/dcg/ Dropzone/Dropfleet Commander General

>>49678293
>FUKKEN BASELINES!!!11!011001one

>>49678293
>Look, I've coordinated dozens of kilometer-long technological marvels, traveled a truly staggering distance through the void, and exchanged blows with weapons that are powerful enough to deface planets. All just to deliver your sorry asses here so you and your friends could play in the dirt for a few hours. Is it really so much to ask that you accomplish the ONE task required of you?

Namely, I don't own any Dropzone models, so will be reporting the results of my Dropfleet games online and expect my Ground Commanders (i.e. whomever decides to play based on the information provided) to inform me of the results of their battles. Why would your Admiral and General be the same person?

File: the hardest choices.png (198KB, 911x669px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 911x669px

>>49678293
>PHR scratch the itch for smooth armor plating and overwhelming barrage fire
>Shaltari have inertia-proof maneuver hacks and vicious particle beams

File: you know what you must do.gif (1MB, 300x189px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x189px

>>49678944

So does anyone have any scans for how the objectives work/troopships? I saw some of the scans where it lists military zones have defense weapons, and bulk landers can deploy batteries. Also, bombardment? How does that work? I'm probably picking up two starter sets when it releases, but impatient.

>>49678293

I don't know if it has been talked about yet so I will describe the systems.

The rulebook gives you a guide to play with a linear campaign or a tree campaign in which you alternate playing DFC and then DFZ depending on the structure. It is mostly a rough guideline that lets you input anything you want.

For single day events, they have two options:

In one you play a parent dropfleet game with 2-3 child dropzone games for DF one that are tied to larger clusters. Game play interacts by having the dropfleet player be able to land reinforcements where they enter in a medium dropship of standard tanks into the fight i they succeed. (they can also do resistance fighter craft. They can also bombard the table with 3: E13 shot 6+ devestator-3, demo-3, Area-L shot. These templates always scatter 2D6 inches. The one of the dropzone boards should include a orbital laser which if control can fire shots into dropfleet. Total VP from both DF and DZ grant victory.

The other method is a time lapse campaign with one dropfleet map and a dropzone board. As players in DF land infantry and armor tokens - X amount of points is gained to be used in dropzone. Play only dropzone conflicts that results in certain point limits. (these and the points value of each asset token are up to the players. Every time someone does a landing in DF, you fight over the landings that meet the point requirement you set. If a player arrives turns before another, use the attacker defend scenarios.

I'm most interested in zone/fleet campaign gameplay. I feel actually playing simultaneous games, while a nice idea, won't really work. The main problem is I think a single turn in 'fleet takes the in-universe time of several turns (or maybe an entire game) of 'zone. So, it seems like it would make the orbital game really clunky and tedious as you come back like half an hour or more later and try to remember what the hell you were doing.

But campaigns don't have that problem, you can play each game in its own right, but then have the cool extra factor of having it impact other games.

>>49679351
Ground assets come from laucnh assets seperated into dropships and bulk landers. At the roundup phase, you launch those with fighters and bombers. Dropships and landers can only go their own distance not double their trust. 3" for dropships, 6" for landers. Landers and dropped and dropships from low orbit or atmo.

Ground combat happens before launch assets. When launching your landers you can land and choose to put down 1 battery or 3 infantry tokens. Dropships can put down 1 armor token or 1 infantry token.

When landing, if there are batteries present you roll 1D6 for each asset trying to land on a 3+ that asset is destroyed. If you are using a dropship the roll becomes a 5+. More batteries do nothing to help, but will be around for bombardment. Batteries never move after being placed.

Bombardment works as a standard attack. You roll to hit target and you choose which one, but you must allocate a hit to each asset on the ground before you can retarget something. It seems like you can just target empty sectors to murder them. 6+ to hit a sector if you do not have bombardment.

You can nuke sectors. If there are any ships within 12 inches you can't nuke. You can't nuke sectors that have your own guys. Only medium ships and above can nuke. To do so, do an order that allows a standard attack. Only one nuke may be launched at a time in a group and you must be in scan range. Roll a dice and on a 2+ that sector is destroy and turned to ruins with everything inside dead. All other sectors in the cluster take 1 damage, but may take their save.

Ground assets have 3 stats, scan (which right now is zero for everything, the rulebook acknowledges this is more for completes than the stat being used) Armor, Attacks, and special rules. Assets have 2 armor values one for direct combat and one for bombardment. When ground combat starts in the roundup phase both players do an initiative roll plus their admiral rating. That person goes first. A 6 always wins.

Does this look reasonable for babby's first PHR fleet? Asking as I won't be magnetising.

Vanguard
1 Bellerephon (AV2 admiral) - 200

Line
1 Ajax - 100
1 Orion - 107
1 Orion - 107

Line
1 Icarus - 115
2 Europa - 80

Pathfinder
1 Orpheus - 130
2 Europa - 80
2 Medea - 78

Total - 997

Basic idea being Belle hangs back somewhat, but the other three battlegroups all have enough shooting to go forth and brawl a bit. I know the Orion's got a bit of flak round these parts, but it seems a pretty solid cruiser to me.

>>49680048
>>49679351

From here you take turns moving stuff in smallest unit order. Once everything is moved you go to combat. You can't take units out of a sector if it is under attack.

From here you go in INT order again. You pick a sector and combine all your attacks and roll dice. 4+ cause wounds there are NO crits. You allocate all your wounds to a targets until everyone has some. Then saves are rolled. Both players roll at the same time. All failed saves are removed. Combat continues next turn.

>>49680048
Sounds like motherships (cruiser troopships with bulk landers) will be really useful. Defence batteries seem damn important, and I'm wondering if 6 infantry could actually beat 2 armour in a punchup. I think I remember it being said that infantry typically have a save of 5+ in ground combat with armour having a save of 3+, but of course armour may have far more attacks.

Don't get me wrong, I think dropships are absolutely needed as well for hitting contested sectors, as well as landing on space stations, but it's sounding like just going with 100% frigates for one's troop landing capability would be a mistake.

>>49680192

Stats are:
Scan, Armor ground combat/Armor Bombard, attacks, special
Infantry -0, 5+/3+, 1
Armor - 0, 3+/5+, 3
Batteries - 0, 3+/3+, 0

>>49680235
3 attacks? Holy fuck armor is going to shred infantry.

>>49680235
Thanks. Urge to bring bombardment in every list is rising...

>>49680058
Looks similar to my planned list:

Vanguard: Hector, AV2 Commander (190)
Line: Orion, Theseus, Theseus (285)
Pathfinder: Ajax, 2x Medea, 2x Andromeda (262)
Pathfinder: Ajax, 2x Medea, 2x Andromeda (262)

Total: 999

I know the Hector and Orion are bad but fuck anyone who prioritises power over aesthetic

>>49680290
The advantage of infantry is that they're harder to bombard, as they get into buildings and such.

The Medea seems really good because it can bombard the fuck out of tanks and drop infantry that are hard to bombard back.

>>49680317
Orion is okay.

Hector is worse than bad.

A Leonidas would be so much better for speeding ahead with your Theseuses. It seems like Leo/Theseus/Europe battlegroups is the way to run broadsides.

>>49680192

Someone made a post about this on the hawk forum and an admiral said the you kind of want like 2 troop and 4 strike. 3 Motherships and a shit ton of gates, though that number may decrease because battleships can also be motherships.

I wonder how necessary are bombardment ships?

>>49680317
Orions aren't too bad. They're decent and flexible gunboats.

>>49680317
I'm still not convinced the Orion is actually a bad ship. An 8-shot medium broadside puts out 2-3 damage by my maths, marginally outshooting a UCM heavy turret (though it's only decimals in it). For around an "average" cruiser points cost, that seems perfectly reasonable to me.

>>49680048

I forgot to mention that nuking a planet causes -1 VP.

>>49680058
...and it looks like exactly two start sets worth of ships.

>>49680543
Yep, was indeed working of the basis of having 6 cruiser models and 8 frigate models to work with.

>>49680347
>A Hector is bad
>despite having the same capabilities as an orion, +BTL and extra hull
The only problem with the Hector is that it's too expensive by about 10 or so points; it's not a bad loadout like the Perseus, it's just outclassed massively by the Bellerophon for only 10 points more.

If the gap were increases to 20 or even 30 points, the Hector would be great.

>>49680739
Does the Bellerophon really outclass it that much though? You can't shake off guns.

>>49680048
>>49680085
>>49680235

Thanks man, I've been looking at picking up two starter sets and was planning on how I want to build the ships to have a balanced match up. I was thinking one heavy cruiser each, 1 fleet carrier, 2 drop frigates and 1 bombard frigate as bare min for each side. So that should leave 4 cruisers and 5 frigates to create a little imbalance and differentiate the sides more. Though judging from that, I may add a second bombard frigate so you can have two pairs of drop/bomb frigates and a bulk lander cruiser to secure an are after them. I may make the UCM more general gun vessels with some scanning frigates so they can handle a variety of situations and make the scourge focus on CAW and those furnace cannons.

>>49680792
In terms of raw firepower and mission profile, yeah; the Belle can unload all of its bombers at the same target, and fire its BTL at the same time.

PD doesn't really provide a massively effective defense against PHR bombers because they crit so much, and such neither does armor, so really your main line of defense ends up being debris (effects guns too) and shaking them off.

