/dcg/ Dropzone/Dropfleet Commander General

File: Shaltari guide to human worlds, page 47.jpg (256KB, 1080x1685px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1080x1685px

>>52158965
Thanks for making the new thread, greatly appreciated.

Hypothetical - a faction arrives that has weapons resembling Burnthrough lasers on multiple ships, and in great profusion. How do you balance them for general play, and how are they different from the usual?

>>52159078
They only get bloom after a certain number of hits, with low number of shots/bad accuracy. These burnthrough weapons can't deal crits, regardless of the roll.

>>52159191

The removing the crits part is the way to go. Burnthrough array that is something like 5+ lock, (10 dice) would be interesting.

File: 1488400480682.jpg (437KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1920x1080px

Ordered my first starter fleet, it'll be arriving Wednesday. All hands to battle stations?

>>52157711
Corvettes fuck strike carriers right up, they're pretty important for balance. Strike carriers will not drop five times with them around. Scourge troopships are also by far the worst because of their fragility, for them I'd be more tempted to go full strike carrier than with UCM or PHR. PHR in particular have access to some underpriced bullshit in the Orpheus.

>>52161913
Actually that's something I'm mildly concerned about. Corvettes are basically the only reliable way to kill Strike Carriers, and the only way to protect your own Strike Carriers from Corvettes is MORE Corvettes.

Which leads to endless Corvette arms race.

>>52162035

Then enter the troopship.

>also there's probably a Command Card for this kind of faggotry.

>>52162035
Bombardment and troopships can beat strike carriers without killing them. Ground combat is slow, and 6 infantry per turn is difficult to keep up with for armour, especially if you have a defence battery and/or a bit if your own armour. Bombardment fucks armour right up and allows you to destroy particularly annoying sectors (or clusters if you take enough)

File: when you cook that omelette just right.jpg (88KB, 557x605px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 557x605px

>when you drill that Leonidas just right
Welcome to the fleet pretty lady

>>52159324
>>52159324
>Removing crits
>Bloom/Flash only after a certain number of hits
That was exactly the method I was considering. My next concern is how much dice each burnthrough gets - if a frigate has those rules on its burnthrough, and only mounts one, what would be a fair amount? Cap at 3, 4 or even 5? Losing the chance to crit is a big hit to damage, but you run the risk of a good dice roll throwing out way, way too much damage from a frigate.

>>52159078
Welcome to the UCM, Sailor!
Ad Vindictum.

>>52164224
I personally like the idea of burnthough value of 2, with 3 or 4 5+ or even 6+ shots. if you get to full burnthrough value, stick a minor spike on the target.

>>52159078
>>52159191
>>52159324
>>52164224
Rather than burnthroughs, how about a faction who's main guns actually have a minimum range?

As in, their main guns can only be fired at targets that are out of their scan range, and as such, must rely solely on CAW as they enter brawling range.
Perhaps a form of special "energy transfer" rule that allows them to move units of energy between weapon systems and defenses. With energy spread equally among all systems, they're an inferior jack-of-all-trades that can't really compete with other factions.
When optimized for a specific role, however, they become immensely powerful in that role at the detriment of being nearly useless in others, at least until they redistribute energy.

File: Scald Range.gif (1MB, 718x301px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 718x301px

>>52165377
That's a very interesting idea. My only worry is that it adds another level of micromanagement to the game, which might turn off some folks. Then again, if it's faction specific, that's easy for folks who dont like it to avoid it.

>>52166406
I mean, I can see it being a simple enough system; as a proof-of-concept example:

>Ship: ...; Dynamic-X
This ship may use up to X energy tokens at the beginning of its activation.

Example of energy rules could be:
>Barrier-X: use 1 energy token to make this ship's armor an X+ passive save
>Bastion-X: use 1 energy token to add X to this ship's PD value
>Overthrust-X: use 1 energy token to add X to this ship's thrust value

>Overcharge-X: use 1 energy token to add X to this weapon's damage value
>Salvo-X: use 1 energy token to add X to this weapon's attack value

So, for example, one of their simple frigates could be:

>Faction X Frigate: Scan 6"; Sig 3"; Thrust 8"; Hull 4; Armor 5+; PD 2; ...; Dynamic-1, Barrier-5++, Bastion-6, Overthrust-6"
>Pulse Battery: 4+ Lock; 2 Attack; 1 Damage; F/S; Salvo-2
>Light Pulse Clusters: 4+ Lock; D3 Attack; 1 Damage; F/S/R; CAW, Salvo-3

>>52166855
And just for fun, battleship and slight rewording.

>Barrier-X: use 1 energy token to make this ship's armor save a passive save. Additional energy token's spent will reduce the value by X.

>Faction X Battleship: Scan 6"; Sig 12"; Thrust 4"; Hull 18; Armor 5+; PD 8; SH; 1; Dynamic-4, Barrier-1, Bastion-6, Overthrust-2"
>Heavy Pulse Battery: 4+ Lock; 4 Attack; 1 Damage; F/S(L); Salvo-2
>Heavy Pulse Battery: 4+ Lock; 4 Attack; 1 Damage; F/S(R); Salvo-2
>Superheavy Accelerator Cannon: 3+ Lock; 1 Attack; 1 Damage; F(N); Overcharge-2
>Heavy Pulse Cluster: 4+ Lock; 3D3 Attack; 1 Damage; F/S/R; CAW, Salvo-3

>>52159078

Of the many soul-crushing scenes that accompanied the fall of the Cradle Worlds to the Scourge menace, truly one of the most poignant was EAA citizens looking on with despair as a crack shaltari dropforce battled their way through the Bronx Zoo to rescue a breeding pair of Spiky Floofs, abandoned to their fates.

>>52166855
Stuff like bastion could probably be trimmed in order to stop the special rules from getting out of control. Better to stick to a basic speed/attack/defence system. Fighters and aegis are both good rules already in place for PD.

>>52167052
That superheavy accelerator is pretty shit.

>>52167177
>Stuff like bastion could probably be trimmed in order to stop the special rules from getting out of control. Better to stick to a basic speed/attack/defence system.
Fair enough.

>That superheavy accelerator is pretty shit.
It was something I pulled out of my ass in three seconds, but I do agree. Maybe start it off on 3 or 4 damage?

I'm also of half a mind that energy tokens should come with some kind of downside, or rather, that NOT using them has a benefit.

Perhaps their ships would also have Regenerate-X, where X is the number of unused energy tokens on that ship?

