleet game they're a bit tricky to use because broadsides (unless you go full beam + bomber), but with judicious use of drifting (through special orders and special movement), they're on par with any other faction.

Belatedly;
Chimera should have movement like a light cruiser. HP like one optional, but it would at least give the Scourge TC something other than "worst in all regards".

File: ConsiderTheFollowing.jpg (59KB, 433x754px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 433x754px

Faction X is gonna be more of the Sphere.

File: thefuck.png (2MB, 1548x869px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1548x869px

Reminder that West Africa got FUCKED inna d*c universe.

>>53211883
makes sense

>>53211883
Man what the fuck could even happen to do that. We don't even know if that's from the big wars that ended up uniting humanity or from the scourge invasion.

>>53215399
No icecaps. It's probably just a raised water level.

>>53215429
That chunk of West/Central Africa isn't particularly at risk. Raised sea levels still need to obey gravity, they don't rush inland to a higher point. For it to take over that part specifically the land would need to be lowered. Whether it's a result of weird geo-engineering shit or a super intense weapon of some kind, I dunno. But it's not just a result of the ocean going up, something had to move the ground down.

>>53215814
Maybe sustained scourge bombardment in that area?

>>53216418
>>53215814
LIke >>53215399 said thats probably something that happened prior to the scourge given there was a period of chaos and war known as the resource wars that lasted for like 100-200 years prior to the shaltari showing up

File: The only good jelly is a cooked jelly.jpg (286KB, 660x458px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 660x458px

>>53211883
>>53215399
Brothers

Summon your anger

Soon

So I picked up a KS battlecruiser and it didn't come with any way to attach it to the base, will I need to cut off the tip of a widget or drill a hole into the bottom?

>>53221002
Corvette packs come with two spare caps.

>>53221002
I'm assuming you mean the PHR battlecruiser, and yes, you need to drill a hole.

A mistake was made when modelling that one, as the other three do indeed have holes for the widget.

>>53195546

Not much new has come out to discuss and 8th edition has revived the popularity of 40k on /tg/ in such a way that hasn't been seen since before warmahordes.

I think Dropfleet's doing okay, DZC always managed to keep a niche crowd and I've seen local DFC groups pop up where I never saw DZC, so it's working its way around.

I wish it became mainstream enough for me to find a game at any FLGS but that's unreasonable for a smaller game like this. A shame too, everyone likes a good spaceship game

>>53206408

Echoes are pretty good for the slot they fulfill in PHR but they may be a touch overpriced since stealth doesn't do all that much for something that had 3 sig in the first place

>>53209377

Can you visualize how to shoot enemies when your ships guns point to your left and right?

If yes, not very difficult at all

http://us.battlefoam.com/dropfleet-commander/

US foam now. A little more expensive, but more ships fitting in the foam.

Does anyone know if there's going to be lorebooks written for the D*C universe? maybe taking place during the initial invasion.

>>53224263
The rulebooks are the lorebooks, for all intents and purposes.
Hawk does not have the time nor resources to do a Black Library analogue.

>>53224445
Who knows though, we might get an RPG book and have that stuffed to the gills with lore. No idea yet of course, but some of those Hawk ordered portraits sure looked like RPG species or faction pictures.

>>53224664
Possibly, and an TTRPG is definitely less time and resource intensive than a brand new wargame; I'd like to see them put out DZC 2.0 before they think of a third game, though.

>>53221956
you dont need to drill a hole, there is a flatish space behind the one ventral engine, if you cut the nib off the widget you can glue it flush behind there and it works just as well.

>>53224876
That's what I was thinking but I wanted to know if I just got one with a weird casting issue.

>>53224664

I would imagine a 28mm skirmish game before an RPG honestly

>>53225077
And I wouldn't mind that, but after DZC 2.0 or DFC 1.1, preferably both!

>>53225312
I doubt it will happen for a while. Release schedule is probably going to be DZC Phase 3 -> first DFC expansion (introducing faction x) -> DZC 2.0 (giving faction x ground units)

>>53225077
The thing is where would you fit a 28mm skirmish game into the setting, infinity style would beg the question why infantry are fighting in the streets and why we dont have heavy vehicles. A more 40k style would just be too clunky with mobility.

Best I can think of is a single building battle game where you are basically playing the CQB phase of DZC out in greater detail, as that prevents any of the vehicles which are super effective against infantry from ruining the game.

>>53225588
Not to mention that people already consider DZC as being the same "kind of game" as 40k. It would be silly to make two games that often get ignored by people already invested in what they consider an equivalent game.

>>53225588
It makes sense to do a CQC game, but my main problem with it is how utterly involved properly doing an urban/building based infantry game is. You need to properly represent at least a sizeable portion of the building, and that means multiple rooms, multiple floors, and depending on how involved you want to get, operator-tier stuff like repelling and wall/floor/ceiling busting and so forth.

Even doing just one battle for one building in a DZC game for a small building would be like four floors, necessitating four separate battle maps, as well as regular rules determining how to properly construct buildings for games, with the alternative being Hawk just putting out a limited selection of designed maps.

>>53202591
Thanks anon, cant wait for more plastic crack to drop money on. Perth looks so damn mean. the red glow obviously factors into that but the Akuma looks like a sexy space fish.

>UCM: their ships glow from the sheer concentrated anger of the crew

>>53225588
Interior fighting all the way. You can't send vehicles to secure skyscrapers, building complexes or underground metros, and space stations would have many places too small for the tanks to go.

>>53227047
You can't properly represent a fight between DFC ground assets with DZC either. It's all abstraction. The way it relates to the other games should be an afterthought imo, try to integrate them too hard and you end up limiting the game.

Thought. Replace the text for Crippling with something lik the following :
"When this weapon system inflicts damage on an enemy ship that ship must roll on the crippling table. It does not lose hull as a result of its roll but otherwise suffers all effects normally."

+++

Also the Chimera would be fine if it just had proper cruiser-level close action weaponry.

>>53228025
Eh. Just make the fire effect it gives better, and make it not require a crit to kick in.

