/dcg/ Dropzone/Dropfleet Commander General

File: image.png (358KB, 552x543px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 552x543px

>>50057346

>it's a Normies desperately trying to justify the Perseus episode
>muh overkill
>muh 50% chance of killing a frigate

File: Shaltari cr Basalt.png (689KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

689KB, 960x720px

>What do you think of the possibility of destroyers? Would more frigates or light cruisers be better instead?
More light cruisers for me, there's space in the lineups. Although given we have alternate designations like "fleet carrier", "strike carrier" and "mothership" already (rather than those ships being labelled "cruiser" or "frigate" on their datacards) it's entirely possible we'll get light cruisers labelled as destroyers.

>>50057393
>normies buy £150 of plastic spaceships and furiously argue about it

Anon, I don't think you know what normal people actually do with their time.

File: 1476782705271.jpg (2MB, 3000x2778px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2778px

Obligatory ship-girl episode.

Scourge-chan cannot come fast enough.

>>50057393
I like the fact that out of every ship in the game, only the perseus is trash.

The Hector isn't bad, it's just a bit too expensive
The Jade is less powerful overall than the Topaz, but pairs of them make excellent frigate hunters
The Scylla isn't very powerful, but it's an excellent deterrent to troops hips and bombardment platforms.

The Perseus is just utter trash except in 2500+ point games for when you need to fill out a medium slot; I would say that it's the only true "escort cruiser" in the game, and its loadout shows.


>>50057464
I think he means "plebes"

File: tg on wayland.png (25KB, 1635x292px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 1635x292px

>recommending Wayland in the OP links
If you're going to do that, there should really be a warning/disclaimer so people know what they're in for, and are aware of the possibility of waiting a while.

>>50057516

I'm one of the biggest detractors of the Hector in /dfg/ and even I think it's useable in a battlegroup setting.

"Upgrading" a double Orion+Europa battlegroup to a Hector+Orion+Europa group isn't hugely expensive and gives you some threat on the approach.

It's not a no brainer but if you have 63 points and don't have any more frigate models, it's not terrible


The Perseus is terrible. I can't even think of how to make it good that doesn't depend on having four seperate targets for it to shoot at

>>50057594
>"Upgrading" a double Orion+Europa battlegroup to a Hector+Orion+Europa group isn't hugely expensive and gives you some threat on the approach.

Oh fuck me I knew there was something I was forgetting, battlegroups have coherency! That explains why you go for such idiosyncratic multi-role battlegroups perfectly.

Thank god I didn't finish gluing all my stuff together.

>>50057635

Yeah don't make battlegroups with different roles unless the extra ships are corvettes or strike carriers

All Shaltari particle weaponry now has a lock of 2+.
How do you change the costs of the relevant ships? (Diamond is unaffected)

>>50057594
>>50057635
>>50057659
This; frankly, it's best to think of battlegroups as your basic unit of force in DFC. You don't take ships for their abilities, you build battlegroups for their abilities.

>>50057410
I like the Leeds, Jormangundr, Aolus, and Dolomite. All simple, powerful, and straight to the point.

>>50057692
That's a really good piece of advice.
Now my only challenge in PHR list building is figuring out what has synergy with the mission profile of an Achilles. Obviously a second Achilles.

>>50057889
A perseus!

>>50057692
>>50057889
Of course, the one exception being ships with Outlier/Open; those you can just stick wherever you have space.

In general, though; fast ships with fast ships.
Ships that make heavy use of weapons free with each other.
CAW with CAW, or at least with stuff that can survive being in CAW range.
Troopships/strike carriers with bombardment.
etc and so forth.

Taking this into account, we can actually see where the Perseus comes into play.
It's not a line cruiser, it was never meant to be.
It's not something to act on its own, it was never meant to be.
It's purely an escort cruiser to augment the firepower of the battlegroup as a whole, for when you don't want to take another Orion, don't want another Achilles, and/or don't want another Ajax.

It's utterly shit on its own and in general, but as a supplementary escort to provide general firepower to the BG, it's fine.

Actually, I can see sticking CAW Frigates or cruisers into BGs with long range weapons (such as Lasers).

Enemy zoom in to deny you laser shots due to arc? CAW blast 'em.

Enemy keeping at stand off range? fuck it, launch the CAW ships at them, and force them to deal with it or break formation.

>>50057898
I think that 'Perseus' is going to be the new "Nobz in a 'Naught".

>>50057635
Battlegroup composition is a real skill I think.
You need to bundle ships that can maintain coherency and as such, work to the same threat ranges and fire arcs. Similarly they need to share Orders.
For example, I'm theorycrafting UCM a lot and it's quite challenging to blend all of the necessary Limas into the list. On the one hand, they want to be bundled into a Silent Running Battlegroup, such as Seattles or San Franciscos. On the other hand, Scanning is a big red flag against your upcoming targets and they need to precede your heavy firepower options, or else your opponent might move them from harms way.
So if you bundle them into a fighting group that doesn't need WF to operate (Avalons, New Cairo spam etc.) you get something optimal.

>>50058011
Of course, there's always *some* leeway due to the nature of BG cohernecy; 12" is a good distance to play around with, and having your CAW squadron a foot ahead of your beam cruiser is still enough space to aim it. If you exploit group coherency, you can get a majority of your ships farther ahead with a "chain" of ships trailing behind to maintain BG coherency.

>>50058017
Why do you care about WF for a Lima battlegroup?

Even if a Moscow goes Weapons Free, the Limas can still go active to ensure it gets a target... and it can do so first before the Moscow elects to turn the guns on, or if it wants to stay on Standard to not get spiked.

>>50058017
>Battlegroup composition is a real skill I think.
Yeah I'm starting to see that now, this makes listbuilding far more interesting.

>>50058017
Limas can go literally anywhere; Detector means that they can ALWAYS active scan, regardless of the BG's orders.

>>50058052
I really like it when games, both vidya and TT, have some kind of "meta-unit" mechanic like this.
It's not all that present in DZC (due to the already highly defined BG mission profiles and lack of BG coherency), but it's very obvious in DFC.

For the most part, every unit can and will kill every other unit; what matters is their focus, their behavior, and how they mesh in a BG.

So, are Shaltari disintegrators turreted/gimbaled/articulated, or do they just maneuver their ships so finely and quickly that they can let lose multiple banks at the same ship one after another?

>>50058061
>>50058045

Did not see that Limas have Outlier. This is a big help for them as they don't have to follow their group into the centre.
However, while Detector allows them to mix orders, it does not change the fact that WF is completely wasted on them. It's a vitally useful, fragile ship with a Major Spike; too fucking right I want to Run Silent. If I bundle them with a Moscow, I can put the Spikes out and them immediately get killed.
If I run them with an Avalon, I can Run Silent, shoot the Viper, and then remove my Lima's spikes.

>>50057529
I ordered from Wayland and I'm happily gluing together my 3 PHR starter-sets right now.
>I thought the fucking wings were bad.
>Then I saw all the manually fitted guns.
>Hoboi

I've got a rules question. When you've activated a group and you're shooting with it do you roll each ship separately? or say i've got two Topaz as a group would the be able to shoot at different targets?
Also with PD against a group of ships do you roll your X amount of dice per shot or after the whole groups fired?

>>50058237
Different ships in group can shoot at different targets, but all targets of the group must be announced before any shots are fired.

PD is rolled after all shots in a group has fired at that specific target.

Something I missed - when launching bombers at an enemy, do they need to be within effective scan/sig range? I.e. do you treat it as just another weapon shot, or can you just dump them out on the board and have them fuck one guy in particular?