However, looking at the launch asset rules, they instantaneously travel in a straight line from the carrier to the target, and either take action immediately or wait until next turn, so you can have a trail of bombers following you at long distance and maneuver so that they fly into a debris field; you have to be behind a debris field when the carrier launches.

>>49680851
Only scourge has bombard frigates

>>49680871
PHR does as well, although they're bundled onto their troopships.

>>49680859
Yes, but shaking bombers off is actually pretty effective

>>49680908
That's "light bombardment" though. We do we know the rules on that? I'm imagining it as doing nothing on its own but giving bonuses in combat to friendly troops

PHR assault carrier is weird. They're completely helpless in the atmosphere. Furthermore, none of their other frigate can get into the atmosphere.

>>49680871
Right, I'm retarded. I'm flipping through and that was the last one I saw. Ok then, bombard cruiser for UCM and some strike carriers. Then a troop ship. So that leaves me 2 cruisers for UCM.

UCM
1x Moscow
1x Seattle
1x Madrid
1x San Francisco

Two cruisers left

2x New orleans
2x Limas

4 frigates left

Scourge
1xRaiju
1xHydra
1xChimera

3 cruisers left

2xGargoyles
2xCharbydis

4 frigates left.

>>49680999
Definitely some Rios and Strixes

>>49681043
That's what I was thinking, 2x Rios to finish out the UCM, 2x Strixes and 1x Ifrit for the Scourge. Then frigates, I'm leaning just general gun frigates to round it out.

File: PHR fr Medea and Echo and Assets.jpg (126KB, 1245x934px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1245x934px

>>49680971
Only special rule is that it's usable in atmosphere without penalties. It's weak as bombardment weapons go - 2 medea frigates only produce the same bombardment as a single charybdis - but it's still normal bombardment.

>>49680997
They do have enormous numbers of shots to go fishing for 6s though.

File: hector class.jpg (353KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 960x640px

>>49680347
>Hector is worse than bad.
‘At your feet I beg, by your parents, by your own life, don’t let the dogs devour my flesh by the hollow ships. Accept the ransom my battleship and frigate will offer, stores of gold and bronze, and let them carry my body home, so the PHR may grant me in death my portion of fire.’

>>49681043
Meant Osakas, not Rios

>>49680999
Some kind of gun cruiser for UCM, either the Osaka or the Rio. Also a Jakarta or two, those things are very nice. Other frigates can be whatever you like, there's no real bad choices there once you cover all the bases.

>>49680997
Assault troopships don't go in atmosphere. I assume you were referring to them because strike carriers only have bombardment and CA weapons.

>>49680389

Don't feel bad about those decimals, because it's almost 0.45 more damage on the mediums broadsides than a single heavy gun bank of 4 shots which should be noticeable

Why would anyone take a Jade over a Topaz? In a best case scenario where arc doesn't matter and the target has 3+ armor they're equally good, otherwise the Topaz is better.

What happens when a particle weapon hits shields?

>>49681207
It tells shields to fuck off and crits anyway.

>>49681207
Because I prefer the model. But in terms of actual tactics and sensible listbuilding yeah, you're probably right.

I'm not new to wargames in any way. I've played many, many games. I have a loose understanding of dropzone commander, but dropfleet interests me more after growing bored of Spartans stagnation with Firestorm armada and seeing Hawks pretty slick releases.

Can anyone explain to me how the tyranids, eldar and red necrons work/playstyle, in simple, retard friendly terms? I'm not particularly interested in the halo-homeworlder kindof looking guys, but the PHR, scourge and shaltari all visually appeal to me. Please sate my curiosity!

>>49681241
Bloody hell, the diamond really is the last word in hedgehog-on-hedgehog voidwar. Its main gun can just blow away a normal shaltari cruiser in a single shot. Not cripple, (ignoring the fact it does that anyway,) just straight up evaporate the thing.

>>49681241
Then it may sometimes outperform the Topaz against other Shaltari. Still doesn't seem like a great deal.

>>49681321

PHR = Cyberbros - Space marine armor save, slower, use lots of broadsides and some neat tech. Tend to have a lot of guns ifthey can get people in both arc = death

Scourge: Alien-scum, ships are fast with ligher armor, hit really hard. a lot of there stuff has stealth and cloaking tech, lots of their weapons are short range

Shaltari - Space Eldar sonic the hedgehog version - High tech, good speed light armor but longer range because of high scan and low signature. Their weapons have small arcs but their ships are nimble, everything is fragile but they can opt to go shields up to give a good invul save at the price increasing their signature range and letting most of the board get a shot in.

>>49681321
Jellies go fast and hit hard, but they're brittle and short ranged. They also have some stealth stuff in their heavier cruisers and their frigates can hide in atmosphere.

PHR are tough and slow with fantastic bombers, they have heavy firepower too but it's mostly mounted on broadsides so good positioning is required to get the most out of them.

Shaltari went to gimmick town and never came back. They've got so many fucking gimmicks, man.

>>49681391
cyberbros it is. I liked their designs best in DZC, as well, so that's good.

Gotta admit, the sensors signature system of the game is pretty cool.

File: a7a.gif (8MB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

8MB, 500x375px

>>49681117
They're both valid. I'd take Osakas for frigate babysitting but Rios for actual heavy combat, an Osaka would get torn apart with that 4+ armour.

>>49681576
>>49681576

I still don't know if I believe in the Osaka, but I am curious to see how a 2 Osaka 2 Toulon group performs.

>>49681576
I would object to that use of light cruisers, but regardless my intent was to include light cruisers in the list for the purpose of demonstration.

The Osaka seems like an excellent rapid response craft. It is fast and does good damage for its cost with no need to go weapons free. These two features combined allow it to skirt around combat as needed while staying out of engagement range.

>>49681764
>>49681743
They can keep up with a New Orleans and are quite a bit tougher and more expendable, so I think there might be merit to them there. They can be pretty vicious as well, 8 3+ lock shots ain't nothing to fuck with.

>>49681086
Also the PHR corvette is pretty decent so they have that for atmo killing as well.

>>49680997

All strike carriers are helpless in atmosphere, the A2A rule is pretty brutal

>>49681797


People keep saying that. A rio can still just fire its heavy weapon and shoot the same as an Osaka.

The 2 inch bonus move though might be nice though. It just doesn't seem like much.

>>49681848

The bonus will end up being 6 inches total a game. I am not sure that is worth it.

>>49681874
12 inches, I don't know what I was thinking.

>>49681880
Probably something stupid

Does anyone even like Scourge?

>>49681946

I'm not personally a big fan of their ground stuff (I like playing against them though) but their ships are growing on me

>>49681946
I do. Their models are really goddamn cool, and they seem to have an interesting playstyle. And it can be fun to play the baddies, plus at least the jellyfish are honest unlike the cyborgs and hedgehogs.

>>49681874
It could be the difference between falling behind a valuable New Orleans and not. I guess we'll find out how they perform after some games are played and tactics are tested, it's not really something we can effectively theorycraft. I'm sceptical of an all-frigate group's ability to defend itself, so I'll probably be bringing Osakas to quite a few games.

Actually I'd probably bring Osakas to quite a few games even if they were Perseus tier, because they look fucking baller.

>>49681946
Scourge like Scourge. I don't like them but their ships look very nice.

>>49681086

Well the upside to the Medea is that you're going to have them anyway, you might as well have them pooling their guns and doing something useful while sitting in atmo. It's not like the New Orleans is going to be doing much useful while taking its armored dump

>>49681105

It's a shame because it's a great looking ship.

155 point price tag would make that BTL a nice jousting opener for its broadsides to follow up on, but right now it's so expensive that you need it to be firing everything to come close to earning it's points back.


Also the Bellephron within thrust range of its bombers is absolutely fucking deadly Jesus Christ.

Sending your bombers after someone over your thrust range gives them a fighting chance but if there's someone without 2 Jakartas within 12", they're in for a world of hurt.

>>49681874

The argument for the Osaka is that if you're putting them in a battlegroup that's going to be doing stuff other than going weapons free, you might as well just not pay for those extra guns you'll never use.

I actually think Cairo + Osaka combo battlegroup is pretty nasty

I've quickly knocked this skirmish level PHR fleet. I've built it along what models I can currently build (PHR starter + BC + Extra Cruiser and Frigate sprues)
Can I get opinions on this?

Vanguard
Scipio - 210
Andromeda - 42
Andromeda - 42

Line
Ajax - 100
Ikarus - 115
Pandora - 50
Pandora - 50

Pathfinder
Theseus - 89
Europa - 40
Europa - 40

Pathfinder
Ganymede - 135
Medea - 39
Medea - 39

Total - 991

File: image.png (718KB, 838x911px) Image search: [Google]

718KB, 838x911px

>>49682188

You want an admiral but otherwise,

Great size. Look thick. Solid. Tight. Keep us all posted on your continued progress with any new progress pics or vid clips. Show us what you got man. Wanna see how freakin' huge, solid, thick and tight you can get. Thanks for the motivation.

>>49680347

Hector: Because sometimes you hit your Launch Asset limit.

>>49680347
What about the ajax as a broadsider? As I really like the brrrt that it can put out.

>>49682310

Then you just save up for a Leo.