>>52167263
Actually looking at it more closely the entire thing is pretty bad for killing. Even if you pump everything into weapons, the standard order damage output is barely above other battleships and the weapons free damage is abysmal. Armour and speed are a bit better since the they only take 1-2 tokens to reach the average and can far surpass it if they go all-out.

>>52167439
True enough, but to be fair, those are pretty much randomly selected values. Perhaps something like the following?

>Faction X Battleship: Scan 6"; Sig 12"; Thrust 4"; Hull 18; Armor 5+; PD 8; SH; 1; Dynamic-4, Barrier-1, Overthrust-2"
>Heavy Pulse Battery: 4+ Lock; 3 Attack; 1 Damage; F/S(L); Salvo-3
>Heavy Pulse Battery: 4+ Lock; 3 Attack; 1 Damage; F/S(R); Salvo-3
>Superheavy Accelerator Cannon: 3+ Lock; 1 Attack; 0 Damage; F(N); Overcharge-4
>Heavy Pulse Clusters: 4+ Lock; 3D3 Attack; 1 Damage; F/S/R; CAW, Salvo-3

To help out on weapons free, perhaps Dynamic gets a secondary rule where "If a ship would go Weapons Free, it gains an additional number of energy charges equal to 50% of X, rounded up."
Or some such rule, perhaps. It'd be interesting to give an incentive for frigates to go weapons free.

Why do people like the Taipei? The Amethyst and Djinn completely blow it out of the water as a CAW frigate.

>>52171120
>Why do people like the New Orleans? The Medea and Gargoyle completely blow it out of the water as a strike carrier.
>Why do people like the Ifrit? The Berlin and New Cairo completely blow it out of the water as a beam cruiser.
>Why do people like the Basalt? The Hydra and Bellepheron completely blow it out of the water as a carrier.

>>52165377
I'd just do it as Alternate weapon profiles like the furnace cannons.

One is a long range one, one is CAW. They'd be destroyed by the hedgehogs though because of lol 3 sig

>>52171264
I agree. Its almost like the factions are better at certain areas than others.

>>52171829
Sure, that too. My main point was that you can't take ships from other factions so the comparisons don't particularly matter. The only thing that matters is whether the ship in question is good at its job, which the Taipei is.

>>52171264

Um... about the Basalt. If the PHR built it, I'd take it. Doing what you do efficiently is worth having.

File: Saratoga_1_2048x2048.jpg (143KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 960x640px

https://www.hawkwargames.com/collections/website-re-launch-sale


Saratoga and some other limit edition items are up for sale on the website.

>>52172231
I just grabbed whatever ships I could think of. I'd have used the Seattle but it's more a gunship than a carrier.

>>52172330

I think the be-all end-all is the Orpheus/Every other troopship in the game.

>>52172324

You'd figure the Saratoga would be the mass-production model of the New Cairo refit, but it's doomed to have the least table presence.

>>52172663

They only started making them (New Cairos) right before the Reconquest (like, a year before), so that's probably the case. Legit fluffy- Saratogas probably get fed into the mill at a trickle without proper shakedowns and before they get their hulls painted (hey, also fluffy).

>>52172663
It could be any number of things. A specialised variant, an experimental cooling/power/whatever system deemed too expensive for widespread use, or even maybe the original original way cobras were meant to be mounted on cruisers before the standard modular design was made.

>>52172324
Oh cool, they're selling the Aegaeon, too. Always wanted one of those.

>>52172231

Me, I've got Hydra envy. You only get 3.5 Andromedas for the deck-space on one of those. Somebody convince them to just leave off mounting guns on a Theseus and see how it goes.

>>52172324
>was going to build 3 new cairos for my list
>but now there's these cuties
What do lads? And more importantly, what else should I get to bulk up my order to over 100 pounds?
3x Saratoga, BB, and another starter fleet?

>>52173315
>Somebody convince them to just leave off mounting guns on a Theseus and see how it goes.

>110-120 point light cruiser in groups of 1-3
>literally the single most efficient carrier in the game, on par with the Hydra, being entirely dedicated to its mission with no other weapons save for CAW
It'd be an instant 3-of in every list. It basically saves those 3-bell lists 210-180 points for more troopships and the like.

Slimfit DMC - 1000pts
PHR - 4 launch assets

SR15 Flag battlegroup (285pts)
1 x Heracles - 285pts - S

SR7 Line battlegroup (187pts)
1 x Orion - 107pts - M
2 x Europa - 80pts - L

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

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

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

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

Doing a shits and giggles 1000pt match with 3 other friends.
Only criteria is that some 30% of the entire thing have to be a battleship.
How can I make the list better?

>>52173672
How's this looking, anon?

--------------------------------------
anon1 - 997pts
PHR - 2 launch assets

SR16 Flag battlegroup (322pts)
1 x Heracles - 285pts - S
+ Vice Director (40pts, 3AV)
1 x Calypso - 37pts - L

SR6 Line battlegroup (167pts)
1 x Orpheus - 130pts - M
1 x Calypso - 37pts - L

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

SR5 Line battlegroup (107pts)
1 x Orion - 107pts - M

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

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

>>52173771
>Why wasting points on an Admiral?
Also; I've found the Calypso to be hideously underwhelming against anyone else besides Burnthrough-heavy lists, like Scourge or tailored UCM since the errata no longer gives you torpedo defense.

>>52173861
>>Why wasting points on an Admiral?
Because admirals are good, yo, they're nice for optimizing your launch asset responses.

--------------------------------------
anon1 - 1000pts
PHR - 4 launch assets

SR15 Flag battlegroup (285pts)
1 x Heracles - 285pts - S
+ Fleet Vizier (20pts, 2AV)

SR5 Line battlegroup (130pts)
1 x Orpheus - 130pts - M

SR10 Line battlegroup (230pts)
2 x Ikarus - 230pts - M

SR5 Line battlegroup (89pts)
1 x Theseus - 89pts - M

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

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

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

138KB, 524x458px

>>52173912
What?
You do know that both players have to assign all bombers first, before anyone can deploy fighters, right?

>>52173944
Yes, anon, but doing better on the initiative roll (which admirals help with) allows you to make better decisions as to whether you'll A) put more bombers out or B) hold assets back for some fighters. This is more important against focused carrier groups, like a platinum or double bell, rather than spread out carriers.

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

2MB, 3000x2778px

>>52174006
Ok, that is admittedly a good point.
I'm not sure if it's worth 20 points of units though.
Because that could upgrade Theseus to an Orion.