>>50058094
I'm now thinking I want a battlegroup for straight forward firepower with an Orion, an Orpheus and maybe a Perseus. Added to that a Bellerophon and some Pandoras in a headhunter group, possibly a pathfinder group of an ikarus and some Europas and a second light group for my strike carriers

>>50058545
Nope, you can launch outside that range, it's assumed the craft find the targets themselves.

>>50058593
Ah, all right then. Thanks.

>>50057455

"Destroyer" is freak designation name anyway. Let it stay in the dark times of the resource wars.

>>50058568
Or should the strike carriers go on the line groups so I can ensure they show up with some escorts and don't get poached?

Ok, the list building is pretty gratifying, it's very effectively anti munchkin

File: CAW.webm (3MB, 1200x674px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1200x674px

Sea-navy version of why your PD needs to stop that incoming CAW missile. I want to see the UCM missiles arc like that out of those subtle vertical launch tubes you can make out on the cruiser hull.

>>50058193

No shooting when running silent without Stealth dude.

>>50059043

I didn't explain it very well:

> Group Avalon with Limas
> Special Orders: Silent Running
> Lima Active Scan, place Spikes, Run Silent, remove spikes from self
> Avalon standard orders, +12" turbocannon
> Avalon removes Bloom spike

>>50058193
>>50059073
You misunderstand Detector, anon; they may always use the Active Scan special order, regardless of what their BG chose, but they can't do it in addition to other orders.

Active Scanning is a special order in of itself.

>actually using "shitposts" outside of teh 4chans
Wew, the KS comments have definitely stepped up their cancer.

>>50059073
Also, removing spikes happens at the START of the activation, not at the end. That's clarified.

So an Avalon firing will ALWAYS have a spike, even if it did standard orders.

>>50059367
Any "gems"? Too lazy and scared to check myself.

>>50059367
>@Damion
>I have my pledge... I just don't understand you constant shitposts. I mean honestly, who did you really think was going to agree with your comments about updates? I can't work out if your a brilliant troll or a moron

>KS comments have degenerated to just insults at this point, not even arguments and wrong opinions
tbf, Daimon is taking it too far as well. There was a point where both sides needed to stop, and both have crossed it.

File: image.jpg (211KB, 870x776px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 870x776px

>>50058191
>needing a gimbal for your energetic waveform projectors
I don't get it, why don't you just alter the vectors mid-transit?

>>50059520
>>50059411
*

Why are the PHR using archaic naval designs? I mean really, broadsides? C'mon.

UCM: 1
PHR:

>>50057672
Ruby up to 205
Obsidian up to 165
Granite up to 105
Jade stays at 45

>>50059616
you know it speaks badly when you're still getting your ass handed to you by people using archaic designs.

File: image.jpg (101KB, 960x765px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 960x765px

>>50058220
>Achilles assembly
ATTACK SPEED

File: Sensible PANIC.gif (2MB, 245x246px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 245x246px

Guys, guys!
Back the fuck up.
Who here is fully aware that the !ship voidgate has charged air?
Charged air in DFC not only is the only non-corvette weapon with Air-to-air properties, it is non-CAW!
That little static electricity thing from DZC that had 6'' range.
>It can fire 12''+(EnemySig)+Spike range, which can get as bad as 32'' if the enemy goes full retard.
>Static electricity can be fired further than UCM cannons.
>Hedgehogs, not even once.

>>50059811
I have a feeling that's a typo, but good catch anon!
Still, it's only 5+, 1, 1

>>50059811
Holy shit you're right. I agree with >>50059832
that it must be a typo or oversight of some kind, because only the most munchkin of fluff-burning rules lawyers would try to seriously do what you're suggesting.

I posted this at the end of last thread when there was some discussion about hull classification symbols. What do you think about this?

Corvette: KV
Frigate: FR
Destroyer DD
Light Cruiser CL
Cruiser CC
Heavy Cruiser CH
Battle cruiser CB
Battleship BB
Dreadnought DN

>>50060126
Ehh, I kinda like

CR
FR
DR
LC
CC
HC
BC
BB
DN

>>50059616
Old is bad only when it dosen't work. Turrets beat out broadsides because turret traverse worked better on water than turning the whole damn ship.

Now they're drifting about with Major Tom, and the space a turret takes up might not be as justified as it would be on the water. As they say in another setting, there's never enuf dakka

>>50060187
CR looks just as much like CruiseR as it does CoRvette. I'm not too happy about my KorVette, but at least you know a C* is some kind of cruiser at a glance.

According to wikipedia, K was proposed at some point to be the symbol for corvette, but one letter didn't fit in, so I added the V...

>>50060309
Eh, I think it's fair enough.

All light ships (Corvettes, Frigates, and Destroyers) have an R as their second letter, while all cruisers (mediums and heavies) have C as the second.
Pattern fails for battleships and dreadnoughts, but oh well.

>>50060336
You have a good idea with the second letter bit, and I don't think Battleships and Dreadnaughts breaking the pattern is a big deal, since they're rare enough to break the pattern already.

If you change corvette to KR I'll concede that your system is better than mine. The heart of this whole debacle is people wondering of CR means cruiser or corvette

>>50060414
KR sounds like a fair compromise, anon.

Additional, we've got to make sure these don't conflict with the rest of the lingo.

BG
CAW
LA
HO
LO
Atmo
etc

>>50057346
I'm cool with Destroyers if they do something interesting. Stealth for Scourge, a focus on front guns for PHR, that sort of thing.

I'm just hoping UCM get more missiles at some point. I remember somebody suggested an option to replace the medium mass drivers on cruisers with missile turrets that give more CA, and I like that idea.

>>50059042
That's two videos. The first missile you can see impacting the water, right before the cut to the second ship getting rekt.

>>50060789
>UCM Miami class missile destroyer
>medium mass driver turret (front/left)
>medium mass driver turret (front/right)
>megalodon missile launcher; 3+ lock, 4d3 attacks, 1 damage, CAW (Swarmer) (front)

>Scourge Gremlin class hunter-destroyer
>stealth
>occulus beams (front)
>inferno cannon; * lock, 1 attack, 1 damage, mauler(4) (narrow)
>plasma storm

>PHR Argus class destroyer
>Medium caliber heavy turret; 4+ lock, 3 attack, 1 damage, fusillade(1) (front)
>Medium caliber heavy turret; 4+ lock, 3 attack, 1 damage, fusillade(1) (front)
>mosquito drones

>Shaltari Moonstone class destroyer
>vectored
>light particle lance triad; 3+ lock; 3 attack; 1 damage; particle; (narrow)
>harpoon volley

988/999 Skirmish UCM List.

Pathfinder Battlegroup: 108 points.
Strategy Rating 4.
-2 New Orleans Strike Carriers. 64
-2 Santiago Corvettes. 44

Line Battlegroup: 328
Strategy Rating 12.
-Seattle Fleet Carrier. 132
-Seattle Fleet Carrier. 132
-2 New Orleans Strike Carriers. 64

Line Battlegroup: 283
Strategy Rating 15.
-San Francisco Troopship. 111
-2 Osaka Light Cruisers. 172

Vanguard Battlegroup: 269
Strategy Rating 12.
-Avalon Battlecruiser. 195
-2 Lima Frigates. 74

*Twiddles thumbs until pledge arrives*

>>50061768
I'd drop the sanfran at 1k, mi amigo; replace it with some combat frigates; maybe replace the Osakas with Cairos.

>>50061818

Muchas gracias. The extra troops from the San Francisco will not be needed that much at this points level I guess.