Honestly if you hit launch cap you're already playing a gigantic skew list and probably need some pure guns.

>>49682320

Wonderful, it's two broadsides are linked so it doesn't have to go weapons free to do a double broadside and each side should outright delete a 4+ frigate per turn.

The mini BTL is just icing on the cake

>>49682320
Linked broadsides are good and lights do their job very well.

>>49682345

>The Leos are busy being Scipios

>>49682389

Should have backed more BCs, goyim

But in all seriousness the Leo is a legitimate pick over a Scipio if you don't need the launch. Scipio is amazing though.

>>49682412
>tfw the Hector would have been great and the Orion even more solid if their broadside were linked

>>49682121
> battlegroup that's going to be doing stuff other than going weapons free

This is a pretty good argument, but there is also the benefit of 3+ on the rio and berlin.

A pair of New Carios doesn't sound that great to teams with the Osakas. I feel like you want to keep the NCs in the back going slower not tied down to the Osakas who you want to move around a lot.

>>49681105

The Hector seems more like a "for when the plan starts to go wrong" Heavy Cruiser. The Bellerophon is simply ideal on paper.

We'll have to see how things shake out.

>>49682430

If the Hector had linked broadsides and the Orion didn't I would absolutely consider taking a Hector.

If the Orion had it too it's back to square one.

The Orion is actually growing on me, you just have to take it in pairs. Two full medium broadsides will reliably do 5 damage to a 3+ save ship, that's one crippled UCM cruiser per broadside per turn. Not bad for 214 points.

>>49682509

The 3+ save issue is absolutely a factor that you'll have to consider in whether you want to take Osakas. The opposite situation currently is the Theseus who just seems like a great budget cruiser with 2 less HP.

>>49682514

That would be true except it's the opposite situation. The Hector is only good when things are very, very ideal while the bellephron is quite versatile. The Bellephron isn't really the Hectors opponent (well maybe in its slot) since they do two different things. the Hector is outclassed more by multiple lighter cruisers or by taking a Leo.

>>49682577
>If the Hector had linked broadsides and the Orion didn't I would absolutely consider taking a Hector.
>If the Orion had it too it's back to square one.
So the Hector either needs to get something that the Orion and Leo dont that would make sense, or it needs to be cheaper, while all at the same time being viable compared to the bell.

Any ideas? I can't think of anything that meets all those conditions; having the Hector linked, and the Leo linked, would mean that the Orion should be linked too.

Challenge for /dcg/; how do we fix the Perseus WITHOUT changing it's loadout?

>>49682651
It should have Fusillade 2 or 3. So each broadside would get 1-3 extra attacks o weapons free.

>>49682651

Link all three guns, give it some killer CAW too.

>>49682701

Jesus Christ, this

>>49682680

Make it a 75 point light cruiser

>>49682651
I still think that a broadside worth of turrets that can shoot in either direction would be good. Leo is already king of charging in and firing in both directions, make a heavy option that likes to hang back and fire off lots of shots.

>>49682680
Does making it a light cruiser count as changing the loadout?

>>49682680
"Linked targeting arrays: If a weapon gains a bonus to lock as a result of the Calibre special rule, any Linked weapons firing at the same target gain the same bonus."

>>49682680

Have a 105-point hole. The Perseus is about as "pre-dreadnaught" as PHR gets, doomed to be sub-optimal. Just put it in there and hope it runs into the situation it is good for, it very well may.

>>49682701
This is probably the best; maybe give Fussilade 1 or 2 to all heavy guns as well? It could make the Perseus viable, as well as making the Achilles useful for its guns.

>>49682715
>Make it a 75 point light cruiser
>WITHOUT changing it's loadout

Remind me, what does Fusillade do?

>>49682775
More shots when you go weapons free iirc

>>49682763

I'm not changing its weapon loadout.

If downgrading it's weight isn't viable, make heavy broadsides do +1 damage with their caliber rule. They're only on 3 fucking ships, one of those ships sucks, one is okay and the other is great.

>>49682800
ASHKUALLY light crusiers don't have a nose gun with the PHR, so you are changing its loadout.

>>49682800
Also battleships.

>>49682800
>I'm not changing its weapon loadout.
Light cruisers remove it's prow weapon, bruh.

We've already done the math on that for heavy guns, it makes them too good

Do Launch Assets give anyone else MOO2 deja-vu?

>>49682837
Solution:
All heavy guns receive Fusilade(half their base attack value). So when you weapons free, they RAEP FACE.

>>49682839
Mah nigga YES

>>49682827

Well, the Theseus specifically doesn't but that doesn't mean the Perseus couldn't.


You know what: give the Perseus partial cloak.

>>49682834

You half got me, I counted the Heracles and forgot the Minos


>>49682837

>removes the prow weapon

Doesn't have to, not going to affect the balance of things tremendously.

>>49682848

That would make the 12 guns but 6 shots on the Heracles stop tickling my autism

>>49682862
>Doesn't have to, not going to affect the balance of things tremendously.
Except it does, PHR light cruisers do not have prow weapons, and that's just the way it is.

>>49680999
Here are two nice demo-friendly skirmish lists for you

UCM 976

Vanguard
Moscow w/ UCM Commodore 203
Rio 105
Lima 37

Line
San Francisco 111
Madrid 79
2x Toulon 70

Line
Seattle 132
Berlin 105

Pathfinder
2x New Orleans 64
2x Toulon 70


Scourge 980

Vanguard
Raiju w/ Fleet Champion 180
Hydra 140

Line
Chimera 105
2x Charybdis 70
3x Harpy 126

Line
Sphinx 115
2x Gargoyle 64

Pathfinder
2x Strix 180

>>49682873

you can't really set a trend with 1 sample but fine, axe the .55 damage a turn gun. It's 7 points of worthlessness anyway

All these fucking primitives with their primitive problems. How do we fix the Jade? It's terrible.

>>49682680

Just reduce its price a bit. It isn't actually that terrible.

Mathwise it will do around 1.5 hits to +4 and 2 to 5+ frigates. That takes them to crippling damage which has a good chance of popping them out right. Then you have 2 2+ shots verse heavy and super heavies.

This is still a lot of firepower with a 3+ save. If the ship was like 95 points it would actually be pretty great.

>>49682904
Could you trim enough to fit a Jakarta in there? Exactly one frigate short of two starter sets, and it's one of their gimmick frigates.

>>49682935

45 point 3+ auto crit weapon with a 12 inch scan.
There is nothing wrong with that.

How come everywhere I go people autisticly complain about shipping? Every forum and group is full of autists either whining about not having their stuff, whining about the whiners, or making the same tired jokes about not receiving their stuff over and over again. This is my first KS, are communities always so insufferable?

>>49682905
Mate, the point of not changing its loadout is to keep it as the same model, rather than making an entirely new ship.

Giving its heavies Fusillade 1 or 2 would make it perfect, along with what >>49682995 said.

>>49682935
Give it lock 2+.

>>49683054

I'm fine with fusillade becoming the PHRs other special rule, it just...fits

>>49683042
People have no goddamn sense of reason.
"Everything is being shipped within 3 weeks, we're packing and sending them out"

GIMME MORE UPDATES

What more granularity is needed? Exact notification on KS to 'Ok, we've started putting Shaltari Battlecruisers in plastic bags?'

>>49683042
Somehow it seems universal for kickstarter shipping.
Usually I stop frequenting their comments threads when that starts happening.
Stuff is announced to start shipping, so I'll wait for the confirmation and my package. Done.
I do not understand why it seems such a universal thing to whine about the time it takes to ship.

File: image.png (166KB, 990x714px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 990x714px

>Hector remains same cost
>gains fusillade(2) on medium guns
>gains fusillade(1) on the BTL

>>49683070
Yeah I've seen these people write long winded multi paragraph posts complaining about lack of updates. It's like everyone wants to be a victim.

>>49683105
I wonder how bad the Kingdom Death one was.

>>49683182

When your primary market are Ill adjusted man children with poor impulse control, this is what happens sometimes

>>49683196
As a Kingdom Death backer (basically one of everything and then some extras), I stopped reading the comment thread regularly about a year before delivery even started.
Adams irregular updates were my primary source of info. The atmosphere in the comments was horrid at times.

So yeah, I'd rather not experience that again.

The payoff was worth it though, so much miniature goodness in that pile of boxes, and still one more to come (Lantern Festival).

>>49683008
If you insist

UCM 974

Vanguard
Moscow w/ UCM Commodore 203
Lima 37

Line
San Francisco 111
Madrid 79
Jakarta 32

Line
Seattle 132
2x New Orleans 64
2x Toulon 70

Pathfinder
2x New Cairo 176
2x Toulon 70

I wouldn't bring a Jakarta into a demo game though. While potentially quite useful, it may be useful in a way that leads to it never being used. Many players seem unable to comprehend that this may be worthwhile.

>give fusillade(4) to each broadside on the Hector
>give fusillade(2) to each broadside on the Achilles
>give fusillade(1) to each heavy halfside on the Perseus
>give fusillade(3) to each cannonade on the Heracles and Minos
Quick, give me a fluff reason why the Orion doesn't get fusillade.

>>49683252
The designers were feeling even more retarded than usual that morning and decided to deliberately make the Orion less efficient.