I assume Orion is better than the Theseus on a general basis.

>>52174047
>I assume Orion is better than the Theseus on a general basis.
"""yes""", but with triple quotations. It is on a direct combat basis, but the fact that the Theseus is faster and can target 2/4 ships on standard/free compared to the Orion's 1/3 Means its so much more variable and dynamic.
It pays for its ability to tear through frigates and wounded ships for slightly less damage, but it's a good trade.

>>52174242
I really appriciate your input.
We might have different opinions and preferances but you're not wrong by any means.
I might give your list a go instead of my own.

The happy days of no-admiral lists are coming to a close soon, anons.

File: Jellybelly.jpg (54KB, 595x449px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 595x449px

>>52174596
COMMAND CARDS WHEN!?

File: 1489307123284.jpg (554KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 1920x1080px

>>52172324
>£10 Aegaeon
>£20 Int'l Shipping

>>52174894
Better work out 90 more pounds of stuff to buy for that free shipping, anon :^)

>>52175163
Golly, that's down to. 110 USD. Thank you, Brexit, you are my greatest ally.

>>52175295
Anon, a pound is 1.22 USD, not 1.10, but still.

>2 BB's and a starter set from Hawk Direct costs 121.56 dollars
>2 BB's and a starter set from TheWarStore costs 126.92

>it's cheaper to order the exact same thing from Britain, and get it faster, so long as I pay enough
Y E S

>>52175163
>>52175295
>90 pound free shipping
>Hrm
>One Saratoga, two Saratoga, three Saratoga four
>Oops, nine Saratogas.

At this rate, the Saratogas might be nearly as common as Cairos--- just like how I doubt there'll be a lot of Johannesburgs with everyone's Atlantises in play.

>>52175460
100 pound free shipping*

Does anyone have that picture of a fuck huge ship and then below it a paragraph written by an admiral about the issues of the ship like it taking hours to turn or different decisions of the ship turning into clans and fighting over territory in the ship among other silly things?

File: PHR Dreadnought.jpg (1MB, 2240x1320px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2240x1320px

>>52176615

>>52176671
You're my hero

>>52176293
What is the Saratoga fluff? Prototype?

>>52176826
I'm shocked they didn't include the fluff description. They almost always do.

Differences so far seem to be: Similar two 'wing' sections and engine decks. Same point defense and ventral sensor array.

New lower and upper hull sections, more pulled back and seemingly less bulky. The centermount laser is cylindrical, while all other lasers are rectangular housings or internal. Upper hull is shorter than the lower, unlike on Cairos.

Looks to me like a later production class than the New Cairos. Much sleeker and resembles the Frigates more.

>>52177545
>inb4 it's a prototype miniaturization of cruisers into destroyers

File: Saratoga-butts.jpg (135KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 960x640px

Ooh, just noticed.
That's an engine sticking out the back of the upper hull. Sleek! And Lewd!

>>52178151
Saratoga confirmed for tramp, purposely wearing a short skirt over her engines like that...

File: Saratoga_3_2048x2048[1].jpg (94KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 960x640px

>>52177627
>>52178151
>>52178327
>that profile
Calling it now, the Saratoga will be the inspiration for UCM destroyers, if they ever come out.

>>52178542
I like the idea, since the hull design is similar but different compared to the standard cruiser design. However, I'd just wonder how they'd outfit destroyers to make them more than up-gunned cruisers.

>>52178693
IMO, that 'special small-medium size' (Tonnage 2 or 3?) should vary per race.

UCM would get a turretfarm with linked weapons, to engage 2 or 3 targets at once and sweep out enemy frigates. Probably a solid CAW missile armament so it can go on a 'torpedo run'.

PHR could have a frontal attack ship, to help assist the closing stages, possibly with other support like Aegis to help their poor PD.

Scourge would get some sort of asshole ship. Dunno what, but it'd be weird. New weapon type?

Shaltari could get some AoE storm ship of sorts, or a larger dedicated close attack ship. Or perhaps a sort of 'Heavy Corvette'.

>>52178755
Honestly, Destroyers could either go L or M.

As of now, we've got:
>L
Corvettes
Frigates
>M
Light Cruisers
Cruisers
>H
Heavy Cruisers
Battlecruisers
>S
Battleships
[Dreadnoughts]

Personally, I'd slot Destroyers into L

>>52178542
>>52178755
>>52179234

Not that I wouldn't flip my shit over a new ship class to buy and paint, but what exactly would separate Light Cruisers and Destroyers?

Aren't destroyers irl just smaller cruisers with a slightly reduced ability for land strike?

>>52179491
Destroyers are a weird class. If we're going WW2 (which seems to be the case in this game's general feel)...

Destroyers are the most capable 'light' ship. As fast as light ships go, able to do every job: Take out subs, take out airplanes, give close bombardment support, deploy smoke coverage to the fleet, act as short-range scouts and use torpedos to engage more powerful ships.

Frigates (or Escorts) in the WW2 sense are 'lesser Destroyers' usually designed to be weaker and cheaper.

The modern use since weapons have gotten far more capable is that 'every' fully fledged surface combatant that's not had stuff skimped on is a Destroyer.

Light Cruisers historically were cruisers. Long ranged, equipped with weapons more powerful than a Destroyer and capable of acting alone if need be for things like raids. Some larger destroyers blurred the lines a bit.

---

For DZC, I'd love to see a type light vessel that you could use in place of Frigates, that'd be somewhere between the '2 damage and you may pop Frigate' and the '6 damage and you may pop CLs'. Something able to reliably destroy an enemy frigate in a single volley, but more expendable and stealthier than a light cruiser. Possibly this would be where every faction's weird stuff could go, like if UCM had a gun combat ship that provided Aegis, or a small bombardment gun and other weapons. Or PHR had a close attack ship using swarmer drones, etc.

>>52179820
A PHR bombardment destroyer would be pretty good, Medeas are safe but weak and Ganymedes can't carry an entire faction's bombardment alone.

>>52179820
Id class a destroyer in DFC as a ship with between 5-7 hull points (depending on faction) that fulfills a really niche specific role instead of the more general roles some other ships fulfil.

Id think UCM would have a ship that coudl shoot into atmosphere (sorta like a subchaser), PHR a bombardment ship. Shaltari might get some sorta hybrid gate ship, and Scourge im not sure

>>52180837

To recreate the genesis of the class (WWI instead of WWII, let's get fundamentalist here, anons), there's a niche for a "Corvette-Destroyer".