Pathfinder Battlegroup: 108
Strategy Rating 4.
-2 New Orleans Strike Carriers. 64
-2 Santiago Corvettes. 44

Line Battlegroup: 328
Strategy Rating 12.
-Seattle Fleet Carrier. 132
-Seattle Fleet Carrier. 132
-2 New Orleans Strike Carriers. 64

Line Battlegroup: 281
Strategy Rating 13.
2 New Cairo Light Cruisers. 176
3 Toulon Frigates. 105

Vanguard Battlegroup: 269
Strategy Rating 12.
-Avalon Battlecruiser. 195
-2 Lima Frigates. 74

Amusingly enough, the three Toulon Frigates can be swapped with the Taipei frigates without any hassles.
I do think that the Toulons are a better match for the New Cairos since the CAW frigates want to get close while the burn through laser cruisers want to keep a bit of distance for easier aiming.

File: IMG_20161102_241942609.jpg (3MB, 4320x2432px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4320x2432px

Thought I'd take this opportunity to post some easy to do 3 piece Corvette conversions. Only have ucm and scourge atm but when my pledge confess in I'll be able to post more.

File: IMG_20161101_111045744.jpg (2MB, 4320x2432px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4320x2432px

>>50062853

What are these "corvette conversions?"
I haven't really opened by rulebook yet.

>>50062882
Corvettes are a smaller class of ship, dedicated atmospheric hunters. There are no pictures or models of them yet so we don't know what they look like but they have rules.

>>50062882
There are rules for corvettes in game, but they don't have models yet.

>>50062882
Corvettes are atmosphere capable hunters that have rules but no models at the moment. People have been building their own corvettes so play with, since they're pretty important for factions to fight the enemy in atmosphere.

>Amethyst
>Encountered ships of this class: ..., Significant Fire
Guys, we were wrong; the PHR aren't the Culture wannabes, it's the Shaltari

>Nickar doesn't have scald on its Plasma Squall

>>50062853
that corvette seems to heavily armed to be a santiago, also a bit too big, id figure it would only have two or three of those missile turrets at best, and no railgun

>>50062853
Why's it got a gun? Santiagos only get missiles.

>>50062876
This is really good though. It's distinct and looks like an actual ship, plus you get one for every non-heavy cruiser you make.

>>50063310
d6 4+ Scald shots would be pushing towards "delete 1.5x your points in scoring ships every time you shoot" territory. And remember that the little blighters are 22 points and can be taken as a wolfpack.

Guys... are there any painting guides yet for the default scheme?

>>50064290
The actual painter posted complete lineups of the paints used for each faction and answered a couple random process questions on Facebook, but I haven't seen any official step-by-step guides.

>>50064320
anyway to find this without going to facebook?

File: Scourge paints.jpg (67KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 960x720px

>>50064336
Open wide for some spoonfeeding

File: UCM paints.jpg (73KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 960x720px

>>50064363

>>50064363
>>50064374
mouth is open wide, and appreciate your help, although its almost pointless without explanation. We need to get him to do a step by step somehow.

File: Shaltari paints.jpg (76KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 960x720px

>>50064374

File: PHR paints.jpg (66KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 960x720px

>>50064384

>>50064382
As you should imagine, Scourge are confirmed as a well-washed chrome basecoat with details carefully highlighted. PHR and Shaltari are almost certainly airbrushed, with some extra drybrushing on the Shaltari.

>>50064436
Without doubt all the ships are airbrushed.

The devil is in the order of the paints, including the basecoats.

Thanks for the tip re: scourge. That was one of the more problematic schemes without knowing the order.

>>50064422
where the hell is trollslayer orange used on any PHR ship?

>>50064559
Highlight on the railgun optics.

File: 1477189818981.jpg (50KB, 298x268px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 298x268px

>>50064384
>Tamiya XF-7 Clear Red in the background
My pot just arrived in the mail this morning and I'm terrified at what I might unleash. Tell me your secrets, little one.

>>50064588
thank you sir, and for the spoon feeding.

I wonder if we'll ever see any more of the Shaltari's bitches/former bitches. Pungari are the mainstay since they're so numerous and loyal, but there are apparently others and it would be interesting to see what they're like.

Shaltaris Obsidian slightly confuses me.
3 identical weapon names.
2 of those 3 have linked.
I can see the reason for gameplay purposes, so you have to go weapons free to gett full value, but it having 3 different 3+ (1)shot (2)Dam Particle weapons and no regards for major spikes when their shields go up, feeks way scarier than some of the other things out there,

>>50065147

I'm thinking of going station keeping with shield on. Shield booster gonna save the ship.

why do the DFC models look so much better than the DZC models?

>>50063576
>>50063654
Mostly I gave it the turret to make it stand out a bit. Without it the profile is very flat and doesn't really look like a UCM ship. Plus I thought it looked cool. Of course it's just an aesthetic choice without it the build becomes even easier.

>>50065485
I like it mate, going to look at doing similar with mine so thanks for sharing

I have a really fucking important question.
The shaltari Shield booster rules states that it's usable "once per turn."
It's the only passage in the book that uses that phrase. Do you think it refers to "once per turn, per Opal?" or "Once per turn, period. Further opals are just backup in case the first one falls."

>>50065658
Probably per Opal. Otherwise it would be something like 'only one shield booster may be activated per turn'. It's a big enough detail that they wouldn't leave it so ambiguous.

>>50059811
>>50059832
>>50060112
Remember that while in atmosphere it can only fire its scan range (which is admittedly longer than everyone else's). And, really, fuckingflowers should either be in atmosphere or racing to get there.

>>50065664
I have to agree with you there.
The rules refer to a single ship in the entire explanation, so It's fair to assume it's once per turn, per ship.

>>50065732
I wholeheartedly agree with you, but it should still be a CAW, as to not being able to double-detect enemy ships and then send in you r 9-ship squad turn 1 to just plink-plonk the enemy with a static cloud that would have made Tesla shit his undead pants.

>>50065658
>>50065739
Calypso also says "once per turn", but also says that the effect is cumulative with other calypsos. That would be tricky if only one calypso in the fleet can use its ECM suite each turn.

>>50065753
>>50065732
Let me also add that the fuckflower have a thrust of 12'', scan of 12'' and with one enemy spiked, that's another 12''

If the enemy had the fucking AUDACITY to move full thrust that is another 8-10''

Basic spike-wombocombo turn 1 when there has not yet been time to enter atmo, the fuckflowers have a potential range between 36'' and 46''

>And I haven't even factored in enemy signature yet.
>Are you scared of the hedgehogs yet?
>You should be.

>>50065788
Reminder that amethysts can fire close action at you from 12" away. And you don't get point defence.

>>50065788
>one attack per ship that only hits a third of the time and can't crit ever
I'm shaking in my fucking boots.

>>50065822
This, on the other hand, is legitimately scary.

>>50065822
Is amethyst the only legitimate non-Opal frigate?

>>50065857
No. A Topaz facing a spiked opponent can operate with impunity from ranges the enemy could never hope to hit them from, but if an Amethyst can hit someone then that target or any of its nearby friends will always be able to attack that Amethyst next activation. Unless they're dead, of course, but you can't count on that.

And Voidgate-chan is sort of a frigate.

>>50065900
Well, I can see that. Why is the Topz better than the Jade tho?

Don't kid yourself. Voidgate-chan is the auxillary friend that's there to make everyone else look better by comparison.

>>50065972
A Topaz deals the same number of crits as a Jade on average, and then more damage beyond that. Also better arcs.

I've said that Jades do better damage against shields in the past, but looking at it now that might not even be true since nothing appears to have 3+ shields and they do the same average damage against 4+ shields. So they have the dubious honour of only being better than the Topaz when firing on a shielded target that's being protected by an Opal. Wow, these poor ships need some help.

>>50066065
Do you mean 2+ ? Lots of stuff has 3+ shields doesn't it? UCM and PHR Cruisers e.g. just off the top of my head are pretty much all 3+

>>50066203
ahh, unless I'm just being ignorant and when you say Shields you mean... urm.... Shields.