>>53227961
>You can't properly represent a fight between DFC ground assets with DZC either. It's all abstraction. The way it relates to the other games should be an afterthought imo, try to integrate them too hard and you end up limiting the game.
I didn't say anything about integration, though.
I was merely talking about the scale that just one normal building fight would be; I mean, for fucks sake, the "normal" building in DZC is something like 60 feet by 60 feet with four stories.
Just a normal combat between a squad of legionaries versus a squad of warriors is fifteen models a side.

CQC infantry skirmish games like that would also require far more involved rules to properly convey the sense of complexity that clearing a building would be. If we were to call this game, say, Dropsquad Commander, the jump in scale from DZC to DSC would be equivalent to a jump from DFC to four simultaneous games of DZC.

>>53228025
Why?

As for the CAW, I do agree. All ships of a certain size-class should have the same CAW, unless they otherwise have CAW weaponry.

The Chimera should have cruiser level CAW, the SanFran should have cruiser level CAW, and so should the UCM light cruisers.

>>53228141
You don't need all the stories if it doesn't make for a good game. Just like a couple of blocks represents a city district in the jump from DZC to DFC, a single floor could represent an entire building.

I agree with troopships getting cruiser-tier CAW, but UCM light cruisers don't need it. They shouldn't be getting close enough to use it anyway and it's a fair distinction between light and medium cruisers, just like PD is for the other factions.

What's a standard sized game in this? How much of an investment are we talking after the Starter Fleet Box?

>>53228315
For a standard 1250 point game I'd recommend 2 starter fleets, a corvette box and then either a frigate box or a battleship. After that it's just about expanding your options.

>>53228267
I would argue that having 4x as many blocks in DZC game is entirely different from having 4x as many stories in a DSC game; namely, the latter outright adds an entirely new dimension.

Increasing the size of a DZC field just means bigger armies and more objectives; there's nothing fundamentally different between the sizes, except that now higher-valued barrage weapons might not be able to reach everywhere. As well, if the number of turns is extended, it'd make taking suitable amounts of air transport required.

Even as that may be, it barely compares to the tactical gameplay and development space that would come from a fully 3-d (or, in this case, 2-d with z-levels) CQC environment; Everything from repelling, to interior structural collapse, to blasting out walls, ceilings, and floors, the tactical advantage that would come from having the second floor on an open atrium, so on and so forth.
NOT having that level of detail in a game based solely on CQC between infantry squads inside buildings would be like if DZC didn't have the airgame at all, or no artillery, or if DFC didn't have orbital layers or its sig-scan range mechanic.

>>53228315
Standard points size for DFC is about 1250 points; that comes out to about 150-200 dollars depending on what exactly you get, maybe more or less if you really stretch it.

For example; two starter fleet boxes, a battleship or battlecruiser, and either a third starter fleet or a frigate box comes out to about 170 dollars. Adding on a corvette box brings that up to 190.

Still not battleships available in he US online stores.

:(

What's up with Toulon and Saratoga anyway? All the other UCM ships are named after significant cities with populations well in excess of a million, usually capital cities. I mean, Toulon is at least a reasonably sized city with ~500k people in the area and a naval base, so I could see it becoming important if some shit went down, but no city with a name even resembling Saratoga is worth shit currently.

>>53229421

Well the UCM is naming this ships after ancient cities they barely remember or have seen.

Saratoga is a classic ship name. It might just be that the current location was slightly more important in the future time frame and the UCM simply don't actually know it was some tiny area.

Also the Atlantis and Avalon both don't match the naming scheme really because the other prototypes aren't named after fiction. The New Cairo implies something happened to the old Cairo as well.

>>53229764
New Cairo exists now, it's just a section of Cairo. It may have ended up separating from the old city or becoming significant enough to rename it or something.

Yeah, the Atlantis/Avalon thing seems to indicate that fictional cities are used for prototypes.

Kind of surprised there's no Indian cities though. They're pretty big.

>>53229969
UCM Poo In Loo

>>53229421
Saratoga is speshul. Also, flavor-wise, it was a prototype made by some third party arms contractor.

Could always be a city built after the current year. I assumed New Cairo was a colony world city.

>>53229157
lies, i just ordered two and got them on friday, you need to check around mate, I suggest FRP games they seemed to have good stock on alot of things

>>53228402

>15-20vs15-20 multi dimensional "find the Intel and escape" Drop Squad Commander with optional 28mm sized vehicles that can be outside the building and fire into the sides or at each other, or be used as a more secure extraction method

Can't threaten me with a good time

>>53230251
Your reflexes are slow anon. Next time India is mentioned in any way I expect the poo jokes to be instantaneous.

Seriously though what's up with that? Nothing else I've seen can so reliably prompt such a specific shitpost.

>>53231151
>even the smallest of vehicles costs a significant number of points to take
>A single Yari would be nearly a sixth of your points cost at the smallest size
>not to mention a Fireblade or Menchit
>or a Tormentor
>having to maneuver two or even three fireteams of soldiers to get your AV weaponry into position before the entire building goes up in flame

>>53231952
It's the baneposting of /int/ memes.

>>53231952
Different cultures value different things. India, among other things, tends to prize cleanliness and purity, of literal and spiritual kind.

Now combine that with a chip in their shoulder v westerners, and the fact that they're still a developing nation with immense poverty, absurd population, and limited infrastructure. It's like 'fag' or 'cuck' are for presumably straight, white, males who we assume the internet is full off; a blind insult that hits a common vulnerability, and because Indians have said chip in their shoulders, they bite every single time.

>>53232394
I dunno man at best I could see APCs being a "terrain" feature, if two people are in a building (the only conceivable reason to have a more focused battle there) neither side can shoot at the building, or flame into the building cause LOL CQB.

Rather Id represent the outside battle with "hazard" cards which act as the deck of cards for the game, and be things like stray fire hits the building, or previous damage caused a structural weakness, theres a hidden door, etc..

>>53231952
>>53232518
DESIGNATED SHITTING STREETS Seriously, its a problem when you have so many goddamn people.