>>52180837
>UCM
Depth Charges definitely sound like their kind of deal, if only as a direct counter to Scourge atmos fuckery.

>PHR
Agreed, perhaps something weird like a low-attack high-damage bombardment gun or the like.

>Shaltari
I can see them doing a sort of "heavy voidgate", similar to how the Firedrake works in DZC; maybe a combination Voidgate-2 and a lesser version of the Ion Aura/Storm?

>Scourge
Definitely a frigate-killer, I'd say; three linked occulus beams, for example.

>>52180837
You'd need to be careful making something that could off strike carriers in atmos restricted to one faction.

>>52181012
I think it could be done, and I most trust Hawk to do it given the already fairly tight balance of their games

>That moment when all you wanna play is DZC.
>No one to try it with in my area.
>Only thing people wanna play is 40k, infinity, and historicals.
>Friends aren't interested.

Kill me. All I ever wanted to do was remove jellies as the UCM.

File: tried so hard and got so far.jpg (10KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x480px

>>52180913
Prices can be worked out later.

Istanbul-class Destroyer:
Scan6" Sig3" Th10" H6 A4+ PD3 G2-3 T:L
Copperhead Light Laser: Lc4+ At2 Dam1 F(N) Burnthrough (4), Flash
UF-2200 Mass Driver Turrets: Lc4+ At2 Dam1 F/S
Barracuda Missile Bays: Lc4+ At2 Dam1 F/S/R Close Action

Buenos Aires-class Destroyer: Launch-2 (Duck Bombers)
Scan6" Sig3" Th10" H6 A4+ PD3 G2-3 T:L
UF-2200 Mass Driver Turrets: Lc4+ At2 Dam1 F/S
Barracuda Missile Bays: Lc4+ At2 Dam1 F/S/R Close Action
*Duck Bombers: Th6" Lc2+ At1 Dam1 Atmospheric


Barghest-class Destroyer:
Scan6" Sig3" Th12" H6 A5+ PD6 G2-3 T:L
Oculus Beams: Lc3+ At1 Dam2 F Scald, Linked-1, Linked-2
Oculus Beams: Lc3+ At1 Dam2 F/S(L) Scald, Linked-1
Oculus Beams: Lc3+ At1 Dam2 F/S(R) Scald, Linked-2
Plasma Cloud: Lc3+ At2 Dam1 F/S/R Scald, Close Action

Bunyip-class Destroyer:
Scan6" Sig3" Th12" H6 A5+ PD6 G2-3 T:L
Oculus Beams: Lc3+ At1 Dam2 F Scald
Pulse Cannon: Lc- AtD3+3 Dam1 F/S Mauler (6)


Castor-class Destroyer:
Scan8" Sig3" Th10" H7 A3+ PD3 G2-3 T:L
Medium Calibre Bank: Lc4+ At3 Dam1 F
Heavy Bombardment Turret: Lc2+ At1 Dam2 F/S
Mosquito Drones: Lc4+ At2 Dam1 F/S/R Close Action

Pollux-class Destroyer:
Scan8" Sig3" Th10" H7 A3+ PD3 G2-3 T:L
Medium Calibre Bank: Lc4+ At3 Dam1 F
Locust Drones: Lc3+ AtD3+3 Dam1 F/S/R Close Action (Swarmer)


Tourmaline-class Heavy Voidgate: Voidgate-2, Atmospheric
Scan12" Sig2"/12" Th10" H5 A5+/4+ PD6 G2-3 T:L
Microwave Array: Lc3+ AtD3+2 Dam1 F/S/R Close Action (Beam)

Labradorite-class Heavy Cloudflier: Atmospheric
Scan12" Sig2"/12" Th10" H5 A5+/4+ PD6 G2-3 T:L
Gravity Gyre: Lc4+ At4 Dam1 F/S Escape Velocity
Harpoon Volley: Lc4+ At2 Dam1 F/S/R Close Action

>>52183979
Oh, and as an aside, are those statblocks sufficiently readable? I can't tell at this point since I've gotten used to them, but I sometimes go too far when it comes to making them efficient.

>>52183979
>>52184124
I can't speak for the UCM or PHR ships, but their are a couple of problems with the Shaltari and Scourge.

From most concern to least concern this is my take:

1. Bunyip doesn't have a CAW attack. Not only does this make it the only ship without a CAW, the Scourge more than any other faction rely on and make use of CAW.

2. The profile you've given the Barghest makes it a less effective Yokai. Not necessarily a bad thing, and depending on points could be decent, but trying to fill a role between Harpy and Yokai is going to be extremely difficult.

3. Atmospheric seems really odd on a Shaltari ship, especially one this big. If I was going to give that rule to any faction's destroyers it'd be the Scourge because of the precedent.

4. Escape Velocity is currently a scourge only rule, giving it to other factions could hurt scourge faction identity.

5. None of the scourge attack profiles use D3, all use D6 or 2D6. Extremely minor, but it does break from established patterns.

>>52184447
>1. Bunyip doesn't have a CAW attack. Not only does this make it the only ship without a CAW, the Scourge more than any other faction rely on and make use of CAW.
Maulers are CAW

>2. The profile you've given the Barghest makes it a less effective Yokai. Not necessarily a bad thing, and depending on points could be decent, but trying to fill a role between Harpy and Yokai is going to be extremely difficult.
Yeah, I'm not all that confident in the Barghest. I'm thinking of revising it and giving it new weapons specifically for frigate killing, probably something lock 4+.

>3. Atmospheric seems really odd on a Shaltari ship, especially one this big. If I was going to give that rule to any faction's destroyers it'd be the Scourge because of the precedent.
It started from the suggestion of a heavy voidgate and just sort of progressed from there. I'm not going to give atmospheric to just one of them, and it seems like the kind of weird bullshit Shaltari would do anyway. I'm still considering stealth for the Scourge destroyers though.

>4. Escape Velocity is currently a scourge only rule, giving it to other factions could hurt scourge faction identity.
This is true, and I'm not sure a defensive bunker unit fits the Shaltari style anyway. However I'm also not sure what else to give them. Just basic guns or lances would be boring.

>5. None of the scourge attack profiles use D3, all use D6 or 2D6. Extremely minor, but it does break from established patterns.
I just didn't want it to be too swingy. Maulers are fucking weird weapons so until I see one in action I'm trying to stick to reliable numbers, and D3 is relatively reliable.