>>50066203
That's just armour. I'm talking about Shaltari shields, because they nullify crits except against weapons with the particle rule.

>>50066214
Shields are shields. Everyone else gets armor.

>>50066230
haha.
Leave it to the hedgehogs to make weapons that the hedgehogs can't defend against.
>fukken hedgehogs.

>>50066239
That's because other Shaltari are the only enemy truly worth fighting, primitive.

[smug spine rustling]

Who Else here are looking forward to the Admiral cards?

I know i do.

>>50060126
>>50060187
>Why is Corvette not CV
>Why are Destroyer, Cruiser, and Battleship DD, CC, and BB respectively
Are these actual naval abbreviations or something?

>>50066450
Not that anon, but I thought CV was for carriers.

>>50065485
Do Nawlins Bridges fit? Guess those would be commonly lying around.

>>50066462
What, how the fuck does 'V' line up at all with 'Carrier'?
Fucking armed forces man, nothing ever makes sense.

>>50066474
It stands for 'Carrier Vessel'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_classification_symbol

File: image.png (363KB, 1242x2208px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1242x2208px

oh fuck he actually answered

>>50066617
hah brill, what a legend

>>50066617
>meaningless speculation about crossovers
>he's still thinking about balance
What a guy.

>>50066665
>>50066748

I went ahead and asked him if lunar cruisers are in the same ballpark as a DFC battleship

File: 1462981333914.gif (940KB, 627x502px) Image search: [Google]

940KB, 627x502px

>>50066617
My god, he actually did it. The madman.

Andy Chambers best dev.

>>50066450

In the U.S. Navy, DD, CC, and BB are actual naval hull symbols, and the real naval symbol for frigate is FF. >>50066462 is right when he pointed out that CV stands for carriers

The problem is that there's three symbols for a corvette: DDS, K, and FS, none of which readily pop up as "corvette" when seen by somebody like me who had to get all this information from wikipedia. What I was trying to do was create a system where seeing a pair of letters immediately fired the name to a reader's mind, but I inadvertently conflicted with the real system, which throws off people who actually know about this stuff.

>>50066916
I kinda want to know what he thinks of the Perseus and Jade. The former stands out since it's the only really obviously bad ship in the game, but the latter is a little sneakier and seems decent until you use the power of napkin math to realise that it's just a worse Topaz.

That might be considered rude or annoying or something, though. He came for fun BFG comparisons after all.

>>50067092

Yeah I don't want to bother him with anything too serious, although all I did was message his Facebook page so you could try it yourself

>>50067127
But then I'd have to get a facebook account and I have an irrational fear of that.

>>50067092
> Topaz > Jade

I don't know if that's strictly true. Going by pure damage output, sure, but don't forget that the Jade's particle weapon ignores armor and passive and autocrits on top of that...

>>50066492
No, the V designates Fixed Wing Aviation in the US scheme. Like how a Z would designate Lighter-than-Air Aviation.

CV means Carrier, Fixed-Wing Aviation.

File: 1421944204569.gif (1MB, 227x136px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 227x136px

>>50067157
>But then I'd have to get a facebook account and I have an irrational fear of that.

Smart man.

New email from Hawk said remaining Commodore pledges should be shipped out this week, into next. Yaay.

>>50067205

I already bitched out and got a starter off of MM, now it appears it will arrive just as my commodore ships

File: scourge pls no.jpg (7KB, 105x132px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 105x132px

>>50067248
Well, at least you'll have even more ships now. There are worse things.

>>50067299

Well with the commodore I'll have a bit more than 1500 points but with the extra box I'll be able to run some different lists

>>50067160
Yeah, but the thing is that a Topaz still puts out the same number of average crits as a Jade.

Jade: One 3+ lock shot with particle.
Average of two thirds of a hit, all crits because of particle.

Topaz: Two 3+ lock shots.
Average of one and a third hits, equally divided between normals and crits. That means two thirds of a crit and two thirds of a normal hit.

So no matter what armour the target has, the Topaz is better because it has the same average crits and gets normal damage on top of that.

When you bring shields into the mix things get a bit more interesting. Against it, all of the Topaz's crits become normals and the Jade's crits don't give a fuck and keep on critting. That means Topaz gets one and a third normals while Jade gets two thirds of a crit. The problem is that the strongest shield we've seen so far is 4+, which on average halves the Topaz's damage and leaves it with exactly the same average damage as the Jade. So even in the Jade's speciality the Topaz performs just as well.

That's what I meant by it being sneaky. It's not obviously worse, it's all in the mathematics.

Can mothership deploy shaltari troops if gates Go double speed?

>>50067423
Oh, and I forgot one thing: Jades perform significantly better against shielded targets with Opal support, dealing an average of 2/3 damage compared to the 1/3 of a Topaz. But that's a real fuckin niche role there.

>>50067423
Well, I guess if the match checks out, I must concede.

File: 34683543225.jpg (9KB, 229x151px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 229x151px

>>50067398
I checked my pledge this morning (since its been a long while and I sort of forgot what I selected) and noticed I didn't opt for Shaltari anything. The more I learn about the game, the more I'm regretting that. Might spring for one of their starter sets, just so I can have something to demo at the shop. However, the idea of painting all those little bumps and gems is causing a significant bout of heartburn.

So is this the most bungled Kickstarter ever?

>>50067521
Hell no, there are far worse. I'm still waiting on a refund for my Games and Gears Battleboard from years ago...

>>50067521
No

It's pretty good

Some communication problems and minor issues though

Hawk needs a PR guy

>>50067521
There are some kickstarters that, two years out, still haven't delivered their product.

This is minor in comparison.

>>50067521
Only because I forgot what it was like to have a bunch of unpainted models lying around at home, mocking me.

>>50067521
Have you seen the Robotech RPG Tactics one?

>>50067546
Half my shit isn't even coming till some nebulous later date. Speaking of which, its November, zillions of people got their packages on Facebook, and i STILL have nothing.

>>50067567
That's like a month or so

Pretty minor for a kickstarter

They're not grabbing your cash and fucking off

They didn't let their success get to their heads and make massive stretch goals they could never hope to fulfil

The boat with the product didn't sink

It's not a shit game

This is their first time too, organising something this big is hard especially when you're small

>>50067178
> I skimmed the wikipedia article and read '...stand for Carrier Vessel'
> I missed the first half of the sentence that said 'contrary to popular belief, the CV classification does not...'

Oops.

File: SpartanGames.png (630KB, 1082x845px) Image search: [Google]

630KB, 1082x845px

>>50067642
This. Plus, they're an established company. If this was some no-name shitdick group of folks I doubt I would have backed in the first place. But Hawk is trustworthy, IMO.

Be happy it wasn't Spartan Games making DFC and the Kickstarter campaign.

>>50067521
Not even close.

>nobody posted the new update

Dear Backers

We are sorry once again for a delay in updating you all, but needless to say we are really hard at work packing and organising shipments.

We have been shipping out a lot of pledges, and we are definitely on the home stretch in terms of the pledges going out. We aimed to have all pledges packed by the end of October. This has not occurred, and though we are not far off, we want to explain a few of the reasons:

2 Key members of staff heavily involved with packing and management have been signed off from work due to back issues. We are hoping to have them back in a few weeks at the latest. We have sent more Hawk staff up to the warehouse in order to fill this gap, but nothing can replace the experience these staff have, but we have done a lot in the last few weeks.
There have been a few issues with the pledge manager export process/system that we have been using to process orders, and this has caused a lot of extra admin work which has pulled resource from the Hawk Team, which has also affected the speed of reply to emails.