>>53231151
>Running around with Hazards on space station like its Space Hulk.
>Ram a bear right through a fucking wall to extract your mauled Legionnaires.

>>53232836
Ah, yeah, fair point. I had forgotten about CQC preventing using flame weaponry. That's a neat idea for the command cards, though.

>>53232928
>APCs/Light Dropships are the spawn points / goal fields of the mission
>mfw trying to clear an LZ on the roof for the Raven to touch down, all the while a squad of Destroyers are rampaging up a staircase while the Praetorians are hauling ass

>>53233040
Id like to think you could also organize the scenarios based on how long the occupier has been in the building, 1 turn is a meeting engagement where is basically both sides on the same footing, 2 turns is semi defensive where there could be a chance for the defender to be either prepared or unprepared, and 3 turns firmly puts it in a defensive scenario with the defender getting some options to deploy defenses like barring doorways or laying traps.

>>53233732
That'd be an interesting way to go about it; perhaps a dice-off to see how many turns of set-up the occupying player gets?

The one thing that did strike me is how important fog-of-war is to inna-building infantry games; how do you accurately represent holding a squad behind a wall to hopefully ambush some other enemy group? It can be handwaved away in DZC with stuff like orbital telescopes and sensors.

On the other hand, it can be equally handwaved away in DSC with thermal sensors and the like.

>>53233732
I think that could be dropsquad commanders game defining gimmick: both sides have to breach the building in different ways before getting the Intel.

In the same way that dropfleet is defined by how troops have to get to sectors to score, drop-squad is about entering a building from multiple angles and getting to the objective before running away.

Rainbow six siege style

>>53234742
I dont think youd really have a whole lot of fog of war actually most of the infantry options are equiped with stuff that should theoretically let them just see through walls, however you could do some sort of "scan/sig" sort of setup where each unit has a detection distance based on how sophisticated their equipment is, and each enemy unit has a presence value based on how "loud" they are. Although maybe to avoid copying DFC completely youd base it on how many obstacles they could be detected through vs how many obstacles the attacker can detect through.

So maybe a Siren has a presence of 0 (cause they are sneaky and agile) and a Legionnaire has a detect of 1, which would mean if the siren is on the otherside of only one desk/wall/obstacle they can be seen and engaged, but if they were behind say two, they would be "out of range"

>>53234742
Infinity has hidden deployment and camouflage rules where certain units you can write down/ photograph where your invisible dudes are, they will not be physically on the board and your opponent wont know that they are even there. Then you can have your hidden unit pop out and gank something. Another camo can spawn a fake signature.

Space Hulk's sensor blip system could work as well.

>>53237425
That could work; if you divided the map into hard grid of, say, 2x2 foot squares to right down where they are in a general sense, with precise positioning coming into play only when revealed.

>>53237794
I assume it's basically replacing each unit with tokens that are otherwise indistinguishable, with what they are on the bottom?

>>53238138

In space hulk one team is visable and the aliens are just counters that represent senor spots. When you reveal one you can bring in the amount of aliens on the bottom.

You could port it over by having both teams utilizing it just like you describe or in some missions having one team be visible then one team not.

Some blips could be scout models, drones, or even robot soldiers. Things like hazard suits or razor worms or braves could never hide. Units like sirens almost always be invisible.

I like the scan/sig idea the other anno had. And the breaching rainbow six idea as well. It would be an interesting system to use in a skirmish game. To mix those ideas to essentially make a three stage game: Recon, Contact, Extraction. Could very original and cool.

File: [Bombers Intensify].png (407KB, 798x528px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 798x528px

Bump

>>53238569
>>53240634
>page 1 to 10 in about 2 hours
RIP /tg/

>>53240651
When do the command cards drop?

>>53240831
soon, fellow stalker
allegedly they're already out, but ????

>>53240831
Whenever you're willing to fly to a show Hawk is at! I've read comments from the UK about various stores having them but US distribution is a mystery.

>>53241420
Wouldnt be the first time US has had cocked up distro with Hawk stuff.

>>53242108
Probably won't be the last time either...

>>53242108
Not even out on Hawk's site though.

>>53242234
They were available for prepurchase at the SALUTE show in London. I don't believe they're available to buy at retail just yet but probably will be within a couple of weeks

How is this Fleet list, I know it might be kinda low on troops and possibly launch assets


PHR 1.25KA1 - 1227pts
PHR - 2 launch assets

SR16 Flag battlegroup (322pts)
1 x Heracles - 285pts - S
1 x Calypso - 37pts - L

SR15 Vanguard battlegroup (284pts)
1 x Leonidas - 195pts - H
1 x Theseus - 89pts - M

SR5 Line battlegroup (115pts)
1 x Ikarus - 115pts - M

SR7 Line battlegroup (208pts)
1 x Orpheus - 130pts - M
2 x Medea - 78pts - L

SR4 Pathfinder battlegroup (178pts)
2 x Medea - 78pts - L
2 x Pandora - 100pts - L

SR3 Pathfinder battlegroup (120pts)
3 x Europa - 120pts - L

>>53240634

How good are andromedas now that we've hopefully gotten a few games of experience under our belts?

On one hand 4 launch assets of andromedas are expensive as fuck but on the other hand they're fast as fuck with tiny sig radius

>>53246862
I think they probably make a good support unit, specially since you can spread that out in the fleet rather that concentrating it

>>53246862
They're pretty good, though specialised. Cheapest launch assets in PHR, fast with low sig, and still pretty tough because PHR frigate stats.

Does anyone know of a place to buy the gun bits for the PHR walkers and transports?

>>53253265
Do not believe Hawk has anywhere they sell individual bits, might try contacting them directly to see if you can get them individually or not, I dont know of any distributors that do it anyway.

>>53253344
How long do they usually take to respond?

>>53255326
They are pretty prompt about it.

>>53253265
which gun bits are you looking for if i might ask?

>>53256457
Any/all for the type 2, type 3, and type 4 walkers and the angelos transport.

>>53255378
Which email would you say is best to contact them on, [email protected]?