>>52183979
Personally, I'd do stuff like the following:

>Seoul class Destroyer: (~60-65 points)
Scan 6"; Sig 4"; Thrust 10"; Hull 6; A 4+; PD 3; G 2-3; T L
UF-2200 Mass Driver Turret: 4+ Lock; 1 Attack; 1 Damage; F/S
Gar Missile Bays (void armament): 4+ Lock; 4 Attack; 1 Damage; F/S/R; CAW, Alt-1
Gar Missile Bays (atmos armament): 2+ Lock; 1 Attack; 2 Damage; F/S/R; CAW, Terminal Velocity*, Void-to-Air**, Alt-1

Terminal Velocity*: This weapon can only be fired at targets below the attacking ship's orbital layer.
Void-to-Air**: This weapon ignores all penalties for firing at targets in atmosphere if the attacking ship is not in atmosphere.

>Golem class Destroyer (~55-60 points)
Scan 6"; Sig 4"; Thrust 12"; Hull 6; A 5+; PD 6; G 2-3; T L
Occulus Lance: 3+ Lock; 1 Attack; 3 Damage; F; Scald, Flash
Plasma Cloud: 3+ Lock; 2 Attack; 1 Damage; F/S/R; Scald, CAW

>Cadmus class Destroyer (~55 points)
Scan 8"; Sig 4"; Thrust 10"; Hull 7; A 3+; PD 3; G 2-3; T L
Medium Calibre Turret: 4+ Lock; 2 Attack; 1 Damage; F
Bombardment Battery: 3+ Lock; 6 Attack; 1 Damage; F/S/R
Wasp Drones: 3+ Lock; D3+1 Attack; 1 Damage; F/S/R; CAW

No idea what to do with the Shaltari, maybe something like:

>Slate class Auxiliary Carrier (~65-70 points)
Scan 12"; Sig 2"/12"; Thrust 10"; Hull 5; A 5+/4++; PD 6; G 2-3; T L; Launch
Harpoon Volley; 4+ Lock; 2 Attack; 1 Damage; F/S/R; CAW
Fighters and Bombers: 2
Gates: 1

>>52186530
Gates can only be launched in atmosphere, so that would need a special rule or something. As-is the voidgate rule on the Slate would be literally unusable.

Not sure about that Scourge one, they already have the Ifrit and long range combat isn't really their style. They need extra attacks more than they need extra damage.

UCM and PHR are fine, conceptually they're similar to mine so I'll obviously like them, but I'd hesitate before making a bombardment ship more efficient than Madrids, especially with that extra scan and thrust.

>>52186799
Slate isn't a voidgate, it's a down-sized mothership. It'd require its own voidgates as well.

Scourge, I figure, is just an answer for them to quickly and efficiently kill any light vessel. 3 damage will cripple any frigate, including PHR, and flash is just a nice utility extra .

the Cadmus is litterally just the Ganymede with its medium batteries and troop capacity stripped out and downsized to a destroyer hull, but making it ~55-60 points wouldn't be too untoward. Remember, the Madrid still has 2+ lock.

>>52186891
>Slate isn't a voidgate, it's a down-sized mothership. It'd require its own voidgates as well.
Oh, my mistake. That makes more sense.

>Scourge, I figure, is just an answer for them to quickly and efficiently kill any light vessel. 3 damage will cripple any frigate, including PHR, and flash is just a nice utility extra .
That oculus lance isn't something I'd use to kill frigates. The arcs aren't good if you're being flanked, there's a high chance to whiff, if you do hit chances are that you're going to overkill, and the utility is completely useless against something that's already dead. It's a weapon better against big ships, in fact it's pretty great against them with an almost 40% chance for a major spike on target. Against frigates you want something with the ability to hit multiple ships at once and preferably good arcs, lots of power isn't required.

>the Cadmus is litterally just the Ganymede with its medium batteries and troop capacity stripped out and downsized to a destroyer hull, but making it ~55-60 points wouldn't be too untoward. Remember, the Madrid still has 2+ lock.
Madrid is also more expensive. It's just maths, 4 Cadmus reach 12 average damage for 220 points while 3 Madrids take 237 points for the same damage. All the factions' bombardment functions differently, and UCM's schtick is efficiency. I wouldn't want to take that from them.
The reason to have a ship like the Cadmus is because the way the PHR's bombardment functions (mounted on troop-carrying vessels) currently doesn't work. The Ganymede lacks the power to go solo and they're rarely close enough to work together, while the Medea barely contributes. A supplemental bombardment ship could salvage that by helping the Ganymede do its job, but making it even more efficient than the UCM kind of misses the point.

>worthless primitives can't even keep a thread alive
Every day reveals new depths of primitive incompetence.

>>52187244

The Medea works for single strike-carrier on single strike-carrier (or Gate) cluster duels on the periphery, keeps the bastard across the table from dropping an Armor first if he knows what's good for him.

Double-bombardment Ganymede would probably be a worthwhile ship, nor would it require a new cruiser package (double sprues, after all).

>>52187244
>That oculus lance ... lots of power isn't required.
I'd disagree; against frigates I'd want something with a good chance to outright cripple them. Against non-PHR frigates, the lance would bring them down to 1 hull and thus all but ensure that it will be dead by the end of turn (6/9 cripplings do 2 or more damage, and fire will kill it otherwise for 7/9). Same for the PHR, but without the fire.

In my experience, dealing with frigate swarms is about quickly and efficiently popping ship without overkilling them. Ships don't lose effectiveness (in general) as you damage them, and so being able to do enough damage at once to cripple is paramount.

A bunch of two damage weapons are nice, but they aren't guaranteed to get that two damage, since a cripple will only occur 33% of the time on 3+
With 3 damage, the critical still cripples, but now the non-critical damage has a better chance to do crippling.
Against 4+ armor, a 2 damage weapon only has a 25% chance to do at least 2 damage.
Against 4+ armor, a 3 damage weapon has a 50% chance to do at least 2 damage.

>Madrid is ... the point.
I don't see what the problem is, in that case, just increase the points cost to 60.
Alternately, the weapon could just be changed to:
Bombardment Bank: 3+ Lock; 4 attack; 1 damage; F/S/R; Bombardment

>>52190514

Yeah, baselines suck.

So after enjoying dropfleet so much, I've sprung and bought the 2 player box for dropzone, and i've been thumbing through the rules to figure out wtf i'm doing to add ground assets to my jellies.

So /dcg/, what should I look at to supplement the starter box? I like the look of prowlers and their bigger cousins, but I don't have any experience on the table to know if they're any good or not.