>>49683252

It's a barebones ship meant to be used in groups

It's like asking why Ares only have one railgun

>>49683252

Because hectors are just retrofitted Orion's with new upgraded systems utilizing the fusillade technology from heavy guns in a medium gun system

Post Crazy tournament-legal battlegroups

Vanguard
Moscow 163
Moscow 163
4x Toulon 140
Total: 466

16 3+ attacks and 20 4+ attacks, almost all F/S

Why is there so much moaning in these threads from PHR players that their broadsides aren't powerful enough? I'm pretty sure most mathammer that's been done indicate that their weapons are in a pretty good place compared to other factions' guns, but there's a lot of whinging that they need buffing. Is it just because we've simply got a majority of PHR players in these threads, or is it something about PHR players?

>>49682763
Orion mediums should have Fusillade 2.

Hector mediums should have Fusillade 4.

Heavy batteries in all current variants should have Fusillade 2.

>>49683426
Flag battlegroup.
1 Tokyo: 220
1 New York or Beijing: 252 or 260
Total: 472 or 480

Two frikkin' battleships.

>>49683252
>Give X ship infinity rules its total broken.

You fucking autists haven't even played a game yet.

Yea some of these ships are looking weaker, but no one was going around the admiral circles saying the fucking Hector needs 8 a second full medium calibre broadside worth of shots. Even better the fucking Heracles with its fucking auto death gun needs more weapons.

>>49683439
It's one or two guys

>>49683480
Well yeah, but one is a Tokyo

>>49683426

If that's a 500 point list, where's your mandatory line battlegroup, brah

>>49683439

Lately there haven't been big broadside debates since the actual ship stats were leaked and rules for launch assets released.

this thread is people saying the Hector is inferior to its other alternative ships (that are also broadside based) and that the Perseus is just a bad choice (which it is) rather than "all broadsides suck 420 supernova blaze it bomb my shit up"

>>49683439
It's because their guns aren't on the same level as their bombers, and that their heavy guns do not have parity with their medium guns on anything BUT 3+ H/S, in which case they only do 10% more damage, compared to the lights which do 50% more against L.
It's not about balance relative to other races, its about PHR internal balance so that broadsides are viable compared to carrier skew, and that all the broadside guns are roughly equivalent to each other.

>>49683450
I like it; do you mean Fusillade 2 for heavy half-sides, or for the entire broadside?
For instance, would the Perseus heavies have Fusillade 1 or 2?
Would the Achilles have 2 or 4?
Would the Heracles/Minos have 3 or 6?

>>49683507
>post battlegroups

>where's your mandatory line battlegroup?
>Because a battlegroup with more than 1/3 of your points in it is totally legal anyway.

File: FleetOrg.png (12KB, 425x244px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 425x244px

>>49683439
>>49683493
Would you prefer us to complain about shipping and communication :^)

>>49683480
No flags inna skirmish games, breh.

>>49683439

From what I've read here the last few weeks most PHR broadsides can almost equal the complete gun output of a similarly sized cruiser on each side.
Meaning that in the rare event where you get to fire both broadsides simultaneously you pump out an obscene amount of damage across a number of targets.
Though in many cases the Bombers can be even more lethal, and are easier to use at longer ranges.

Those ships that have configurations that end up being less than stellar stand out, as the rest is so good.

>>49683493

I believe that guy is just trying to be consistent but maybe overreaching. Fusillade is a cool rule

and I'm so sorry but admirals in beta said the Hector was garbage too, I wish it wasnt


>>49683525

2 battleships versus 10 pandoras. Go.

How would you all describe the play style of each faction?

>>49683426
Vanguard
Jet heavy cruiser - 165
Jet heavy cruiser - 165
3 Amethyst frigates - 144
Total - 474

That's a respectable 8 lock 3+ shots on the way in, followed by 2D6+3D3+12 lock 3+ CA attacks which ignore PD.

I'm actually considering using a slimmed-down version of this (1 Jet and 2 Amethysts, for a mere D6+2D3+7 CA attacks which ignore PD) given how useful bombardment might turn out to be.

>>49683508
>It's because their guns aren't on the same level as their bombers
If you're not within 12" (spitting distance) then the target has all kinds of options to negate them. It seems that no one is considering this.

>>49683508
>I like it; do you mean Fusillade 2 for heavy half-sides, or for the entire broadside?

Entire broadside.

>>49683590
For 'zone or for 'fleet?

>>49683534
You didn't specify "skirmish", you specified "tournament legal", from which I assumed you meant 1500 (as that's what most DZC tournaments seem to be). Be more specific next time.

>>49683648
I also specified battlegroups, not whole lists.

>>49683494
>Well yeah, but one is a Tokyo
Very true.

>>49683661
And I posted a battlegroup. What the fuck is your problem?

>>49683534
Wait, so you can never have ships in groups of four?

>>49683646
I meant Fleet, but I'll take Zone as well.

>>49683675
You're talking to more than one person

>>49683602
Some other anon did the math a while back, and it'd take about 24 PD to reliably counter an entire flight of bombers from a single Bellerophon. That's around 18 PD from fighters, and pretty much no one except the Shaltari can put out that much from a single carrier, and the UCM have the Jakarta.
Debris and maneuvering have been talked about before, but they don't really mitigate how absolutely destructive PHR bombers are in general.

For what it's worth, I absolutely love the Hector's look and really want it to be viable, but I just can't rebut the arguments that have been put forward as to why the Bellerophon, Leo, and Scipio are the superior heavy choices, and why the Orion is just a better choice for its costs.

As of now, the only way I can see of making the Hector comparable to its peers is to either drop its cost, or give it some Fussilade(x); the latter seems much more fun.

>>49683648
I'm not that guy, sorry anon.

>>49683690
No, those numbers represent the number of groups that you can have in the battlegroup.
For instance, you could have 3 groups of 6 Djinn in a pathfinder group.

File: image.png (374KB, 808x528px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 808x528px

>>49683602

Plenty of people higher in the thread considered it, the Bellephron is a beast within 12" and still neat within 24".

Forcing an enemy ship to either go full thrust and not shoot or go for course correction and only shoot once is still pretty good.

They can also fly through debris as well which again, probably wasn't what they planned on doing before they had a swarm of bees after them.

That's what I love about launch assets is that they're great for mind games. If I just shot them for 2 damage they would just keep doing what they were going to do, but if I threaten them with 3 potential damage that they can stop I can make that ship sperg out like a retard trying to avoid them.

Even if it's not necessarily optimal it's definitely fun

>>49683714

The only effective counter to a PHR bomber deathball coming down your engine-Pussy is to try and shake them, which will usually get rid of half.

PD skew is going to require an unrealistic list unless the guy is trying to counter pick you and even then you can just BTL his Jakartas.

>>49683714
PHR can put out 16 PD from a Bellerophon. A Hydra can put out 15. Really it's just UCM that's fucked hard.

>>49683780
To be fair, one or two Jakartas can easily make up the difference for a Seattle. What is the range on Aegis, anyways?

>>49683714
Got a feeling that maths was on the assumption the Bellerophon could stack up 8 bombers on a single target, when we hadn't got the full rules for how launch assets make double-thrust attacks. My napkin maths suggests about 10-11 PD for a single Bellerophon's worth of bombers:
>4 bombers
>8 shots
>4 crits: 8 PD needed
>2-3 non-crit hits: 2-3 PD needed.
Still quite a lot, you're probably looking at 2 fighter tokens given a lot of ships are around 5-6 native PD. (Shaltari can just fuck off.)

>>49683830
Anon, PD is only successful on a 5+, not a 4+.
You'd need 12 PD for the crits, and 9 for the normals, for somewhere around 21.

>>49683858
Dagnabit.

>>49683042
>How come everywhere I go people autisticly complain about shipping

waifus bro

not even once

>>49683830

>8 PD needed

Point defense is on a 5+, not 4+ and it takes 2 PD hits to remove 1 crit. 12 PD would get you 4 PD hits, which means 2 crits taken away.

So you need 8 PD hits for the crits and 2.66 more for the normal hits which averages out to about 32 PD total to completely nullify a 4 bomber token attack.

You need 24 PD just to nullify all the crits from a Bellaphron on average and another 8 PD to nullify the normal hits.

>>49683858

Double the crit requirement.

>>49683914
Shit yeah, I forgot about that.

What this shows is that PHR bombers are incredibly powerful, and you won't be able to counter them with PD skew; you have to make use of the terrain and maneuvers to get in close and prioritize destruction of those Bells first and foremost.

>>49683714
>>49683759


PD is looking a tad weak. What really bothers me is that math wise there isn't really an advantage to fighter escorts. You should just spam more bombers.

That is one of the thing they should change.Like if a no fighter bomber group attacks a target defended by fighters, they have to pass the figher screen first. This could be on a 5+ a bombers attack is ignored in addition to the fighter PD roll after the attack. If you have fighters with your bombers, but are outnumbered that become a 6+ if you have the same amount it is just a standard PD roll.

Mathwise it would have to be tweaked, but I think it would be more thematic and fun.

>>49683939

Bells hurt but 4 bombers on a perfect day are going to do about 4.88 damage if absolutely nothing hits them and the enemy doesn't shake them, which even for their great resilience they should still lose some hits to PD.


That's quite strong but that's slightly more than what a Moscow can do to an enemy ship in its forward arc, except the Moscow costs 20ish points less and doesn't have to be within 12" for full effect.