>>53257068
Seems like the best one, just drop them a line anon.

>>53258632
that I shall, hopefully they'll respond soon!

>>53251006
I know UCM laser tech is a relatively recent development in their technology, but is it ever said what they did that allowed them to produce the energy they do? I totally forget myself, it wasn't nuclear was it?

>>53260497
they've got fusion reactors, and big ones at that.

>>53260497
Fusion; the Scourge are the one that use bomb pumped x-ray lasers for their occulus rays.

>>53260731
Scourge also use fusion, and I think were fluffed to always have a single large plant on each of their ships, never multiple or redundant ones.

>>53261103
They do, but the occulus beams in particular use a secondary power source; critical fission reactions, in fact, for that split second burst of energy.

Does this seem a bit over kill for DFC, 8 Corvettes, 44 or so frigates, 13 or so cruisers, a battlecruiser, and a battleship?

>>53262035
Is that your total collection? You could probably build a proper 3000 point fleet out of that.

Alternately, you just have a LOT of choices when it comes to frigates.

>>53262096
Should I invest in some more heavier ships, be they another battleship/cruiser or a few more boxes of cruisers?

>>53262263
Yeah, another battlecruiser and maybe a second battleship wouldn't be untowards.

>>53262035
What faction?

You definitely don't need that many frigates though. That's excessive even for a frigate skew list. Another BC and/or BB seems like a fine idea. More cruisers aren't really required but would give you more options.

>>53263212
It's a PHR fleet, and I'm considering getting a few of the battlecruisers once the new models are released, maybe another pair of battleship as well. Probably going to get another few boxes of cruisers soon though.

>>53263212
>You definitely don't need that many frigates though. That's excessive even for a frigate skew list.

>Implying

--------------------------------------
Djinni - 2989pts
Scourge - 5 launch assets

SR5 Line battlegroup (140pts)
1 x Hydra - 140pts - M
+ Fleet Enslaver (20pts, 2AV)

SR7 Line battlegroup (169pts)
1 x Chimera - 105pts - M
2 x Gargoyle - 64pts - L

SR7 Line battlegroup (169pts)
1 x Chimera - 105pts - M
2 x Gargoyle - 64pts - L

SR7 Line battlegroup (169pts)
1 x Chimera - 105pts - M
2 x Gargoyle - 64pts - L

SR18 Pathfinder battlegroup (774pts)
6 x Djinn - 258pts - L
6 x Djinn - 258pts - L
6 x Djinn - 258pts - L

SR18 Pathfinder battlegroup (774pts)
6 x Djinn - 258pts - L
6 x Djinn - 258pts - L
6 x Djinn - 258pts - L

SR18 Pathfinder battlegroup (774pts)
6 x Djinn - 258pts - L
6 x Djinn - 258pts - L
6 x Djinn - 258pts - L
------------- dflist.com -------------

>>53263615
My dude that's the most excessive shit ever.

>>53263805
I'm sure someone could build an even more skewed list if they tried.

>>53264045
Probably. It would be even more excessive. 54 Djinn divided into 3 huge swarms is still pretty excessive though. An excessive number of frigates is ideal for an excessive gimmick list like that, but if that's not the goal then the investment in that many frigates is a bit of a waste.

>>53263615
I like the hydra. It reads as a sort of statement as "well I need a decent command ship and hey, this gives me an excuse to keep it far back!".

>>53264865
It's more a matter of principle; no self-respecting Scourge list wouldn't take at least one of the single most efficient carrier in the game.

>>53264754
What's the most excessive Cairo spam list possible?

>>53265545
--------------------------------------
Hello darkness my old friend - 2986pts
UCM - 0 launch assets

SR45 Line battlegroup (792pts)
3 x New Cairo - 264pts - M
3 x New Cairo - 264pts - M
3 x New Cairo - 264pts - M

SR32 Line battlegroup (602pts)
3 x New Cairo - 264pts - M
3 x New Cairo - 264pts - M
2 x Lima - 74pts - L

SR32 Line battlegroup (602pts)
3 x New Cairo - 264pts - M
3 x New Cairo - 264pts - M
2 x Lima - 74pts - L

SR32 Line battlegroup (602pts)
3 x New Cairo - 264pts - M
3 x New Cairo - 264pts - M
2 x Lima - 74pts - L

SR5 Pathfinder battlegroup (130pts)
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
3 x Santiago - 66pts - L

SR4 Pathfinder battlegroup (128pts)
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L

SR5 Pathfinder battlegroup (130pts)
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
3 x Santiago - 66pts - L
------------- dflist.com -------------

>>53265609
27 new Cairos, thats a lot of fast lasers, silent running for two turns then we start the coming to a new heading spam

>>53267785
On the other hand it's also a lot of 4+ armour. Seems like massive casualties on both sides is the order of the day.

I want to ask the thread this (all two of us). I was teaching someone how to play and they suggested that the rule-set is too complex, and that this may be why the game has no traction. Do we think that is the case, is the rule-set for either dropfleet or dropzone too complex and turn off less "hardcore" people?

>>53267959
hence the silent running for two turns unless the opponent list is >>53263615 you should be good as far as active pings go

>>53267978
Not really. DFC is pretty intuitive, DZC perhaps less so but it isn't super complicated. There are more popular games that are harder to learn.

>>53267978
Given the slovenly mass that is the current state of warhammer, which somehow still seems to be popular despite itself, i think your friend is full of shit.

>>53270549
Hit it pretty much on the head. DZC has a few bits that are kinda wonky, but you get the flow of it after a single game. I would instead posit that the lack of traction is more just because hawk is a small company that doesn't have half as much brand awareness out there.

>>53270778
Not sure I'd go so far as to call his friendo full of shit, but personally I was very impressed with how much depth the rules seem to produce with only modest complexity.

>>53270778
>Given the slovenly mass that is the current state of warhammer, which somehow still seems to be popular despite itself, i think your friend is full of shit.
I haven't even touched warhammer in forever; how bad is it?