Working on a 999-point Scourge list for general use. This is what I have so far :

--------------------------------------
Scourge - Evolution - 718pts
Scourge - 5 launch assets

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

SR9 Pathfinder battlegroup (233pts)
1 x Chimera - 105pts - M
2 x Gargoyle - 64pts - L
2 x Gargoyle - 64pts - L

SR9 Pathfinder battlegroup (280pts)
1 x Hydra - 140pts - M
4 x Charybdis - 140pts - L
--------------------------------------

I have one more battlegroup to fill and I'm currently looking at one of these two options.

SR12 Line battlegroup (274pts)
2 x Yokai - 190pts - M
2 x Harpy - 84pts - L

-OR-

SR9 Line battlegroup (278pts)
1 x Ifrit - 110pts - M
4 x Harpy - 168pts - L

They're fairly comparable, although the Yokai having the option of going Weapons Free for massively increased firepower but at the cost of worse SR. Durability is also a bit weird, since the Yokai have such poor PD and higher signature than the Harpies.

What do people think?

>>52195534
I'd favor the ifrit. Harpies can provide some nice supporting fire, but you want at least 3 to make them worth your while. The ifrit, as well, while not UCM grade is still not a terrible little ship, and its alt fire on 2+ is really good at marking targets with flash for the rest of your fleet to zero in on.

>>52194904
Usual recommendations are a command vehicle (Kodiak for the UCM usually, the new Overseer for the Scourge) and after that messing around with whatever you like. Not a bunch of lame duck units, at least in Scourge Kinda sorta the flame tank, although depending on how heavy on infantry is that performs okay. UCM you end up being a bit underperforming if you run Sabers instead of Katanas depending on who you talk to but UCM can do some just fine lists.

>>52196418
Command, cool. So how would the giant enemy crab command work, would the oppressor be suitable or should i specialize a bit more for command's sake?

>>52192169
>dealing with frigate swarms is about quickly and efficiently popping ship without overkilling them
That's exactly what it does against most frigates. It does more damage than necessary for crippling while never doing enough to actually kill, and is likely to whiff. The oculus array is a good anti-frigate weapon imo (except against PHR, their frigates are weird and require a completely different approach). It's reliable, has a high chance to deal exactly 2 damage, and if it gets lucky and deals max damage then it does just enough to kill a frigate completely.
Separate the array into linked oculus beams and you get a little extra versatility if you want to split your fire for whatever reason.

>>52194904
Walker armies can be pretty good. Giant enemy crab is a solid command choice and unusually hardy for Scourge, Prowlers can spot for arty and are highly effective in large numbers, and the normal spider tanks are incapable of demo but can really fuck up vehicles or aircraft. You'll want to invest in some demo units as well as Destroyers and/or Eviscerators, but you definitely aren't gimping yourself with walkers.

>>52196675
Unlike the Overseer which provides an anti-air threat bubble and insane support buffs (even after the errata to make it less of an auto-include), the Oppressor is pure offense. It 's pretty zippy and can kill just about anything on the ground short of a PHR Type-4 walker.

Just be sure you can play around the fact that it wants to get in close and can't do anything to aircraft.

>>52198319
>>52198292
So looking at it, I'm thinking enemy crab with prowlers and stalkers making the bulk of the straight up brawler units, and making use of the harbingers and a squad or two of AA tanks to keep enemy air off the crab legion. It's a shame the force org doesn't allow for too many destroyers, but use them to spearhead infantry movements, and some plain main grav tanks to blast away at buildings. Throw in an artillery walker for backline fuckchucking...no idea what size game all that would come to, but unless I'm missing something that should cover my bases, no?

File: 1474260981654.png (867KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

867KB, 540x960px

>fell for the "Euro shirts are smaller than American shirts" meme when filling out KS survey
>I now have a backer shirt that fits like a potato sack
I hope there's a potential player somewhere in my area who wears XL and enjoys being a walking advertisment.

>>52198968
Honestly, you could probably try and write Hawk and ask about tradein options.

>>52198823
You could probably fit all that in a standard 1500 list. It would be a tight fit, but it still seems solid.

>>52198968
Turn it into a poncho.

>>52197929
We're not talking about the occulus array, though, we've been talking about occulus beams and the occulus lance. Occulus arrays are even more overkill against frigates!

http://anydice.com/program/b09f

Link related shows that occulus beams have, at best (against 5+ armor), a 48% chance to do 2 damage. That means for any given firing, they are not likely to cripple a full health frigate.
Meanwhile for the occulus lance, in its worst case scenario (against 3+ armor), it has a 42% chance to do at least 2 damage (including the chance to do 3 damage); it's far more likely to do the required 2 damage than an occulus beam is, AND has the added benefit of being able to cripple a PHR cruiser, if lucky.

This isn't taking Scald into account, though.

TL;DR: You're vastly overestimating the efficiency of a single occulus beam at crippling frigates, and an entire occulus array is overkill against a single frigate. Remember, the point of this discussion is to design a weapon that can do the required 2 damage efficiently, meaning its overall maximum damage is only 2 or 3 damage.

Does Hawk have anything regarding traditional or standard tribal color schemes for their Shaltari?

I'm looking at all of this beautiful shit and can't for the life of me determine how to paint it. If possible I'd like to match an existing shaltari tribe, but the standard orange with yellow highlights strikes me as boring. I've seen some beautiful alternate schemes, but like I said I'd prefer to match (or at least resemble) a more "official" paint scheme.

>>52199454
Check the DZC core rulebook, all the factions have alternate schemes in the back of their unit sections.

>>52199165
Off the cuff loadout incoming

-Crablings, 1499 pts-
>Commander
-Enslaver 30pts
>Scourge Oppressors
Command
-Oppressor 145pts
-Harbinger w/ mini arc caster 70 pts
Support
-Reaper x3 117pts
-Marauder 41 pts
Scout
-Prowler x8 72 pts
>Scourge Vanguard
Standard
-Stalker x6 81pts
-Harbinger x2 w/ mini arc casters 140pts
Standard
-Hunter x3 105pts
-Marauder 41pts
>Scourge Warrior Cabal
Troops
-Warriors x3 98pts
-Invader 17pts
Troops
-Warriors x3 98pts
-Invader 17pts
-Marauder 41pts
>Scourge Occupation Patrol
Support
-Annihilator 150pts
Scout
-Prowler x8 72pts
Exotic
-Destroyers x2 100pts
-Invader 17pts

>>52199454

Shaltari are probably even more OC friendly than space marines. There's a piss-ant tribe with one mothership and a few frigates and a cruiser for every player to have their own one.