I'm not arguing the Bellepheron is bad by any means, I'm just saying it's not Armageddon on a stick.

>>49683990

>no advantage to fighters

Only for PHR escorting bombers. UCM against shaltari really want fighter escort as each fighter token will knock off 5 PD from the enemies total if they have fighters present (protip: they should) and that's more effective than sending more bombers

PD works much better against UCM/shaltari/Scourge bombers. 4 generic bombers require 18.66 PD to completely nullify compared to the PHRs 32.

>Bellerophon sends 4 bombers at a Rio
2 crits, 1.67 hits
Rio gets 1.67 PD successes
2 damage
>Hector broadsides a Rio
1.33 crits
2.67 hits
2.22 damage

The Hector has two of those broadsides

>>49684010
True, but it's damage isn't what makes it dangerous; they're hard 24" threat range, even against ships on silent running, is what makes them extremely dangerous.

>>49683990
I like this idea, but maybe something like the following:
Fighters may be expended as usual to add their PD to that friendly ship against that specific close action attack, whether it be from a ship or bombers.
Alternately, a fighter squadron may be expended to remove an entire enemy bomber squadron on a roll of 5+, and they roll a number of die equal to their PD score for this.
As usual, enemy fighters escorting a bomber wing remove enemy fighters on a 1-to-1 basis.

This makes protective fighter screens very powerful against bomber wings (perhaps too powerful), while not making them any better against normal CAW attacks, and giving a reason for you to add fighter escorts to bomber wings.

>>49684092
>2 crits, 1.67 hits
>Rio gets 1.67 PD successes
>2 damage
Wrong; 4 bombers get a total of 8 attacks.
4 of these crit.
2.667 hits
Rio gets 1.67 PD saves, takes around 4.333 damage

>>49684092

Like I said before, the Bell is not the Hectors competitor, it's the Orion and BCs.

Also the Bell can shoot it's bombing target with its own BTL

The more this discussion happens, the more convinced I become that the Bellerophon is undercosted rather than the Hector being overcosted

File: image.png (9KB, 205x246px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 205x246px

>>49684139

Delete this

>>49684143
>Like I said before, the Bell is not the Hectors competitor, it's the Orion and BCs.
This; as has been said, the only changes the Hector needs to compete with the Orion and the Leo is to either drop it to 165 or 160 points, or to give it something like Fusillade(4) per broadside; that would give it 50% more firepower per side on weapons free, and reduce the hurt of not being able to find viable targets for both broadsides and its beam to maximize damage during weapons free.
With the latter change, it can now more easily focus on its mission-profile of cutting ships up with its BTL on approach, and then get into the brawl and let fly at everything around it, possibly having the chance of beaming an enemy ship in the backfield.

File: 1469861644155.gif (359KB, 640x636px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 640x636px

>>49684182
No

4 more rules pages have appeared in the dropbox. 3 pages on the shooting rules, and the full page for damage control & catastrophic damage. Nothing we didn't really know, but still nice.

I do notice every single diagram demonstrating rules involves the UCM shooting the scourge. Blatant bias by Dave.

>>49683426
Pathfinder
2x Gargoyle
2x Charybdis
3x Nickar

200 points

>>49684173

The bell is pretty fairly priced at 180 just for the fact that it's stuck in the vanguard slot and really doesn't get insane damage until the 12" mark, where its BTL isn't going to be all that effective. The Bell actually does less net damage than many PHR ships, it just happens to be able to focus fire on one target in a faction that has issues with focus fire.

Also remember launching is a minor spike and that you can shake bombers at over 12" on a 4+ by doing course change or full thrust orders


>>49684184

If the Bellepheron didn't exist I would just take Achilles if I really wanted a HC for some reason

>>49684237

Well actually correction: if the bell didn't exist I would just take scipios. If the scipios didn't exist I would take either Achilles or Leos

>>49684237
>If the Bellepheron didn't exist I would just take Achilles if I really wanted a HC for some reason
Which is exactly my point; there should have to be a choice to be made as to whether you take a Hector, a Bell, an Achilles, a Leo, or a Scipio. No one ship should flat out be a dud.

Do we have any idea how many strike carriers and troopships are actually good to take?

>>49684199
Something interesting to note about armor and passive saves, is that you can roll BOTH, but only one per damage point, and only the best applicable one.

So, while this doesn't matter for the Shaltari since their passive saves are better than their armor without fail, in the example given of 3+/4+, you would roll the 3+ against all non critical hits, and the 4+ against all critical hits.

>>49684296
It is making me wonder what else might be getting passive saves. PHR have a shield on the Zeus command walker in dropzone, maybe they'll get one on something? Would fit with the 3+ armour save thing.

The main defense against mass bombers are going to be Come to New Heading orders, and running through debris fields. Those massacre bombers. Given too that Bombers have a thrust of 12, any attack beyond that gives the defender a whole turn to shake half or more, or deploy defending fighters.

PD's pretty much just a cherry on top to save a few HP.

Also, you pretty much should always cancel crits first, provided you have any decent armor level, unless it's the difference between a little guarenteed damage or a possible crippling.

>>49684358
It really shows how well Hawk has future proofed the rules, what with there also being that one special rule (Reinforced or Hardened Armor, I think) that makes hits crit on a +3, rather than +2.

>>49684260
Yeah I'm all for making the Hector viable, but you can't do it by making the bell more expensive since that would just make me use something else.

>>49684286

Start with 4 strikes and 2 troopships at clash.

>>49684360

yeah you've got the right idea, but a few extra details: bombers moving over their thrust activate at the end of the activation of whoever they're following, so the timing of it is interesting. You wouldn't be able to launch fighters to counter it (unless you did that in the same launch phase as when the bombers were launched) since the bombers would hit before you could launch again.

But yeah, if there's a big death wave coming you may want to consider giving up weapons free or running silent to not eat shit.

>>49684121
I am guessing fighter PD vs CA is probably an imporant balance point in the game so it probably shouldn't change.

I am all for making the fighter screen be a 6+ if its more balanced. The idea is to add a more dynamic layer to fighters without being cumbersome.

>>49684139

Rio also gets it armor saves though.

>>49684474

He accounted for that, only .33 damage comes from hits after failed armor saves. The vast majority are just the crits

>>49684437
>yeah you've got the right idea, but a few extra details: bombers moving over their thrust activate at the end of the activation of whoever they're following, so the timing of it is interesting. You wouldn't be able to launch fighters to counter it (unless you did that in the same launch phase as when the bombers were launched) since the bombers would hit before you could launch again.
The rules say that they hit at the end of that ship's activation in the NEXT turn, so there will always be time to respond when launched at double thrust.

>tfw you were having a happy day
>tfw you read the KS comments
>tfw you are no longer having a happy day
:^(

>>49684518

Remember, launch happens at the end of the turn after all ships have activated. That ship will have to activate again before you can launch more fighters


Or you can of course just launch fighters in the same phase as the enemy bombers and it all works out great. The timing of the phases is really neat

>>49684546
Ah, true, fair point. In either case, the enemy commander still has the opportunity to order his forces so that he can respond to the incoming bombers.

Does this also mean that if you destroy an enemy carrier before the end of its turn, the bombers it would launch, don't get launched?

>>49684584

Precisely

Torpedo carriers too

File: oh no.jpg (231KB, 560x560px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 560x560px

>>49684531
>tfw when having bad day
>tfw when you compel me to look at the KS comments.
>tfw worse day.
I don't know what i expected

Lots of talk about PHR, but what do we think of scourge bombers? They've got a nice long range, and scald could give the defending player some tricky decisions about what to do with their PD successes, meaning some players will get it wrong. They can also throw out 5 bombers from a hydra which is fairly nasty - while maybe not as scary as the PHR it'll still take quite a lot of PD to stop all that.

One odd application I'm considering for scourge bombers is frigate hunting. Frigates often have lower armour and PD, and most only need 2 damage to cripple. Also, scourge only have a single weapon on many ships so MSU frigates could be a bit of a problem for them, bombers could help solve this. Obviously, you shouldn't double-thrust attack any frigate that can go into atmosphere though.

>>49684531
>>49685066
>Hey, got my box, smaller than i thought it would be and also no list of expected contents so i don't know if i'm missing anything. Slightly frustrating.
How can these people not know what they ordered? I know a bit of time has passed, but come on.

>>49685146
>scald could give the defending player some tricky decisions about what to do with their PD successes, meaning some players will get it wrong
Who could possibly get it wrong?

>>49685146

I think their bombers will be critical because of low armor on many of their ships. The speed and threat range will force many ships in your face at once.

Meanwhile those two hydras will just sit in the back launching wave after wave while your struggle to deal with the mainbody ships.

>>49685191
>Who could possibly get it wrong?
Plebes who can't do basic arithmetic in their head.

>>49685167
Seriously. This is why you save your pledge email, so you dont have to rely on your memory.

But that's hard, apparently. Much easier to forget and complain a year later.

>>49685191
Not everyone works out their wargaming maths at home/looks up said maths on the internet. And people make silly mistakes in the heat of battle when wargaming.

>>49685167
T H I S

>Get delivery notice
>it's just for paints
At least I can do the scourge naval scheme on the desolator I bought I while back; on a related note, holy fuck the claws are finicky to line up properly.