>>53271388
thats a fairly loaded question, some people will tell you its ok, others like >>53270778 will tell you its nearly beyond help.

Id say it at this point is extremely obtuse where it does not need to be, there is a whole crap ton of rules artifacting where things have been left they way they were or things that were a certain way 5 editions ago are just bandaided up to work with newer rule ideas. Generally unless you have a very strong memory you will be going back to the rulebook at least once per phase, if not once per turn which can slow the play down significantly.

>>53202469
man, that's fucking beautiful.

>>53215399
>Man what the fuck could even happen to do that
either the antarctic ice sheet melting or orbital bombardment with mid-sized asteroids. Probably the ice sheet, bombardment would leave a bunch of "C" shapes on the coastline from the craters.

>>53267978
>the rule-set is too complex
bullshit. both DZC and DFC are much simpler than warhammer. I agree with this >>53270778
anon. Hawk is new and relatively unknown, though growing fast.

While Hawk's rules are fairly simple for a wargame, I have to say that they're not exceptionally well-defined or un-ambiguous. At least not to the lawyerly or CSautist standard you see in (admittedly few) other games.

>>53271388
My two cents are that the games are kind of fucked in different ways. WHFB went too far in the "gotta make them changes" direction and is not only unrecognizable as a game in terms of gameplay (different genre, different scope, different mechanics) but the fluff, naming conventions and art style has been drastically altered.

40k has the problem of being simultaneously confined to 3rd edition conventions while GW clearly wants to do different things. With superheavies and D strength weapons being a standard thing rather than being reserved for fuckhueg games, the complete and utter canning of anything even remotely resembling a FOC, the extreme dilution of faction boundaries, the sudden introduction of fortifications and pushing fliers into the core game, sticking to a game designed around sort-of-battle-sort-of-skirmish sizes and trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole is pretty weird. Rules exist for the sake of existing even though the game no longer has a use for them. They tack on new rules when old ones aren't working instead of just changing them into something better (see: the wild inconsistencies in the usefulness of vehicles between editions). They break away from established design traditions in some cases for seemingly no reason while maintaining them for everyone else, leading to wild inconsistencies in how the game is played. And of course you have the issue of trying to have players control individual soldiers in a squad while having a game where super-heavies, fliers, fortifications and whatnot are crammed onto one table.

In short, WHFB changed too much, while 40k is in a weird sort of flux where it's rigidly structured around a 20 year old ruleset but they keep trying to turn it into a huge epic wargame the rules don't support.

>>53267978

I'm a crunchy bastard that plays a number of tabletops limited by my ability to remember game rules for them simultaneously, and Hawk is straightforward and simple- the only things that need special attention on my part are CQB in DZC and the ground combat phase in DFC- which makes sense since they're both pretty much cutscene minigame bossfights. I couldn't imagine keeping another ruleset in my head as easily (much less two).

>>53270933
>>53271388
So maybe I was a bit harsh on the full of shit bit, but warhammer as it stands in 7th ed has a nasty case of the DnD 3rd ed. So many books you need to juggle to play a game, and the rules are scattered all over the place. Between that and the power creep inherent in the staggered release schedule 7th ed is just bloated and miserable unless you're playing either A: super laid back people, or B: purely competitively. That said, 8th is looking -very- promising.
In either case neither of hawks games come anywhere close to the complexity of mechanics. I'm not too well versed in many other games more closely related to the dropcommander series, so I can't really offer comparison between them and say, X-wing. I do know that compared to BFG, DFC is hilariously simplified in a very good way.

>>53272983
Man it feels absurd that I might get pulled back into 40k, but god damn do the rules seem decent.

I will say that in my experience Drop commander stuff isn't too hard but there is some book keeping that needs focus on, either on battlegroups or which transport is carrying which troops and all that. Not that much bookkeeping, but for inexperienced players its a little rough.

File: Dropfleet_Rule_Changes_05-17.pdf (232KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1x1px

Experimental rules have become official rules.

I'm dissapointed that Hawk didn't reword or future proof some of the rule changes better, like the calibre or crippling changes.

Unit real ancestors are overall good, but I'm slightly annoyed that the New York was brought up to 7, not 6, and that the Glass only has CAW, not CAW (beam)

It's strange that there's so very little changes between the experimental rules and the official changes.

>>53274939
well as you yourself say, there were only 1 or two you would have preferred different.

File: holy shit dude.png (833KB, 1032x808px) Image search: [Google]

833KB, 1032x808px

>>53274939
>Orion, Medium Calibre Broadsides: Both gain the ‘Linked-1’ rule

>>53274939
I'm happiest for the Achilles boost, torpedoes still aren't the best but I love the look of the ship and planned on using it regardless.

>>53276731
>broadside ships become generally better, apart from troopships that don't need any buffs and ships that already have linked
>but muh autism

>>53276731

It's really not much of a thing, one Orion is still meh to ok, and two Orions are still ok to good, depending on player skill.

>the best part is imagining the how much this messes with Hector-chan's fragile facade of self confidence

>>53278756
>not being autistic about design consistency

>>53278800
theyve made orions giant europas this is fine

>>53274939
I kinda wish that the troopships were given linked for their broadsides, but I understand that it's pretty damn broken.

>>53279119
Nah, in that case, you just increase their cost to literal heavy cruiser tier.

>>53279142
So for PHR it'd likely just be a bump of 30 or so points to the cost, though in all other stats they are equal to heavy cruisers.

Is it an ok idea to have a pair of Hades but only have one fly in whole the other walks on and locks down a lane of fire/nukes one of the buildings before anyone else can?

>>53283141
Try a Nemesis, it's a little better at hanging back with that infinite range laser and longer ranged secondaries.

File: Annihilator.jpg (89KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 960x640px

>Smiling walker of ballistic doom

>>53284740
How does that thing walk anyway? The front legs make sense, but does that back one doesn't seem much like a leg at all. Does the Annihilator just drag it along the ground? Or maybe bring it off the ground with its thrusters and hop?

>>53246862
I've found them to be really awkward.