>>52199409
I've been talking about multiple oculus beams vs a single oculus lance. Of course the weapon with +1 damage will be better, I'm not debating that. Split fire is nice but I wouldn't use it all the time, a weapon that averages 1 damage obviously isn't going to reliably hit 2 damage.

However, look at the most likely outcomes of firing each weapon.
>oculus beam
Either a total whiff or 2 damage. A decent chance to cripple a frigate, but it's very much a gamble.
>oculus lance
Either a total whiff or 3 damage. About 10% more likely to cripple than a beam (good), and more than 30% more likely to dump an extraneous extra hit on the target after that (wasteful).
>oculus array or 2 oculus beams
2 damage is the most likely outcome by far, with either a whiff or 4 damage being the next most likely. 2 damage is just enough to cripple as always, but 4 damage is also an important number. Instead of just crippling the ship like 2 or 3 damage and giving it a 1/3 chance to survive, the frigate instantly dies. 3 damage isn't much different from 2 damage against frigates, but 4 damage is special because it's exactly the amount of damage required for a certain kill.

I'm not arguing that the oculus lance is a bad gun, mind you. It's pretty good, if a little swingy. I just wouldn't use it against most frigates since it would usually dump 1 more damage point than needed onto a frigate (or 1 less than needed if the opponent gets lucky), and that 1 extra damage point could be far more effective if used against a bigger ship. There is an exception though: It would be excellent against PHR frigates. Arrays are more likely to hit 2 damage, but they have a massive falloff past that. Something that can semi-reliably hit 3 damage would be fantastic against PHR since it could send them right into crippling without having to mess around with multiple weapons.

>AND has the added benefit of being able to cripple a PHR cruiser
*frigate

>>52200073
>>oculus beam
>Either a total whiff or 2 damage. A decent chance to cripple a frigate, but it's very much a gamble.
>>oculus lance
>Either a total whiff or 3 damage. About 10% more likely to cripple than a beam (good),

But that's wrong, you're not taking into account normal hits versus armor. The chance to whiff for both is withing 5% for each other, so I wouldn't consider that an issue.

> and more than 30% more likely to dump an extraneous extra hit on the target after that (wasteful).
Not at all, since it now means that a fire result will kill the frigate at the end of that turn as well. Additionally, it can cripple PHR frigates.


>2 damage is the most likely outcome by far, with either a whiff or 4 damage being the next most likely. 2 damage is just enough to cripple as always, but 4 damage is also an important number. Instead of just crippling the ship like 2 or 3 damage and giving it a 1/3 chance to survive, the frigate instantly dies. 3 damage isn't much different from 2 damage against frigates, but 4 damage is special because it's exactly the amount of damage required for a certain kill.
This is what I'm talking about in regards to overkill, though; killing a frigate with exactly 4 damage is wasting how much you can get from crippling rolls, and as such that extra two damage could have been put to better use against a capital ship.

As an example; the UCM -COULD- use a 6400 battery to shoot down frigates, and it'd be likely to outright cripple it, but it's not an efficient use of firepower.

>*frigate
Yeah, sorry.

All this said, though, Putting cruiser-level weapons on destroyers might not be that bad of an idea (except in the case of the UCM)

For example; Scourge destroyer gets a single array; PHR destroyers gets batteries instead of broadsides; Shaltari destroyer gets a single particle lance or disinitegrator battery.

UCM can't really fit into this mould because their LC's already fit into that pattern.

>>52199409
You're missing his point. Anon (as far as I can tell) was arguing that to be an effective anti-frigate weapon, it needs to have a very high chance of dealing 2 damage with the possibility of dealing 4 damage. Now, I don't have any games under my belt yet, but from my experiences in other wargames, 42% for a chance to kill a model is too low. Personally, I like my worst cases to have a 50% chance of model removal. Now that might be a pipe dream, but I'm gonna crunch these numbers anyway.

6/9 or ~66% chance for frigate death from taking two damage.

50% / 66% = .75

This means that in order for the worst case to result in a dead frigate 50% of the time, I need at least a 75% chance to deal 2 damage in the worst case. Against a 3+ armor save, on average 1/3 of the damage you deal will go through. Because the damage will either be saved or go through, we can use Binomial Distribution. Naming the probability of success (dealing damage) as 1/3, the probability of failure (not dealing damage) as 2/3, the number of successes as 2 (the damage we need to deal), and setting our chance for this to occur as 3/4, we can find how much damage a weapon will need to be capable of to deal that 2 damage at a rate of 75%.

I'll save you the nitty-gritty of solving a probability density function with an unknown total number of trials, but to have a 75% chance of dealing 2 guaranteed damage against 3+ armor, it is required to deal ~7 damage (actually 7.17641), before lock chance and criticals.

As an approximation for a 3+ lock we can assume that 1/3 of shots miss, 1/3 hit, and 1/3 crit. This means (assuming all damage is spread equally) we can reduce our needed damage by approx. 33% as it assumes that every shot hits, but also that shots cannot bypass the 3+ save (increase damage by 33% to compensate for needing to hit reduce by 50% to compensate for crits ~ net of down by 33%).

7.17641 * ~.666 = 4.78427

So 4 damage potential minimum, with 5 as a gold standard.

File: 1477877706933.jpg (325KB, 1358x590px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 1358x590px

Built my first Berlin-class, in the process of putting together my frigates. It feels weird, having only ever played 28mm games before, but it feels good.

Should I go with the suggested Seattle+Moscow for my remaining two cruisers, or should I outfit them differently?

>>52200313
>But that's wrong, you're not taking into account normal hits versus armor
I'm using your calculations mang, those are just the most likely outcomes of the weapons firing. I took standard hits into account, if I was only talking about crits then they'd have the same chance to cripple. rather than a 5-10% difference.

>Not at all, since it now means that a fire result will kill the frigate at the end of that turn as well.
Mostly extraneous, then. They still get to take an action that turn, and changing 6/9 cripplekill chance to 7/9 isn't a big deal.
>Additionally, it can cripple PHR frigates.
True. The lance is very nice against PHR frigates, but their frigates are not the norm.

>This is what I'm talking about in regards to overkill, though; killing a frigate with exactly 4 damage is wasting how much you can get from crippling rolls, and as such that extra two damage could have been put to better use against a capital ship.
It honestly depends on how much you want to kill the frigate. I'll often concentrate 2 Toulons or Harpies on the same frigate or even shoot them with an oculus array or 6400 battery, because a ~70% chance to cripple means that ship is probably about to fucking die. 50% can be acceptable odds in some situations, but it definitely isn't good odds.