Now to address where we are and a few questions that are coming through the emails:

>>50067728
1. Late Items

There has been another unclear part of communication on our part on what is going out right now in pledges, and what will follow as soon as possible from us. We mentioned before, and continuously that the Scourge Space Station Add On pack would be delayed and going as a later shipment. This is also now the case with a few other items, because of a mixture of quality control and design quality issues, which has meant that we have not wished to send out any items we feel do not meet the levels we had wished. The items affected, and that will be being sent after the initial pledge has arrived are: - The Scourge Space Station Add-On Pack - The 4x4 Paper Map Sets (including the Radar Maps) - The Acrylic Ground Asset Tokens (all 6 colour sets) - Prints 1, 2, and 3, and Poster Set If you feel you are missing things from your pledge, that are not listed above, then please let us know and we will see if we can address this as soon as possible for you – please email [email protected]

2. Rules and Scenarios for the Princess Class Liner

We are currently compiling a collection of online assets for backers, which include rules and scenarios, including those for the Princess Class Liner. This will enable for Dropfleet Commander Scenarios that use this beautifully designed Civilian spacecraft within your battles of orbital combat. We will have more information on this, along with other scenarios we are working on, for you soon.

3. The order and where we are with Dispatching Pledges

We have been packing and dispatching in the most efficient way possible. Our dispatch processes have meant that we will be should be dispatching the remaining Commodore Pledges this week and into next week – due to the volumes that our couriers can manage in their vans. We do have a variety of couriers that we use, and we will be utilising all the space we can with them, but there is a certain capacity that we can manage as a maximum. We cannot estimate specific pledge levels and when they will be dispatched, however, every backer will receive email confirmation via our courier companies for when their package has been picked up from our warehouse. As mentioned before, the pledges are being sent as quickly as possible to destinations, so there should be no (or very few) package that is in transit for more than 5 days. We realise this lack of information is not ideal, but we have learnt a lot about our processes, and how we should change what we are doing going forward to improve certain communications and processes. We are sorry we cannot implement anything that improves things much for the current situation we are in, as a lot is based on the original system we have used for managing pledges.

4. Errata and FAQs for Dropfleet Commander

We are currently putting together a list of clarifications regarding the rules parts of Dropfleet Commander, along with some FAQs so that there will be one location for all of these elements to be found. If you have a question that you specifically would like to see being addressed, do let us know or post it on our forum, or email it to us and we will see if we can get it answered in this FAQ.

>>50067748
5. Assembly Instructions and Fast Play Sheets

Along with the Scenarios documents, and online assets, we are working on putting all of the Assembly instructions and a range of the fast play sheets online for people to access and print off where they need. There will also be additional assembly instructions for specific items, like the KS Exclusive Battlecruisers, for those who haven’t got those together yet, as well as the forthcoming Dropfleet Commander Battleships.

6. Electronic Rules

We will be working on an e-book version for Dropfleet Commander (along with a range of Dropzone Commander Online assets too) and hope that this will become available in the next 6-8 months. We will have more information on this in due course.

7. Emails and Responses to them

We are doing our best to get back to emails on both Hawk Wargames accounts ([email protected] and [email protected]) as well as Facebook messages, and will respond to these as quickly as possible. We would be grateful for your patience as we work through these; a lot of our team are committed to packing the remaining Kickstarter Pledges to ensure that the delay is curtailed as much as possible!

Finally, we would like to apologise again, clearly, for two things.

1. We are sorry for breaking our promise to not release Dropfleet Commander into retail before delivering all pledges to backers.

2. We are sorry for the continued delay to the delivery of some of the pledges. We are working as hard as we can to get the remaining pledges out as quickly as possible.

Thank you all for your continued support, and we are loving to see some of the painted armies on social media – these are looking fantastic!

Kind regards

The Hawk Wargames Team

>>50067423
Really, the only options that I can see are:

reduce Jade's cost to 40, keeping in line with all other Shaltari particle ships being cheaper.
OR
Make all particle weaponry a 2+ lock, including cruisers, and adjust pricing as needed.

>>50067807
I like that second one. It would make particle lances stand out more and stop them being overshadowed so much by disintegrators. Granite is cheaper than Amber, but better average damage against all targets along with such a massive arc advantage is a bit much for 10 points imo.

Obsidian is already pretty fucking good though. You'd definitely need to bump up her price, maybe even above Onyx.

>>50067919
I'd say Ruby up to 210
Obsidian to 165
Granite stays at 100
Jade stays at 45

>KS comments are back to full autism fires instead of slow burning sperg smoulders
rip

>>50067969
I remember when such things entertained me. Now they just make me sad.

I want to send something nice to Hawk. They deserve it after putting up with these retarded cunts.

>>50068201
Maybe Khell's fingers in a box? As proof that he will not taint keyboard again.

>>50068268
A bit morbid, anon. Khell is an annoying cunt, but his points and criticisms aren't entirely unfounded.

>So with this update I don't really expect my (no Bolt-ons) Commodore to arrive this or next week. Ergo I will refrain form daily "nothing yet" posts.
>And with the update and the digital rules thing in there, I don't expect any official way to get the rules other than the book. Not even for delayed backers. To that point someone in the Feait212 comments pointed out to me the the rules are already leaked on 4Chan. Therefore I don't see the damage a rules pdf for backers would do at this point.

RED ALERT
NORMIES INBOUND

>>50068329

Post pee pee poo poo pepes quick, we have to ward this place against their foul touch

File: Cybrog.jpg (111KB, 1143x1600px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1143x1600px

>>50068371
>wanting to turn this thread into /r9k/
Not very aesthetic of you, bruv.

>>50068329
>>50068371
> Someone in the Faeit212 comments

Alright, which one of you fuckers let the normies know about /dcg/?

>>50068290
There are other people making those points without being annoying cunts about it and rephrasing the same shit over and over again.

The one that really gets me is "greedy jews redirected backer products to retail for a quick buck". Even without considering basic logistics and the difference between bulk orders and individualised packages, not fulfilling their contracts with retailers could have pretty fucking dire consequences for Hawk and the game.

At least there are people fighting the spergs, even if some of them are going full ass-kisser mode.

>Demanding the box this was supposed to come with isn't asking for free stuff, it's asking for the shit I paid for. And I am going to continue focusing my energy on this until I get my refund, because they missed their end of October deadline and I still have nothing, not even a shipping email - patience has ended.
>If you don't like my whining, help me get my refund. Because at this point, that's the only way it stops.
>t. Khell
T O P W E W
O
P
W
E
W

>>50068557
Maybe if he focuses enough energy he'll run out and power down. Forever.

>>50068584
>local leaf fucking dies from too much shitposting
Kek

>>50068557
He could also be the best troll I've ever seen considering this.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=khell
Quite an apt interpretation.

So, do we have a full list of dud or shit ships?

>UCM
St. Pete: not bad, but definitely tricky to use

>Scourge
Scylla is a bit niche, and depends on your opponent taking enough troopships and bombardment to harass.

>PHR
Hector: not bad, but overshadowed by the Bell and Achilles
Perseus: very bad except in 2500+ point games where there is plenty of targets; will not see tourny play.

>Shaltari
Jade: just not worth it compared to the Topaz.

>>50067423
That approach to mathammer gets a bit silly when you're talking small numbers of dice though. For example, by that method a weapons free granite cruiser does 3 damage, a number it is literally incapable of causing.

Looking at pure probabilities though, the chance of a jade causing one crit is 66%, while the chance of a topaz causing at least one crit is 55%. That's the advantage of a jade. 'Course, the topaz may do damage past armour, but I can't be bothered to do the probability tree right now.

>>50066464
i actually didn't consider that. I have plenty of the gun frigate bridges I can try.