>>49685278
It takes twice as many PD hits to stop a crit as a hit
At 4+ a crit is exactly twice as likely to cause damage as a hit
Result: with scald, 3+ does whatever and everyone else prioritizes hits over crits
Should take about 10 seconds

>>49685167
>How can these people not know what they ordered? I know a bit of time has passed, but come on.
I saved it
I would have preferred to have a sheet there so i can sit down and say, 1 sprue, 2 sprue sourge sprue blue sprue

>>49685344
>Not verifying that the packing list is correct

>>49685353
>>Not verifying that the packing list is correct
what

>>49685362
It's entirely conceivable that a packing list could be incorrect, so you should be comparing box contents to your original order anyway.

Math alert. A ship with a 3+ armor save needs 16 point defense to reduce the average damage of four PHR bombers down to the average damage of an eight-shot medium broadside.
It there are only three bombers the threshold drops to eight point defense, and if there are only two bombers it only needs two point defense.
So clump up those bomber wings guys and gals! Single bomber squadrons are sad bomber squadrons!

>>49685388
Yes, but there is a visual aspect of sitting down with the paper and macing certain if they fucked up the transport immediately
I damn well remember what i bought, I fact I can do it now (starter, ucm, two player, two up battleship, launch assests, shirt [neckbeard autist size, two avalon, res pin)
[I was a late backer]

>>49685389
Yeah, the phr bomber strat does seem to be "fuck X ship up in particular"

>>49685389

Considering all bomber attacks are done on a per ship basis, the prevailing strategy does seem to be "fuck this ship in particular"

File: image.jpg (50KB, 375x592px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 375x592px

>>49685389

>be a Jakarta hanging around a Beijing with my other Jakarta
>bell sends in the bombers, will cripple me on even below average rolls and can pretty easily just kill me outright

DELETE THIS

>>49685146

Scourge bombers are going to be important because they can reach out and threaten stuff which scourge in general aren't great at. Especially for their speed, you can launch double thrust bombers at targets 30" away, meaning you'll most likely be able to land something on turn two after launching on turn 1

(One thing we should probably chew on is that they showed the deployment zones for ships and it's like low single digit inches on most scenarios if they don't just fly on from off the board.

Scald is a nice touch but it doesn't domino effect like the PHR rule. Still it's free extra damage with no downsides.

I do wonder how that scald rule actually works with bombers though, doesn't scald specify that you need to be in scan range, which bombers don't have?


If that's the case I'd never try to deny the -1 armor modifier to a scourge player but I do hope Hawk erratas that quickly.

>>49685887

In this scenario, the Bell will be in range of all your weapons next turn to do this.

In addition the way bombers work, he will launch them and you will have time to counter with your own fighters and waste his ship next turn with your guns. Tank most of the hits.

>>49686019
Technically speaking, bombers would have a scan of 0". Seeing as how they are point units that share the same position as the ship they are attacking, the ship is within their scan range (and thus scald range) as they are copositional.

>>49686112

>you will be able to launch fighters in response

Sometimes. If he wins initiative during the launch phase he can decide to to second and you'll have to assign fighters before he actually picks who to attack

And other times if you win initiative you can do the same

This is all assuming 1 carrier per side which is probably not going to happen

>>49686927
>If he wins initiative during the launch phase he can decide to to second and you'll have to assign fighters before he actually picks who to attack
no

>>49686937

>reread section
>bombers and fighters are their own sub phases

Neat

>>49686927
>>49686937
>>49686955
Although, if you're placing bombers first, you have to decide how much of your launch capacity to dedicate to bombers i.e. you have to guess how many fighters you may need later. Going second you can work out how many stands of fighters you need based on where your opponent's bombers are.

But then, going first you could be aggressive with lots of bombers to try to force them to hold back launch capacity for fighters. Could be quite an interesting minigame of bluff, all in all.

File: image.jpg (62KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 720x540px

>my Bejing has 13 bombers and 2 torpedoes launched at it

admit it. Who fell in love with a second fleet after already pledging for one originally?

>>49687582
Funnily enough, I think the UCM are the other fleet I've developed an interest in. I feel pretty excited to build them up along with my Scourge fleet when I get the money to dig in. Plus buying additional 2 player starter sets will let me build so many shipgirls.

>>49687582
I pledged for all four equally, so I'm all good on that front.

Quick, post things you hope happen but probably never will.

>Dave sculpts alternate hulls with the same loadouts for all the ships for DZC 2.0; no ingame benefit, but simply as a way to have more fleet aesthetics diversity

>>49687177

Well, that's 10h8cr from the Fighters on average. PD will reduce that to 9h7cr, armour will reduce that damage down to 11. So uh. Yeah, that's a crippling, if you get lucky and your opponent DOESN'T crit with his Torpedoes than you might survive.

This turn.

Next turn you are definitely dead.

If he crits with either Torp you are dead.

But I have to ask, how did a Pair of Hydras and a Dragon manage to take you by suprise and get that close. One of them I can understand, two sure, could happen, but all three? At least tell me half those ships are crippled to fuck.

Shaltari could use their pcm against bomber heavy phr. Which ignores crit.

>>49687177

Should have given the slot to Tokyo-chan. She would have at least died happy.

>>49687724
how would the math work out if the Hydras arrived at 24" distance in their move during this turn, and launched their bombers as a second wave strike? Also, if we're assuming Scourge shouldn't that be around 8 hit 8 crit, since they land their damage on a 3+? or am I missing something (Maybe just the fact that you suggested the scourge ships after doing some math for the PHR bombers?)

Also, man is the Hydra a good ship for Scourge. 5 Bombers is going to do a damn good job on anything of equal cost.

Anyone tried Scipio? She could be a monster even compared to Leo.

>>49687804

>how would the math work out if the Hydras arrived at 24" distance in their move during this turn, and launched their bombers as a second wave strike?

Then it would get interesting because now the Beijing has got 10 incoming Bombers when he activates next, and a Scourge Battleship within 9".

In this turn he has to deal with 3 Bombers, 6 attacks means 2 will hit and 2 will crit. PD will take a hit and a crit down again, we'll be generous and say it takes a single crit.

Then the Torps roll in. One crits, the other hits normally. Torps aren't Scalding luckily.
Unluckily this is because that would probably harm the Razorworms inside.
So, armour stops, again let's be generous and say 3 damage, so now our intrepid Battleship which was already at 17 is down to 12. With 2 fire criticals it can never repair.
So, end phase happens and it goes down to 10. 1 shy for being crippled.

This is where the real fun begins.
Does he:

a) Go Max Power to shake the bombers moving closer to the Carriers, but out of the Battleships CAW envelope?
b) Go Come About to shake the bombers and try to engage the Dragon with a single weapon system?

Option a) means a spike on top of everything else. He'll shake 5 bombers and then probably take 3crits and 3hits and shake that down to 2h 2cr with armour stopping 1 hit for 3 damage. He's now down to 7hp and rolls a crit.
At the end turn he gets 10 Bombers in his face. If he's even still alive.

Option b) If he goes for CAW range and fires them and his 6400 Heavy Railguns, we're looking at 2h 2cr from the Guns, so probably 3 damage from them, and then the CAW's would do 7 attacks, let's say 2 crits and 3 hits, it still goes down to another 3 damage. So the Dragon is at 6.
Then it moves, assuming that the Beijing did enough not to get Furnace Cannons, the Dragon after CAW does 5 damage. End phase, Razorworms kill the Battleship.
50/50 odds the explosion damages the Dragon.

>>49687997

Oh wait, forgot to factor in PD for the Beijing's CAW attacks on the dragon, so that's actually just 4 damage because the Dragon has a pretty damn decent PD of 12.

http://www.awesomedice.com/blog/353/d20-dice-randomness-test-chessex-vs-gamescience/

>>49687997
Man Carrier scourge with a few Djinn swarms are gonna be nasty. Not sure if they'll be able to stand up to Carrier PHR spam, but it seems like bringing 3 hydras and 12 djinns will be a nice baseline for scourge that gives you a bit of wiggle room in your lists while still packing a nasty damn core.

Here's a question, what's the best way to deal with a large roaming frigate group with carriers? You'd want to reliably deal enough damage to crit without overdevoting (a lot of crits kill a frigate outright, its hard to imagine them getting to use all 4 Hull) and potentially keep some fighters back in case they've got the range on you.

I assume you could clean up about equally per points, but I feel like 4 or 5 Djinns going at a Bellerophon isn't going to be a good day for the 'phon even if it survives and kills all its enemies.

>>49688684
Ehh. Djinni are kinda shitty. Use a strix if you want to make some new assholes.

Battlegroup Cost Squadron # Individual Cost Cost

Commander 100

Flag 265 Dragon 1 265 265
0
0

Vanguard 320 Shenlong 1 160 160
Shenlong 1 160 160
0

Line 220 Chimera 1 105 105
Sphinx 1 115 115
0

Line 280 Hydra 1 140 140
Hydra 1 140 140
0

Pathfinder 180 Strix 2 90 180
0
0

Pathfinder 134 Charybdis 2 35 70
Gargoyle 2 32 64
0

Null 0 0
0
0

Total 1499

>>49688702
2 Djinn put out the same damage a Strix does for 4 less points though. Plus they have better PD, can go atmospheric, and have a smaller signature. Sure, you take a crit earlier on one half of your Djinn, but your opponent has to go weapons free to swing all the appropriate guns at a Djinn squad and that opens up a can of worms for them if the table has some decent longer range firepower on it.