They have a low SR and are good active scan platforms, but don't actually have any way to take advantage of either of those things. They are technically the cheapest launch option in faction, but if you have four its only twelve points more for a Bellerophon, which also comes with a cobra laser.

They're certainly not bad ships. But I am kind of underwhelmed by them.

>>53284425
Well I'll be just playing friendly games so I'll just proxy the nemesis in that case

>tfw want to get into any non gw tabletop game
>tfw no one plays any of them in town eventho I live in a major city

Is this a europe thing or is it the same shit in the US ? I wanted to play AT43 so badly when it came out and never had the chance. Now dropfleet interest me and I come across the same problem. Fuck my life.

>>53289339
it happens to me, but look into any small gaming clubs and, for me at least, I've been able to find people. Also check on the internet for groups.

>>53289339
Wherefore art thou, anon?

File: IMG_1603.png (43KB, 259x224px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 259x224px

>>53291128
>Why are you, anonymous?
Pshh, what kind of question is that

>>53291383
I don't know, why are you?

So while it may be out there, I haven’t seen a complete overview of the cards in command decks. I just got PHR and Scourge decks, so here’s a pile of words as I have no scanner/camera and I hate myself.

Shared:

4x Espionage
Play: When an Opponent plays a Command Card.
Target: One Enemy Command Card use.
Effect: You may negate the effects of this Enemy Command Card.

2x Taking the Initiative
Play: On the activation of an Enemy Battlegroup.
Target: One Friendly Group.
Effect: You may prematurely activate a single Group in any Friendly Battlegroup; The Group may only choose Standard Orders. This Group must complete its actions before the Enemy Battlegroup can continue with its actions.

2x Mass Transit System
Play: During the Cleanup Stage of the Planning Phase
Target: Any two Sectors in two different Clusters within 24” of each other (may not target Space Stations).
Effect: These Sectors count as Linked for the rest of the game: Ground Asset tokens may move between these linked Sectors as if they were in the same Cluster.

2x Re-Calibrated Targeting
Play: After rolling to hit during a shooting action.
Target: One Friendly ship.
Effect: Choose one weapon system on this ship. This weapon may re-roll missed rolls to hit this turn (may not target Close Action weapons or Launch Assets). If this card is played on a weapon with the Burnthrough Special rule, it only applies to the first roll.

4x Expert Repair Crews
Play: During the Damage Control Phase.
Target: One Friendly ship.
Effect: All Crippling damage results on target ship are repaired without rolling. Persistent effects that can not be repaired (e.g. from Corruptor weapons) are not repaired. In addition, the ship regains 2 Hull points up to its starting Hull value.

2x Admiral’s Directive
Play: In the Activation Phase after both players have revealed a Strategy Card.
Target: Your Strategy Card.
Effect: The Strategy Rating of your revealed Battlegroup gains a -4 modifier.

>>53292271
3x Intensify Point Defence
Play: Before rolling for Point Defence.
Target: One Friendly ship.
Effect: This ship gains a -1 modifier to the roll required for its Point Defence for this roll.

2x Dissipate Energy
Play: During the Cleanup Stage of the Planning Phase.
Target: One Friendly ship.
Effect: Remove all Energy Spikes from this ship.

1x Jam Comms
Play: When an Opponent choose orders for one Group.
Target: This Enemy Group.
Effect: The targeted Group may not use Special Orders this turn and must go on Standard Orders instead.

3x Launch Chaff
Play: On the activation of an Enemy Battlegroup.
Target: One Friendly ship.
Effect: This ship counts as having a base Signature of 0 for the duration of the Enemy activation. Energy Spikes and other effects that alter Signature still apply.

2x Orbital Targeting Matrix
Play: On the Activation of a Friendly Battlegroup.
Target: One Friendly Group in this Battlegroup.
Effect: For the remainder of the activation, this Group’s weapon systems do not suffer any penalties for firing from High to Low Orbit or from Low to High Orbit.

2x Skilful Shot
Play: Before rolling on the damage location table for a Crippled ship.
Target: One Enemy ship that has been Crippled.
Effect: This roll gains a +2 modifier when rolling on the damage location table for a Crippled ship.

2x Detonate Drives
Play: When rolling on the Catastrophic Damage table.
Target: One Friendly ship.
Effect: This roll automatically counts as a 6 on the Catastrophic Damage table (Radiation Burst). This may be modified as usual (i.e. ships with a starting Hull value of 10 or more will receive +1, changing the result to a Distortion Bubble).

>>53292271
PHR:

2x Countermeasures Hack
Play: When an Enemy ship is about to roll for Point Defence after any fighters have been allocated.
Target: This Enemy ship.
Effect: The base Point Defence of this ship is reduced to 0 for this roll. Point Defence additions (e.g. from fighters) still count.

2x ECM Field Generator
Play: During the Cleanup Stage of the Planning Phase.
Target: One Cluster or Space Station.
Effect: Ignore all Spikes for all Friendly ships within 6” of this Cluster or Space Station for the purposes of Enemy shooting this turn.

1x Assassination Attempt
Play: At the end of the Set Strategy Deck Stage of the Planning Phase.
Target: One Opponent’s Strategy Deck
Effect: For the remainder of the turn, the Opponent adds 8 to their Strategy Rating when determining activation order.

2x Weapons Hack
Play: When one Enemy ship is about to complete a shooting action.
Target: One Enemy ship.
Effect: For each non-Close Action weapon that the ship is firing roll a dice. On a 1-2, the weapon must fire at a different target from that chosen. If there are no other eligible targets the weapon may not fire. On a 3-4 the weapon may not fire this turn. On a 5-6, you may choose a target for this weapon (which may be Enemy or Friendly ships), or choose not to fire instead.

2x Ship of the Line
Play: On the activation of a Friendly ship.
Target: This Friendly ship.
Effect: One weapon system on this ship with “Broadside” in its name may fire twice this turn. This counts as firing one weapon system.

2x Command Hack
Play: When an Opponent’s Command Card takes effect.
Target: This Opponent.
Effect: This Opponent may not play any further Command Cards this turn. Espionage cards may still be used to counter the effect of this Card, but may not be used later in the turn if this card successfully resolves.