>>50069124
Armour saves are conducted individually for each damage point, so a Granite could do 3.

>>50069189
Both of the granite's weapons are damage 2 particle weapons. It does 0 damage, 2 damage, or 4 damage.

>>50069189
Particle weapons, bruv

>>50069232
Oh right. Fuck, I've been up too long.

What's wrong with the Hyperion? I get that everyone and their dog gets an E11 shot in PHR, but being able to move and fire with a powerful unlimited range weapon still seems like a good deal.

>>50069035

>Toulon

It's not a dud at all mathematically on the table, but it's a dud in my heart. It's just so...vanilla.

>Tokyo

I'm not really sure why I would take it over two madrids and a Berlin besides amount of models required but if someone takes it it's not a huge deal.

>Avalon

Wouldn't call it a dud but I think people are going to be disappointed in how short it's lifespan will be.

>>50069035
Feel like the Strix might also fit into that category. 2 Djinn seem way better in almost any scenario thanks to their survivability and cheapness. Plus going off the rulebook, you roll all your shots together at the same time, which leads a bit of vagueness about whether 6 Djinn get 1 roll of PD against it or 6. If its 1 roll against it, I can't think of many reasons to bring 3 strix when you could bring 6 Djinn.

>>50069372

1 unlimited range shot versus 2 24" shots isn't very impressive when your unit will put its feet on the ground near the middle of a 48" board

>>50069372
Pretty much what >>50069468 said; tables are just too small in DC for infinite range weapons to really shine.

>>50069035

UCM come out pretty well I think.
The St. Petersburg is probably the worst, simply because it's so dependent on T1 ganking and then your opponent making mistakes.
Taipei isn't a bad ship in itself, but it's the only ship in the fleet pushing for CAW range and is going to get wrekt after dropping its hot load. CAW demands a big unit, big units demand points, the whole lot are gonna get shot off the board.
Not quite sure which is better between the Madrid and Tokyo, but they seem to overlap a whole lot. I expect that one of them will pull ahead and the other gets left behind, though I'm not sure which.

Not really qualified to talk about the others. I expect a whole lot of redundancy between the Scourge Cruisers, Light Cruisers and Frigates though.

Getting my two player set this Friday. I don't plan on magnetizing since all the videos I've seen show the ships ending up looking really janky.

What's a good configuration to make two balanced fleets from the two player starter set?

>>50069577
>What's a good configuration to make two balanced fleets from the two player starter set?
Pretty much what the box shows; moscow, berlin, seattle, 2lon, 2lin, shenlong, sphinx, wyvern, 2 harpy, 2 gargoyle.

>>50069604
Ah ok, thanks.

>>50069465
Against 6 djinn, only one lot of pd would be rolled

>>50069442
Vanilla is the best flavour. Toulon-chan will forever work dutifully in the background, letting other ships take the glory while she helps them achieve greatness.

Is it me, or are pretty much 75% of your ships going to be killed even in a fairly successful match?

It seems like there's no point in a continuous fleet of the lifespans are so short.

>>50069856
>It seems like there's no point in a continuous fleet of the lifespans are so short.
That just makes the ones that do survive multiple games that much more awesome.

>>50069856
House-rule disengagements. Alternatively, treat all non-exploding 'deaths' of ships as disablings, or only have attacks that overkill a ship by some HP be a 'death' as opposed to ejecting a powerplant that exploded, or whatnot.

>>50069856
Make reinforcements a thing, and throw in randomness. Players have to balance keeping a reserve for a rainy day and committing enough ships to be effective in the next battle

Are they planning on doing launch assets for the other factions?

File: Captain Laff Returns.jpg (51KB, 680x722px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 680x722px

>mfw one of the peeps I went Commodore with is naming her Scourge after the worst Kickstarter shitposters

>>50069161
Will probably need a bit of greenstuffing to fill the gap, but should do the trick.

File: fsdsdf.jpg (6KB, 251x251px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 251x251px

>>50070751
Brilliant.

>>50070751
...I'm gonna steal that idea. I know Khell was a kickstarter user, do we have enough to name one ship of each type after them?

>>50070751
Gonna steal this too, but for my PHR. We all know they are the biggest shitposters.

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

8KB, 130x130px

>>50071305

Peeps.
Anyone have Any thoughts on shaltari troop deployment where the mothership take a normal order and the voidgate goes full burn?

>>50071723
>full thrust
>Voidgate group goes last on turn one, moves 24" and dips to LO
>goes first on turn two, dips to atmos; already deploying and contesting objectives 36" away.
Sounds like a plan.

>>50071723

Not happening because you're either not going to be in atmosphere because you can't turn on full thrust or you're in atmosphere and only going 2" anyway

>>50071761

Can't change layers if you can't turn my dude

File: Orders.jpg (391KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 800x800px

>>50071773
>>50071783
>you can't turn on max thrust
How about we actually read the rules, eh chaps?

File: image.jpg (104KB, 250x236px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 250x236px

>>50071830

>Daaaaaaave!

>>50071761
Even without dropping troops off in case the Mothership is too far away, a Voidgate's still basically a defense battery that'll swat out a carrier's dropships for a turn if you're lucky.

>>50071723

Turn 1 you're putting your void gates at or past midfield in presumably low orbit with a minor spike which granted, is only 7" but that means the enemy only needs a move+scan range of to start taking pop shots at your gates

Go less than that and there wasn't much of a point in full thrust anyway, it'll usually only be 24" to the nearest sector and going *only* 12" towards it on turn 1 ain't too bad


As a mid game redirect it could work if you can keep the mothership in range

>>50072240
But you can raise shields on the voidgate! That'll give it...er...a 5+ save.

Never mind, as you were.

>>50071761
>>50071773
>>50072076
>>50072240
Nobody actually answered the question. Fantastic.

When you go full Burn or Silent running, you lose the abillity to use launch assets.
The original question; If the gates go double thrust and the mothership does not; can they still deploy that turn?

The gates uses an prohibitive order, but it's not the gates but the mothership that deploys using her launch asset.

>>50072526
The gates still need to be able to launch I would say.

>>50065416
can anyone answer this?

>>50073186
Your taste.

>>50065416
Dave got gudder.

>>50073271
no but seriously, its an objective fact, the quality of the minis have definitely improved.

Have they got a new designer?

>>50073186

Legitimately better designs coming from a now more experienced designer

Everyone I've met likes DFC models more than DZC across the board

>>50073290
>Have they got a new designer?
Nope, Dave has just gotten better.

>>50072526
Yeah, even though the whole group gets the same order, any ship may instead choose standard orders instead. Same with Shields Up! IIRC.

>>50073186
Experience is one hell of a drug.

>>50072526
The whole issue with Shaltari motherships/void gates needs a good once over. When you drop troops, does the mothership spike, the voide gate spike or both?

Your question can be rephrased, which can use a prohibitive order? mothership, gates, or neither?

This question's been bugging me, but I haven't asked it here because I figured /tg/ would be just as stumped as me about this, and it turns out I was right.

File: image.png (301KB, 520x678px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 520x678px

>The UCM lost 5% of its population in the war on Ferrum alone

>>50073776
Means they don't have to feed as many now.

>>50073776
It lost 60% of it's fish on Almunia.

WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE FISH.

>>50073776
>90% of all biomass on Alumnia was killed in the Scourge attack
>the remaining 10% is unfit for human consumption
>this all happened in the span of a few days

>>50073830
I still can't get over the dumb planet naming scheme.

>>50073882
What IS the planet naming scheme?

>>50073882
It's only for the big twelve, as far as I'm aware. It makes sense that a few of them were originally mining colonies, and named after their primary ore, with the others just following the pattern.