>>49688772
>2 Djinn put out the same damage a Strix does
PD is rolled against each individual CAW attacks, two Djinn have to deal with twice as much PD as a Strix.

>>49688772
oh wait, opponent gets to swing their PD twice. I could see why the strix had more appeal in that scenario (although that does mean fighters suck shit against a Djinn swarm and suck half as much shit against a Strix swarm)
Guess they both have their uses and it depends on what you're going to run up against. Shields up Shaltari for instance are gonna get demolished by Djinn swarms, and I expect similar on the PHR since their non fighter having PD is pretty lackluster.

>>49688807
Holy shit scourge frigates have 4 PD each but their LCs only have 2 PD each. How did I not notice that?

>>49688967
Yeah its really fuckin' weird. Guess the idea is they have glass jaws. Its actually kind of a hilarious ways to make the frigates appealing, because between the split between frigates making a single weapon that's great at pounding cruisers feel like you're overcompensating, the higher PD per ship making CAW units feel a little bad and the lower signature the frigates are actually the more survivable choice when compared to Scourge light cruisers. The appeal of the cruisers is that they're like 2 frigates glued together or better firepower wise, but you're paying in terms of defense to have them.

Theory: The jellies CAN still build more of Dragons/Daemons. They just don't.
>they're huge investments of resources to provide bodies for relatively few jellies
>they didn't break a sweat in the invasion of human space
>didn't fall below quota

Now they'd actually build more if they could, but it takes long enough to do so that they haven't finished any yet.

>>49689033

I think scourge LC are quite unappealing. They are damn fragile. Though they have more fancy gun than frigates, their high strategy rating is a pain.

>>49689509
I don't know about them being extremely unappealing. Strix aren't too appealing to me but they do have benefits, and the Yokai can be a monster if it goes weapons free with 10 damage with just its beam arrays. You won't roll all that damage most times, but being able to put out a ton of firepower for cheap can be pretty appealing.

>>49689605

I forgot the yokai. I agree with you of yokai.

>>49689503
>Dreadnoughts for the Scourge are battleships made with the resources of the cradle worlds. They can't stand the long travels the scourge race take from host species to host species, so every scourge Dreadnought crew knows they will die or be abandoned and left alone as their race leaves them. Each Dreadnought is given a name to reflect its birth system.

>Dreadnoughts unlike other vessels are built to be fire and forget, inflicting damage massively out of place in comparison to the resources spent. They generate typhoons of plasma that consume anything in its path, and produce a light so blinding it can be seen from out of system.

>>49690389
darn
neat snippet from the rulebook though
post the other race's

>>49690416
Oh no, I made that up on the spot. Wish I had the rulebook

>>49690416
No dreadnoughts in the game yet, bruh

>>49690433
Seemed too short. Shame.
It would also imply that the Scourgies were less gud than all the other races, who don't have cradle worlds and are still somehow making dreadnoughts.

File: Shaltari_SprueFrigate0.jpg (118KB, 796x512px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 796x512px

>there are people who have trouble cutting out the sprues without damaging the spines on the Shaltari vessels
Do they not know to cut at the base of the channel, near the frame, rather than next to the actual piece?

>>49690592
People complained about not getting the literal starter set box on the basis that they had planned on putting their ships in the box, but somehow it never occurred to them to put the ships in the shipping box.

Any more questions?

File: Shaltari_SprueCruiser0.jpg (110KB, 797x520px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 797x520px

>>49690592
They've also been saying they're having trouble with the mothership core, but the only way you could have trouble with it if you were trying to snip the spines off right at the piece.

>>49690632
I already said they're fucking dumb, what more do you want?

>>49690629
That's a pretty dumb thing to mock, desu.
I totally understand wanting a fancy patterned sales box. I'm a lowly preorder fag instead of a kickstarter, but I like the art and I think my plans of trying to run demo games at my lgs would be vastly assisted by having the box art. As well as making it clear what I'm storing in the box.

They might be a bunch of tools, but come on, be fair. You wouldn't like the rulebook as much if it was just a text document with no art.

>>49690676
It just baffles me that anyone willing to spend a hundred bucks, at the minimum, on plastic space ships can be so utterly clueless when it comes to the hobby side of the game. Next they'll be saying that paper scissors don't cut the plastic right and that elmers glue is too thick for the pieces.

>>49690701
You don't understand. The complaint was literally "I was planning on putting my stuff in the box and now I don't have a box"

I'm stripping a resin DZC model to repaint it; any advice as to a stripper that won't eat Hawk's resin? Preferably something available on the shelf in the US.

>>49690747
In the box. The shiny, polished, cover-art-bedecked box, with Hawk wargames logos and everything.

>>49690747
Autism

>>49690753
The resin will become soft, then harden again. Nearly anything that will remove the paint will do this. Patience.

>>49690844
Is 91% isopropyl fine, then? How long can I safely leace the resin in it for, and how long do I have to wait for it to harden again?

>>49690877
I don't have exact numbers, but hawks resin is tough. It will last longer than the paint.

>>49690901
That's good to hear; would it be safe to leave overnight for about 8 or 9 hours, then?

>>49690753

I used purple power, left it in there for days no damage.

>>49690915
Yes, though it might remain soft longer than you would prefer if you leave it in that long.

>>49690960
I'll try that out if I ever have the chance to, thanks anon; did the resin get soft at all?

>>49691009
In that case I'll just leave it in for three or four hours tomorrow, thanks for the help!

>>49691043

No it remained as normal. Only the super glue melted away.

File: Shaltari_Battleship_Diamond1.jpg (139KB, 795x530px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 795x530px

Saint Duncan preserve me when my ships arrive.

>>49691660
Is it called the Diamond because that is how hard your dick will be?

>>49691735
It's called the Diamond because of how focused I'll have to be to get all the details right.
and that, too

File: 1469858311459.jpg (32KB, 480x454px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x454px

>reading about Casaba-Howitzers for shits and giggles
>angle of the beam is 22.5 degrees
>F(n) arc for ships are 22 degrees
Nuclear lance weaponry when

>>49691858
Well, you can already nuke planets...

>>49691981

Casaba cannon shoots nuclear blast and high energy particle energized by nuclear explosion into one direction.

Definitly can't be intercepted by pd

>>49692372
So particle beam version of a nuclear pumped X-ray laser basically?

I know I'm probably being a bit of a slowpoke here, but bloody hell scourge CA on non-dedicated ships (i.e. not the strix/wyvern) is good. Almost all of their cruisers have D6+2 shots, at 3+ lock for a decent number of crits. Should add a semi-reliable bit of damage to the scalding shooting. Also means backfield hydras aren't entirely helpless, they've got a nasty CA bite for anything that gets close.

File: 2016-10-08 12.02.58.jpg (340KB, 959x502px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 959x502px

This game is breddy gud

>>49693302
Yeah, I like that the Scourge in both DZC and DFC keep their "high damage, close range" approach consistent. You're almost always going to want to get up close with them, CA specialist or not due to their Sig range being a bit higher than average, prompting the player to close in to make that irrelevant. Which after the first exchange, why not just dive into the enemy and leverage your CA? You can go weapons free on most of your ships because you're aiming for a coup de grace and then silent running to hunt down the remains. It's nice that the mechanics subtly guide players into fluff like decisions.

>>49693362
Interesting scheme you've got going on with the PHR there. Don't think I've seen them in dark green before, but (from this one photo) it kind of works.

>>49678293
>>49693362
>Interesting scheme you've got going on with the PHR there. Don't think I've seen them in dark green before, but (from this one photo) it kind of works.

Agreed. Can we get a better pic?

>>49693458
(I truly fucked up that link, apologies.)

File: 2016-10-08 12.28.37.jpg (104KB, 581x269px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 581x269px

>>49693448
>>49693458
I have this, I can try taking better if needed.

File: 2016-10-08 12.30.36.jpg (184KB, 466x479px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 466x479px

>>49693489

>>49693505
Nice, thanks!

>>49693489
>>49693505
Neat. I really like that scheme.

>>49693393

I think they will excel when you sneak ships like Djinn or Yokai around using their speed to get behind and land their shots in out of your opponents arcs.

>>49693721
I plan to gloss varnish the green parts today, really make them shiny.

>>49691058
The fuck did you paint it with?

>>49693801

That would be a good call, I think it would look cool with a mirror finish

>>49693804

I have no idea. I bought my army off ebay used. The deal was way too good to pass up. Some of the paint the guy had in there was stubborn.

>>49692678

right. cannon with a-bomb propellant.

>>49693816
Well I guess put it in for longer then, or try a different solvent

>>49693816
>>49693936

I think you misunderstand. The guy was asking if the resin turned soft, it did not. The paint came off after a few days of soak. A few of the models took a little longer, but it eventually did the job.

>>49694170
It does turn soft sometimes though, it just re-hardens.

http://www.hawkforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5396

File: Scourge_Frigate_Djinn0.jpg (71KB, 793x527px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 793x527px

bump

>>49695445
Has been a bit quiet lately, hasn't it? I thought once we had ship stats for every fleet there'd be a bit of an explosion of activity, but if anything it's been quieter than when we were doing everything by conjecture. Maybe lots of people are just waiting for their stuff, or just starting building/painting what they've received.