>>52200758
All good. Nothing wasted there.

Or go fuck around on DFlist and build towards whatever you want your fleet to look like.

So my friend just got into this game and is trying to drag me into it too, what should I know about it? I have a vague idea about each one of the factions, but I don't know much.

>>52200882

If you go Shaltari, you're going to be grubbing for void-gates like a meth addict. One per cruiser sprue. You're going to want six.

>>52200758
You'll get a lot of mileage out of Berlin-chan, and Seattle's a good general role ship. Moscow's also very flexible, as every game has use for a battering ram that selects it's course, then unloads turrets every turn until it dies in glory.

After that, is where the options come in on if you want more Seattles, Madrids, and at least one or more San Franciscos--- or to start fielding Light Cruisers.

>>52200882
$200 for a 1500 point fleet, plus a bit in painting and modelling supplies.

>>52201205
I have 40k supplies, will those work?

>>52201218
Same stuff. Might add an exacto knife, but glue and plastic are glue and plastic.

>>52201205
Any suggestions as to which fleet?

>>52201235
I thought you said you knew about them.

Other people can give you better rundowns but do you want smug humans, smug aliens, evil aliens, or bloody pissed humans?

>>52201254
I know some of the lore stuff, I was just wondering about it from a player's perspective, if there's one that's more fun.

>>52201267
I'm pretty fond of the ripshit pissed humans.
Evil aliens kinda grow on me.

I started out liking the smug humans the most just because their models didn't look way too overdesigned, but I got the 2-player starter set and wound up really liking both angry humans and evil aliens once I got my hands on them.

Smug aliens aren't played much near me, but I don't have much experience. I've played one game with my starter set, and walked my m8s through another.

>>52201083
Shaltari cruisers are pretty good so I wouldn't get too worried about that. A couple of heavies, a few motherships, a Turquoise or two for bombardment, a Basalt for strike craft, maybe an Amber. It adds up.

It helps that you don't need more than 8 frigates in the whole fleet. If Voidgates came in frigate sprues then you'd be in some trouble.

>>52201267
Scourge are short range glass cannons. They encourage stealthy and aggressive play, in that order. Their ships are fast and a few have

PHR tend to be slower and much tougher. They are the only faction to use broadsides, which can put out heaps of damage but require maneuvering to use properly since they can only shoot sideways.

UCM are all rounders with no overarching big advantages but lots of little ones. Not as tough as PHR and not as shooty or fast as Scourge, but they've got really good arcs on their guns, high damage laser beams, pretty cheap ships, special frigates designed for scanning and really good bombardment.

Shaltari are fucking weird. Gimmick city. They get huge range, shields that turn them from the brittlest ships to the toughest at the expense of making their signature huge (which is normally tiny), a fancy special troop deployment system, weird guns that ignore armour instead of beams, and probably a bunch of other weird shit I'm forgetting.

>>52201502
>Their ships are fast and a few have

That's some meta-cloaking right there.

>>52201267
Each faction has a different playstyle, so which one you think of as fun will largely depend on your preferences.

Scourge are the in your face faction, supported by special rules that make closing distances unmolested easier, fast speeds, and a rule that makes their guns more potent at closer ranges.

Shaltari are the hit and run faction, supported by fastest speeds, most agile ships, longest range weapons, long range troop deployment, and a couple of special gimmicks that aid in mitigating short periods of high risk.

UCM are the pop and drop faction; supported by an unparalleled ability to pinpoint specific ships for termination, amazing firing arcs on almost every ship, very good weapon ranges, and solid armor to mitigate return fire.

PHR are the brawler and counterplay faction; supported by most firepower per point cost, strongest armor, high chances for critical hits, high damage weapons, high number of attacks per firing action.

>>52201595
Shaltari and Scourge are all the same speed. And I assume by good ranges for UCM you mean the Lima.

>>52201671
I indeed do. Reliably placing spikes on targets is effectively a range increaser, that's how I see it anyway.

>>52201872
Seems to me like most of the time there's only one (or *maybe* two) turns that a 6-12 inch range boost matters. Most of the time it's just getting the right facing with the right orders.

>>52201992

When that one turn is two Moscows (ok, it'll be a Moscow and an Atlantis) going weapons free on a choice target one turn early, it matters a lot.

>>52201502
>>52201595
Cool, thanks. I'm thinking of playing Scourge now, mostly to counter my friends, who are all playing some flavor of human.

>>52202495

Shaltari are always fluffy, too.

>>52202495
In that case, two words of advice.

D O U B L E
A K U M A

There is no other ship in the game that is as efficient as the Basilisk/Akuma when it comes to "killing shit dead and staying alive", except for the Shaltari Diamond battleship (and for good reason)
I hope that just looking at its stats will let you know why this is so.

>>52202964
I'm sad because I really want to get a dragon or a daemon for my scourge, but the akuma and manticore just 2gud.

>>52202984
>I'm sad because I really want to get a dragon or a daemon for my scourge, but the akuma and manticore just 2gud.

They should put out more, then.

>as if that were possible

>>52202984
Nerfs may come. Dave likes balance, and Akumas are pretty obviously unbalanced.

My fear is that PHR troopships will stay underpriced forever and the meta of taking 3-4 of them won't change. They're not hyperefficient combat monsters like Glasses or Akumas, they're just incredibly spammable because of their utility.

Scourge alternate collector Strix when?
PHR alternate collector Theseus when?
Shaltari alternate collector frigates when?

File: PHR Strategy Council.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>52203904
>sleek alternate Theseus
TAKE MY MONEY

>>52203904
Let's see the limiteds

UCM - Escape Pod
PHR - Big Ares
Resistance - Double Decker Bus
UCM - Metal New Orleans
UCM - Saratoga-chan
PHR - Aegeon Dropship

... am i missing anything else besides the 2xs? Sounds like we need some Scourge or Shaltari promos.

>>52203380
I think the key for Cloak will be: Errata'ing them so that they can never generate a spike from Orders. So they can full thrust, weapons free, etc without penalty.

Thus, stuff like Active Scans and Flash can pick them up.

>>52204012
I mean, if we're doing a wishlist:

>3x Phoenix
>3x Corsair
>3x Hades
>3x Jaguar

>alt Obsidian
>alt Bell
>alt Wyvern