>>53292271
3x Repair Drone Squadron
Play: At the end of the Launch Phase.
Target: One Friendly ship.
Effect: Remove any number of Friendly fighter tokens from this ship. For each token that is removed you may repair 1 damage point on this ship, up to a total of 4 points of damage.

2x Drive Hack
Play: When an Enemy Battlegroup activates
Target: One Enemy ship in the that [sic] Battlegroup.
Effect: Roll a D6. On a 1-3, this ship reduces its base Thrust by 50%. One a 4-6, it reduces its base Thrust to 0. These effects remain in play until the end of this turn. The ship may still turn and go on Special Orders.

2x Electro-Mag Deflectors
Play: During the Cleanup Stage of the Planning Phase.
Target: One Friendly ship.
Effect: This ship gains Passive Countermeasures (4+) until the beginning of the next turn and gains a Minor Spike.

3x Elite Ground Forces
Play: During the Cleanup Stage of the Planning Phase.
Target: One Cluster or Space Station.
Effect: All Friendly Group Assets in this Cluster or Space Station gain a -1 modifier to their Armour value for the remainder of the turn.

1x Massed Weapon Banks
Play: During the Cleanup Stage of the Planning Phase.
Target: All Friendly ships on the table.
Effect: Any weapon on these ships with the word “Calibre” in its name gains the “Fusillade (2)” special rule.

2x Nanomachine Colonies
Play: During the Cleanup Stage of the Planning Phase.
Target: One Friendly ship.
Effect: The Targeted ship gains the ‘Regenerate (3)’ special rule for the rest of the game.

1x Unreal Toughness
Play: When a ship would roll on the Catastrophic Damage Table.
Target: One Friendly ship.
Effect: Do not roll on the Catastrophic Damage Table. This ship is not destroyed. Instead it continues on 1 Hull point and is destroyed at the end of the damage control Phase. If this ship takes further damage this turn, it is destroyed - roll on the Catastrophic Damage Table as normal.

>>53292271
Scourge:

1x Engineered Anarchy
Play: At the end of the Set Strategy Deck Stage of the Planning Phase.
Target: One Opponent’s Strategy Deck.
Effect: The Opponent must immediately shuffle their Strategy Deck. They may not look at the order of their Strategy Cards after shuffling for the rest of the turn.

2x For the Species
Play: On the activation of one Friendly Battlegroup.
Target: One ship in this Battlegroup.
Effect: The targeted ship may Ram this turn, even if it has more than two Hull points remaining.

2x Augmentations
Play: During the Cleanup Stage of the Planning Phase.
Target: One Sector or Space Station.
Effect: This Sector gains the Orbital Gun weapon profile (see p75 for rules) - this does not change its Sector type. If a Space Station is the target of this Card, it gains an additional Laser Armament in addition to any it may already have (see p 54 for rules).

3x Assimilated Bioforms
Play: During the Cleanup Stage of the Planning Phase.
Target: One Cluster with Scourge Ground Assets in it.
Effect: All Friendly and Armour tokens in this Cluster gain +1 attack this turn.

2x Abandon All Hope
Play: During the Cleanup Stage of the Planning Phase.
Target: One Opponent.
Effect: The targeted Opponent must discard D3 Command Cards at random.

2x Silent Killer
Play: When activating one Friendly Battlegroup.
Target: One ship in this Battlegroup.
Effect: This ship gains the Stealth special rule for the remainder of this turn.

2x Leviathan of the Void
Play: During the Cleanup Stage of the Planning Phase.
Target: One Friendly ship.
Effect: This ship gains the Beast special rule for the remainder of the game.

>>53292271
3x Evasive Manoeuvres
Play: When an Enemy Group has declared its targets for shooting attacks.
Target: One Friendly ship that is targeted by the attacks.
Effect: Any weapons firing at this ship from the Enemy Group suffers +1 to their Lock Value.

2x Relentless Advance
Play: When activating one Friendly Battlegroup.
Target: One Group in this Battlegroup.
Effect: All ships in this Group able to move up to their full thrust value double their base thrust this turn. This Group may not use the ‘Max Thrust’ Special order this turn. These ships may not fire Close Action weapons or launch any Launch Assets thus turn.

2x Aggression
Play: One the activation of a Friendly ship.
Target: Friendly ship.
Effect: Until the end of the turn, this ship may re-roll failed rolls to hit when firing at ships or Space Stations within scan range. This Card does not apply to Launch Assets or Close Action weapons.

1x Killing Finesse
Play: During the Cleanup Stage of the Planning Phase.
Target: One Friendly ship.
Effect: All Friendly ships on the table may make one turn when on the Weapons Free order this turn.

3x Point Blank Death
Play: When rolling for the number of attacks on a Close Action weapon.
Target: One Friendly ship.
Effect: The first dice rolled to determine number of attacks on a Close Action weapon on this ship automatically scores the highest possible value - e.g. if a weapon had D3 attacks it would as 3, if it has D6 it would be 6, if it has 2D6 or more, one of the dice counts as a 6 and the player would roll the other(s). Any additional modifiers are then applied.

I should have just put this into pastebin and linked that.

>>53292402
>Point Blank Death
Hooray, Wyverns!
My cards were supposed to be here by today, I'm hoping they didn't get lost in customs or something.

>>53292357
Damn, those massed weapons banks! That sounds like it'll be painful as all get out!

>>53238569
Gog damn these are some great ideas

>>53289339
Teach the game to people!

>>53292380
>randomly sprouting an orbital gun in a secured sector
well that seems pretty solid.

>>53293063

I really like the idea of breach attacks whoever was the anno who had that idea, you are a true hero or a huge faggot (I don't know how to praise someone on 4chan)

I suppose in my minds eye. The game would be objective focused to support the standard game. Designed to play in campaigns. Units gain strengths or weakness over the course of a “battle” 3-4 missions per battle, 3-5 battles per campaign
Two main resources Campaign points and requisition
Basic Missions
So you have control location – Both teams move to take an area in king of the hill style
Retrieve objective – Both teams are searching a building for an objective which could be hacking or a
Stop mission – Team A has occupied the building, the longer they hold it the more campaign points they get. Think mortar team on the roof, siren goes up to silence them.