>>49695575
>>49693505 here

Having played two games with my PHR now I can confirm Bells are insanely good, but squishy because your opponent will want them dead.

Orions are also surprisingly powerful.

File: Autist Problems.png (98KB, 612x491px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 612x491px

>Be me, autist psycho
>Starting second army, resistance
>Once I start a project have to finish, only way to not feel like shit when models are everywhere undone
>Acknowledge I am a retarded idiot, but thems the rules
>Orders arrive excitement
>Phase 2 drop, pick up new models
>Start painting airbrush breaks midway
>Order new one, army stuck half way painted in unusable state
>New models from army arrive, can't start them because the rules, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>waiting forever
>Brush finally arrives, much time lost, but excited again
>Still huge project many hours remain
>Wait for time on weekend to paint
>Prime and base coat
>Dropfleet order arrives T_T
>Torn between following the code or facing the never ending space plastic horde
>REEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>49695618
>Be me
you really are autistic aren't you?

>>49695597
Is the Hector as bad as everyone is saying?

>>49695618
Down some adderall and get a heat lamp; we believe in you, anon.

>>49695638
>be anon
>get triggered by >be me

>>49695618
If having unpainted models upsets you, I'd say paint something, ANYTHING, right now. It sounds like the indecision is stopping you working on anything, and that's not going to help you at all.

File: 200percentBother.gif (2MB, 279x350px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 279x350px

>Hawk is packing some retail stuff as well because of contractual obligations
>backers are throwing a shitfit because they didn't get told first
>"did anyone get a 100% correct order?" t. Ian

File: 14502744_10154033330386378_2016878535583200664_n[1].jpg (102KB, 676x507px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 676x507px

>UCM cruisers look like boats when upside down

File: 14566457_10154033325996378_719255204221777580_o[1].jpg (177KB, 1690x1022px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1690x1022px

Hawk's painter posted some of the early WIP concept stuff on the facebook.

Also, BoW Weekender
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJUJYx9ozl0

Hawk at 1:03:05

>>49695904
>>49696237
>Hawk is packing some retail stuff as well because of contractual obligations

That is pretty shitty

>>49695644
I don't know, I used a Bell, Orion and Ajax.

It is so good to get an Orion and 2 Europas between enemy ships and FIRE EVERYTHING, if I had less shame I would have done a Reinhard von Lohengramm arm sweep too

>>49696250
In what way? Seems pretty reasonable to me.

>>49695575
In a shitty pre order fag, I'm just trying to not die for another month.

File: 200000000MAD.png (2MB, 987x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 987x720px

>Look at the bright side - they've decided not to be one of those companies that mislead you with their Kickstarter promise to get to backers before retail then throwing in some little add-on retail won't get to buy you off. They've decided instead to be one of those companies that misleads you with promises to get backers the product before retail, and in addition REMOVES one of the components that's in the retail product!
>Bravo.

These fucking cucks.

>>49696340
Dumb faggots already gave Hawk their money, you don't need to give a shit about them.

>>49696314

This is the first solid promise they are missing.

I get what Dave is saying. You have other commitments you have to meet not to cause problems.

However, this is still KS. This is the time where it is actually requires an expectation verse the flexibility of waiting for delays. A lot of companies have folded because they shot for the stars and didn't realize what they were trying to do. Essentially the biggest fear is that your KS becomes like a Ponzi scheme, when you use investor accounts to fund new costumers products. Someone is going to be able to walking into a store and buy something essentially you paid for creating and didn't get.

Hawk isn't doing that because they have DZ to fund their product, but they did say they were committed to get everyone their orders before release and they just revealed they blew it.

Its not the end of the world or anything, it is just a disappointment.

>>49696252

>Europa gang plus Orion battlegroup

Nobody believed me

You can add 3 shots to each of your broadsides for 40 points a pop

No fusillade required

File: image.png (90KB, 572x505px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 572x505px

>>49696461

>I don't have to wait at all to get my Heracles

Alright

>>49696551
Battleships are phase 2 of release, and have been pushed back two weeks.

File: image.jpg (67KB, 655x527px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 655x527px

>>49696566

Dannmited

>>49696200
That is amazing. We really do have space boats, those cheeki breeki brits.

You know what occurred to me this morning?

What if... those diddly little medium turrets some PHR ships get for forward firepower weren't just F arc but F/S?
So they can add their small amount of firepower to broadside attacks similar to how some of the Chaos Cruisers for BFG worked?

What ships do you think would benefit from this?

>WAAAH OTHER PEOPLE CAN BUY THE THING I HELPED KS WAAAAAH

Fucking seriously? This just means I can expand my fleets sooner rather than later. Plus if you KS backed you got extra stuff for the price of what retail will go for. Are these people what entitlement looks like? I can't grok it.

>>49696200

That is pretty cool!

Did you paint those anon? If so what was the technique?

>>49697104
>what ships
Orion, Perseus, Ikarus, and Ganymede.
The turrets are pretty miniscule, all things considered; they're effectively a single UCM medium turret.

>>49697196
Nah, they were posted on the FB by Hawk's official painter.

>>49697204

True, it's not like with say, the Carnage class from BFG which could vomit out Battleship tier firepower at long range on it's broadsides, but extra dice is extra dice.

>>49697104

Making the Orion about to have an extra 2 shots on one of its broadsides would be neat

An Orion plus two Europas would do 16 shots in one arc and 14 on the other

>>49697192
The facebook group is ridiculous
>(post 12 on the same subject) whaa no updates hawk is the worst company ever.
>can you shut up? We're getting our shit in two weeks
>stop oppressing me!!!

>>49697572
>this ks is so mismanaged!
>What else have you backed?
>well uh, Star Citizen, Robotech, Heavy Gear, Kingdom Death...
>...

File: yamato_1920_09.jpg (974KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

974KB, 1920x1080px

>>49696200
I just might be a cheeky breeki and glue my UCM ships upside down and paint the bottoms red.

>>49691660
Oh baby
I spent a good half hour daydreaming at work today trying to figure out how those delicious particle lances would look and sound. My best guess for the DZC scale lance is something like the Strider's warp cannon from Half-Life 2.

Judging by the fluff description it probably just looks like a heat haze moving at relativistic speeds, but that's hardly sci-fi enough.

File: Prepare for Drop.jpg (245KB, 813x701px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 813x701px

New Art for the next thread

>>49697693
>sound in space
No

File: 14520546_10205657005304595_4348676245446492590_n[1].jpg (133KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 960x720px

Some more photos from the FB.

>>49697727
Nice!

Dave estimates that in 10mm scale a dropfleet torpedo would be about three feet long.

Three. Feet.

>>49697743
>not simulating sound in a closed environment.

Speaking of sound. This is what I imagine what the FTL looks and sounds like in DFC/DZC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_WpcCCnE8Y

File: Untitled.jpg (342KB, 1661x930px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1661x930px

>>49697804
>Yeah, actually, you know what, that's not too far off, in 10mm scale.

>>49697589
Kingdom Death actually was an eye opener about KS for me. I love my stuff, would still buy anything from KD, but am still waiting for the expansion. Small no names with lofty goals, get a fuck ton of dosh, and have to actually deliver on their goals is a huge goddamn deal and takes a ton of time to just acclimate to the task. That is why I knew Hawk would be relatively on schedule and wouldn't fuck things upother than needing someone who does QA for spellcheck for fuck sake.

>>49697827
>Simulating sound in a spacecraft that has no air

>>49697865
This is why the bulk of kickstarters I back these days are stuff like

> Hey, we want to make a small range of cool one-off minis
> Hey we want to make a book
> Hey we want to make a small boardgame

Lower risk stuff.

>>49698054
Nail on head, or well established companies. Delays will happen, nature of the beast but with some decent communication its not a big deal.

>I know that Kickstarter is known for issues and delays. I get that companies can't always anticipate delays.
>What makes me annoyed is no communications from Hawk about things at all. What makes me more annoyed is that the people that have got things prior to retail are those that pledged the least amount of money. It may seem like a horribly privileged attitude, but the people that pledged for the big pledges (Captain, Commodore and Admiral) are the ones that effectively allowed this whole thing to be brought to market. You know, the ones that allowed retail to get it at all and yet, these people will be the last ones to get their hands on the stuff, possibly even after people who've known nothing about the game, or Hawk, can walk into a store and get it.
>I've been a big advocate for Hawk since they started. I got to visit Dave and playtest the original rules for Dropzone Commander and have defended Hawk and how they do things, but this to me irks me.
>It feels like we've been ignored as backers. Like the important thing is the money from retail. I know I shouldn't be surprised but it feels like all of a sudden it's not about the game and the gamers, but purely about the money. I understand that there's always an element of this when you're dealing with a company, they need money to survive after all, but don't promise things and then constantly break those promises, or make promises and then don't communicate that you are breaking them and hope your customers either ignore it, or just accept it.
>I understand that there will be people that will disagree with me, that's fine. But really, for a long time now we've not actually known what is really going on and filming with BoW rather than communicating directly with backers, you know, the people that handed your company well over half a million pounds.... yeah, mistake.

>it may "seem" like a horribly privileged attitude