>>50073908
>>50073894
Thanks for inadvertently answering anon.

>>50073882

Dumb is their city naming.

Romagrad? Star Casablanca?

fortunately Dave noticed that they suck so he reduced Star Casablanca to rubble.

>>50073981
>Star Casablanca
>not an awesome name

>>50073981
>not wanting Star Capone, Star Casablanca and Star Noir

What is the cradle world Jericho?

>>50074114
Redacted

File: 1378152857147.gif (393KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 640x360px

Making a 500pt PHR list.

Ajax 100
Orion 107
Ganymede 135
2x Medea 78
2x Europa 80
------------------------
500pt

>Any suggestion on improvement?
>One of the Europas can be repaced by a Tier 3 Admiral, but is the admiral even worth it at lower cost games?
>How much worth do the Admiral hold in bigger games?

>>50074159
>troopship and 2 strike carriers at 500
Oh shit nigger what are you doing

>>50073981
>>50074080
>PHR-UCM negotiations over the city of Star-Casablanca
>Barros (because it's always Barros) confuses UCM by offering a hydroelectric power plant as part of the deal
>UCM can't work out why they would want this when fusion power is a thing
>Eventually, just to move things on, they agree
>Barros immediately U-turns, says "frankly my dear, I won't give a dam"
>Turns out the entire set of negotiations were established just so he could make that joke
>POST HUMAN REPUBLIC MOTHERFUCKERS

>>50074187
Too much GROUND SUPERIORITY?

>>50074205
>UCM and PHR negotiating a city neither occupies
Fucking humans.

>>50074260
Not that anon, but probably. At 500 the number of space targets is slim enough, so you risk getting everything that can fight back blown up to early. Honestly, if you have a good bombardment ship I could see you getting away with 0 troops at 500 points by simply tabling your opponent.

>>50074808

Not the original anon but if anyone could do it, it would be PHR.

That list actually looks alright, it's two pure combat ships and a slightly less combat focused ship with some respectable bombardment for the point level.

I would consider swapping the ganymede for an Orpheus but that's just personal taste as I like being able to land hits on strike carriers in atmosphere

>>50070847
I'll try that when I get off work tonight. Pics to come tomorrow.

>>50072526
The way I see it voidgates still need to be able to launch the actual dropships. Thus they are subject to everything that would ordinarily prevent a ship from launching fleet assets.

>>50074114
Eden invasion prior to Space D-Day is code-name Jericho. Sorta like how Normandy during D-Day is code-named Overlord.

>>50075224
I'd definitely go for an Orph in this situation, as you've already got numerical superiority on the ground and some basic bombardment. Better to have something that can deal with enemy spaceships.

>>50076062
>Be so concerned your big invasion is going to get leaked you tell no one except high command what planets you're hitting
That could be an interesting story, talking about the realization everyone has when they're actually liberating the first cradle world instead of doing some fleet movement exercises.

>>50076062
Source on this? Which book?

File: Jerichode.png (55KB, 343x87px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 343x87px

>>50078498

>>50073290
look man I dont want to you know start a shitstorm about this but you literally cannot prove that the quality of something from an artistic standpoint has improved, there is no measure.

Now if you mean the models have fewer defects then sure we can measure that, but as far as hey I think these are designed better no we cant so no you cant objectively say shit about it.

>>50079374
Not even him, but
>autism

It's exceedinly obvious that Dave has become more skilled with his models compared to the early DZC stuff; the gap is not so wide when looking at entirely new things based on entirely new designs like the Broadsword, however, as well as models that he put a huge amount of work into like the Hades.

>>50079374
>>50079407
As a newcomer to Hawk's stuff and a horrid minis addict I'd note that all the basic DZC vehicles have some visual shape issues that stand out. The Tomahawk is rectangular at it's core, the Sabre has a generic rectankular design, the Hunter's "wings" look like the Scourge bio-detailing was laid over a blank wedge, and the Type-1 is ASYMMETRICAL REEEE.

You can tell Dave has improved greatly in what my layperson brain would call "blending his geometry" and softening angles so the eye doesn't end up picking out underlying CAD structure at a glance.

File: IMG3_Scourge_Force_1024x1024.jpg (157KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 960x640px

>>50079374
Are you serious mate? Look at these. Just look at them.

>>50079503
>>50079537
DZC v2.0 models when?

>>50079594
Considering the kickstarter bcs, I could see new models getting put together and claiming to be older models or prototypes. Give us some variety on our list standards.

>>50079537
Yeah one reason I'm getting into DFC and not DZC is because the models are kind of ass in the latter.

>>50079407
>>50079503
>>50079537
The point is none of this is objective, its all your opinion, frankly I dont have a huge issue with the miniatures for DZC, I dont know what you want done to the hunter tank without radically altering it for no reason, have you actually held one in person, its rather small, its got plenty of detail for what it is

and frankly complaining that flat box like tank is flat and box like is just what?

>>50079537
Scourge is by far the worst though, with shit like the Despoiler. PHR is hit or miss (Type 1 redesign when), but most UCM and Shaltari land stuff looks pretty good imo.

>>50076043
But it's not the voidships that drop the tokens. It's the mothership.
The voidgate doesn't even have the launch special rule.

>PHR Quad Laser Vanguard
>Bellerophon
>2 Pandoras
>if opponent leaves a battlegroup open for an alpha, have one or both frigates toss a scan and scorch somebody
>otherwise chill on standard orders, launch squadrons, and blast nerds as they present themselves
Can't wait for my stuff so I can actually try this incomprehensibly advanced tactic. Something tells me it'll end up being a very reliable way to get a Bell killed on turn 2.

>>50080565
Remember that only one of the frigates in the group can active scan each turn.

>>50080659
Right you are. I got mixed up by thinking about the scenario as battlegroup vs battlegroup even though I had it as a single target strat in my head before.

I'd make it three or four Pandoras, but always trying to outrange an opponent for the Bell's safety could lead to a lot of shots being skipped and wasted during maneuvers.

>>50080255
Shaltari is kind of a bizarro faction for me. Really like the ground stuff, but DFC, outside of the largest stuff, is kind of meh. Scourge is the ither way around. Humans are all okay or great.

>>50080819
>kinda meh
Reliably 36'' Threat-range and 18''-24'' shooting range. Basic 100 something cruiser with 4/8 attacks at 3+ and the abillity to shrug of crits like it was regular damage and Scourge's armor degradation doesn't affect them.
>Kinda meh
>Youhwatson

>>50081023
Pretty sure that anon means aesthetically.

You guys notices the contradictions with torpedoes in the rules?
In the launch assets example it States that the torp hits immediatly due to being inside the 9" thrustrange and the bombers hitting next activation due to 2xTRange. Under the Munition detailed explanation it States that torps never hit immediatly and always hit after enemy activation.

So torps all have 18'' range effectivly as it always hit as it was fired at double thrust anyways.

>>50081204
Sort your Capital letters out, Holy shit.

There's a few things like that, they've already said an errata is in the works. Fairly sure its the munitions description that's the right one.

File: IMG_20161103_061848425.jpg (2MB, 4320x2432px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4320x2432px

>>50070847
Interesting look, not opposed to it but it looks strange.

>>50081248
I too hate using the cellphone for posting here as the auto-correct sometimes decides that words should be randomly capitalized, but I gotta have my fix man.

File: 1438752111257.jpg (47KB, 500x466px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x466px

>>50081352
I've got a solution for your autocorrect-related problems. It's called turning off autocorrect.

>>50080313
Didn't the voidgate have a gate value or something like that. The mother ship does the launching yes, no dispute about that but rules wise it would appear that the voidgate is launching fleet assets as well.