Commitment System – The game would represent a small part of a larger battle. You assemble you army with let’s say base 1000 points, which represents the entirety of resources at your disposal. Points would be 600 of base squads, 100 points of special squads. Each play shows up to a mission with 250 points. As you play you can call in reinforcement squads from up to 200 points worth after the half way point. So if the game is 8 turns, turn 4 you can call in like 50, 6 another 50, up until 200. You could also under bid, show up with just 200 and make do with less.

Your performance effects the course of the “battle” Summon more than 100 points in stuff and you lose command points. Accomplish objectives = gain command points, show up with less guys and you win even more. Command points effect the win or lose of the overall battle.
After each mission squads can gain XP and loot. After each battle you can spend requisition to buy better stuff and replace bodies. In this way, you have to be sure to use the right tool for the right job, sometimes pulling out is smarter than going into a meat grinder.

>>53295522
>>53293063

Game flows similar to what we said, missions start as sensor blips. Players try to complete this mission goals until someone gets discovered and then a fight breaks out. Then one the shooting starts, players can reveal some models then leave others to keep working on objectives. Some models will reveal themselves on accident. Turn 3, you can breach with anyone you didn’t reveal part of your original allotment. Breachers would come from any wall facing the outside and have a change to stun people near by. Shaltari gate and can arrive anywhere. Certain units and resistance would be able to do the same.

Squads would be 5 dudes. A hazard, destroyer, razor worm, braves would be squads of one.
Ideal size would be 3 to four squads max.

>>53295302
Since it's a Scourge only card, the factories or apartment buildings bursting open like the Thing were probably built that way as defense emplacements at least a hundred years ago. Nerve squids are sneaky dicks.

>>53292357
Massed Weapon Banks only lasts one turn, right?

>>53297980
RAW it would last for the rest of the game, but I'm not sure if that's the intent.

>>53297980
>>53298157
Nah, it lasts all game I would think.
It's only a one-of, meaning it's rare, and fusillade only works on weapons free anyways.
It's basically a "if you draw this early on, you can be a lot more aggressive".

It'll be absolutely insane on things like heavy caliber weapons, though.

>>53298157
>>53298299
I'm not sure how to feel about a card you want to play immediately at the next possible phase no matter what your situation is. A randomly drawn permanent global buff has no risk-reward decision making, and is the sort of thing you ought to pay points for instead.

>>53298299
There are other rare cards, and none of them give out permanent fleet-wide buffs. Encouraging weapons free on PHR ships is nice and all, but there's no decision making process involved in its use. Even the Toulon/Rio summon card has more going on. If it only applied to one BG or only lasted a turn or two that would be more interesting.

>>53157529
GURPS, maybe Savage Worlds? Something a little more generic so there's not as much "this is totally this other thing" happening?

Also, for UCM are the Sabres still sort of the go to main tank? I was thinking of using Katanas, but I worry they just aren't survivable enough.

>>53299103
I'd say Katanas are slightly better, but they're pretty close. It's toughness+range against speed+damage.

>>53299192
I just prefer the look of Katanas, personally. The elevator arm on the Sabre and Raiper always looked a little silly to me.

And I'd rather have the speed since that'll make range not as bog a deal, then bring stuff like Gladius' and the new heavy tank(broadsword I believe it's called?).

Also want to start playing Resistance. However I will not use technicals as I think they just look dumb with the duse on the back that seems wildly out of scale.

>>53299275
Yeah, scale is pretty messed up with technicals. They're useful, but luckily you don't really need them.

I'm kind of the opposite about the tanks though. I like the articulated guns and think the Katana's double turret looks goofy.

File: IMG_1849.png (291KB, 466x411px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 466x411px

>>53300296
>>53301084
>Scourge-tan never
Why has Mothman forsaken us

>>53301371
Stay strong, anon; we will be rewarded for our patience.

>>53299103

Katanas are a lot better. Mainly because their main weapon is better suited to fight our opponents. Then because it doubles as building demo and can just drive on. With the Katana you spend like 3 turns nailing enemy buildings. Then you fight. With Sabre three turns in a condor and then you fight.

Most of the time though you want to use your gunship advantage to tip the scale in ground fights not your tanks.

>>53301908
A tank in a dropship is always going to get to the fight faster than a drive on tank, drive on is a severe mobility limiter even with 6" movement. That said, the demo capability is still definitely a point in the Katana's favour.

>>53302045

The issue is in practice it doesn't actually speed things up that much. Turn one you both move on to the board and there are no targets.

The Katana moves 12 inches by turn three and can fire each time. Some times you have reached other targets by this point as our opponents generally need dropships. Your Katanas are always a threat to something. Even if it is just peppering that empty objective building with shots that your opponent is heading towards. This forces the issue for your opponent as he will have to do something about that katana or lose access to objectives or prime real estate. Turn 3 you usually have a shot on an enemy though other times it is true and you just hit a building again.

9/10 times a sabre can really only fire turn 3 at best unless you get really lucky and drop them off turn one. If so you run the risk that your opponent won't simply drive else wear. In that case you move up 14 inches. Turn 2 you will end up in a better position if your opponent commits, however the weapon usually just isn't as useful in this case because lower enemy armor and skimmer bonus.

One of the issues a lot of players face though is they don't use enough scatter terrain and the articulated rule gets ignored.

The Sabre isn't bad, it just kind of situational. That Katana is ALWAYS useful and you don't have to pay for a dropship if you don't want to. Again, the key here is you should be using your gunships to do the heavy lifting anyway because one for one our tanks aren't as powerful.

>>53302691
>One of the issues a lot of players face though is they don't use enough scatter terrain and the articulated rule gets ignored.
Definitely. I've seen so many tables even at tournaments that don't use any non-building terrain at all.