>>50081023
>>50081060 is right.

a e s t h e t i c s

>>50081393
As far as I understood the shaltari deployment; the voidgates simply increase the mothership's ground-asset launch range.
But again, I might be wrong.

>>50081379
I personally feel that god damn random capitalized letters are worth the cost of not having to spell everything on the god damn phone.

how the frag is phr supposed to win with anyone ? Slow and shit ships. Even UCM can run circles around them ...

>>50081801
Turn 60 degrees, fire gun.
Put ship in the middle of the table.
Scan 1 or 2 enemies. Weapons free.
Put troops on the ground. Tasty tasty VP.

>>50081801
Big armour. Big guns. Big bombers. Tactics that let them use their guns against multiple targets. Their only ships that are slower than UCM equivalents are troopships and corvettes, everything else is just as fast with better scan ranges and toughness. Their main weakness is that their arcs suck, and that can be counteracted with the right tactics.

>how the frag
Just say fuck like everybody else, it's a great word.

>>50081393
The Voidgate has a special rule Voidgate-1, which tells how many gates can go through this particular voidgate per turn. Presumably, they're future proofing a larger voidgate that could be 2 or 3.

Regardless, the voidgate itself doesn't have a launch charcteristic, nor the Launch special rule. I'm inclined to believe the state of the voidgate only matters as the rulebook clearly states. Within 18" of a launching ship, or another voidgate as part of a chain, within 3" of the target you're trying to launch to, and not dead.

File: cute.jpg (85KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 900x600px

I want a Prowler plushie.

>>50081801

I told you this would happen

They're going to get one game in with their shitty Hector Perseus Ganymede list and bitch about how PHR sucks

Fuckin Normies

>>50081204

It also specifically states torpedoes can never be fired at double thrust but still wait until the next activation to trigger

>>50081945
Ganymede is good though.

>>50081966
But muh dear provides all the bombardment you need!!!

>>50081966

It was the worst 3rd ship I could think of in that specific 3 ship combo

>>50081945
I'd be happy with PHR being less popular with the normies because I enjoy being a special little snowflake.

Ganymede is cool as fuck tho. managed to bom all three of my Shaltari opponents armortokens and then dropping his sticky load of Infantry all over their remains.

>>50082021
They don't actually have 3 bad ships though.

>>50082036
PHR will always be the most popular faction, because most people simply have shit taste :^)

>>50082094
It's true.
Who would ever think than literal space hitler faction would ever be popular.
I bet you're a smug hedgehog.

>>50082094

That's true, perhaps I should say it was the least synergistic choice I could think of

>>50082180
What about 3 Perseus?

File: image.jpg (29KB, 225x311px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 225x311px

>>50082330

Oddly synergistic although not effective


>orbital bombardment guy thinks he Jakarta is overpowered

Fucking

Why

>Kickstarter comments have calmed down
>except for that one guy going on about Hawk lieing to us and having total disregard for backers once they have our money and SPEAKING in RANDOM caps.
topwew

>>50082397
To be fair, the Jakarta is equivalent to two seattles in terms of PD boosting, albeit only within 4".

At most, I can see them dropping it to aegis(5)

>>50082462

>2 seattles

One Seattle can deploy between 3 and 9 PD and isn't stuck doing so if there's nothing it needs to buff PD against

Jakartas are 32 points for 2 extra PD hits on average and if the enemy doesn't have much CAW or assets they just go to waste. I'm not saying they're bad but I don't think they're OP when spammed

>>50082462
No, it's equivalent to two fighter bases. A Seattle can shit out 3 of those a turn.

>>50082520
>One Seattle can deploy between 3 and 9 PD and isn't stuck doing so if there's nothing it needs to buff PD against
Hurr, yeah, I'm retarded; forgot that UCM fighters provide +3 PD.
Yeah, in all honesty, I think Jakarta's are at a pretty good spot. Taking full advantage of their Aegis means bunching their BG together, and that's really going to hurt your maneuvers.
On the other hand, a full group of Jakartas will provide 24 PD if all bubbles overlap, and that's roughly equivalent in cost to a single Seattle.

>>50082556

I see you have an appointment with Traffic James

>>50082593
>Traffic James
Gets me every time.

>>50082593
wut

File: from the book.png (519KB, 365x581px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 365x581px

>>50082618

File: 100%purekek.jpg (282KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1920x1200px

>>50082639
Oh goodness

>>50082639
Also what's the deal with the use of choices when it should be chooses in the book? That's not a Queen's English thing is it.

>>50083270
>Dave
>Queen's English
Gaw blimey, get a load of this posh plonker.

>>50083328
What, is he welsh or something?

Can someone explain Critical Locations to me like I'm stupid please...

I'm confused, in the starter mission for example, are all sectors automatically critical locations so you score for tonnage on turns 4 and 6?

Alternatively do you need to scan them for them to become critical locations?

In addition, if the mission special rules don't specify "Critical Locations" and dependant on the answer to the two questions above, does that mean they can never become critical locations?

Sorry guys, guess I'm just confused as to how that whole critical location piece works.

>>50083395

Well, Hawk are in The West Country AKA the Land that Time Forgot, but Dave himself I think comes from LONDAAAAAWN TAAAWWWN.

File: tumblr_inline_mnozp19s0U1qz4rgp.png (39KB, 500x476px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x476px

>>50083440
Points are scored by having boots on the ground come turn 4 and 6.

Some missions have Critical locations; Which means that you can score additional points on turn 4 and 6 by having superior tonnage within the clusters proximity.

Some missions MIGHT have Surveying instead of critical locations as a win condition.
That means that there are no inherent critical locations and you get VP my touching the clusters. Some of the touched clusters MIGHT become critical locations, in which case refer to the text above.

>>50084066
Boom, thankyou - That pretty much explains it

>Khell fucking wrote a song about being pissed at Hawk
Holy fuck

>>50084456
He's still wrong and stupid, but I can't even hate on that. That's an impressive level of autism.

>>50084456
i ah what, post it?

File: f03d8097cd[1].png (33KB, 469x865px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 469x865px

>>50084670
>>50084679
[Autism Maximizes]
>there are backers applauding him for being such a shitposter

>>50084750
I'll applaud him. This is some artful shitposting right here. He's going to be doing it anyway, might as well make it entertaining.

>>50066450
BB used to be B, then bloody Dreadnought came along and they wanted a distinction between old junk and new battleships. Also IIRC DDs were D, but at some point they decided to go to a two-letter base code so they could tag on additional letters to indicate subtypes. Since Cruisers already had CA (originally Armoured Cruiser, but they became the only type) and carriers had CV (V from a French term for planes, or something) they decided to double the letter if there was only one, hence BB, FF, DD, but CA, CV, etc.

>>50084750
It's a rare thing to find contempt so strong it loops right back round to bedgrudging admiration.

>>50084750
Does he know that people are naming their Scourge ships after him?

>>50084750
why are people so convinced that hawk wont deliver, i mean if there was a precedent for it sure, but there isnt. I mean this isnt the best kickstarter ever, but from what I understand its also far from the worst, a 6 month delay is not unheard of really, not great but not unheard of

>>50085269
>because HAWK is LYING to us
>I SPEAK in RANDOM caps so that means I'M RIGHT

>>50085269
They originally said shipping in June, which realistically means July arrival, so it's not even six months yet, more like four.

>>50085269
They just want a legit reason to be mad.

A lot of these people have admitted to being eBay scalpers who intended to sell their unwanted fleets before retail at inflated prices. They can't do that now and they're mad about it, but they can't cite that as the reason for why they're encouraging people to sabotage the community, as we all know scalpers are scum. So they're inevnting pretend reasons.

Oh shit, page 9; new thread soon, lads

New thread, commanders.

>>50086741
>>50086741
>>50086741