/dcg/ Dropzone/Dropfleet Commander General

He who bakes too early sells stale bread.

>tfw Scourge will never ever get the equivalent of a Broadsword or Ferrum, at least as something carried in their transports
Get fucked jellyheads.

>>54851443
Oppressor is equivalent to a Broadsword, it takes a whole medium dropship.

Anything taking an entire Despoiler to carry would look pretty fucking stupid, but Annihilators are the same speed and DP in the air so they're pretty much equivalent.

>>54851243
That is some good art.

We really need like a stand alone fluff book.

>>54851291

And He who drop watch in toilet is bound to have a shitty time.

>Idris Elba when..

>>54851291
>>54853667
>PHR Famous Admiral who's a wannabe Sun Tzu that constantly quips fortune cookie wisdom over comms whenever either fleet does something

>>54854527
We could use some famous admirals, I would love to see some fancy Battlecruier and battleship variants. Or a fucking Capt who is in a ultra sexy Taipei.

File: IMG_3557.jpg (51KB, 789x720px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 789x720px

>>54854527
>UCM admiral's face when
On that note, I hope we get a reason why the PHR's primary strategy appears to be putting the UCM on tilt 24/7.

>>54857049
Yea, I am not sure I am tracking their end state. They have manageage to piss of the UCM so much it is hard to tell if that wasn't their intention.

Its likely they just believe themselves to be so advanced they can't even tell why they are failing so badly at manipulating them.

>>54857923
It's a game to all but the upper level, anon.

>that one Menchit pilot who chides his familiar for wanting to turn on ammo conversation and ruin his kill count

>>54857049
In the PHR's defence, most of the dropfleet shenanigans blamed on them are quite possibly a hidden faction pulling black ops shit.

>>54858318
A few of them are. Their fleets attacking UCM ones and aiding ferals and otherwise causing the UCM probelms just fuels UCM rage.

>>54858318
>tfw all the aliens are either edgy rage monsters, unbelievably smug, or are pulling more fuckery than even the PHR
Being UCM is suffering.

>>54860005
UCM exist to get fucking pissed and kill alien and traitor shits.

Bumpage

What's on your DropCommander to do list /dcg/? Will post mine in the morning, it's going to take a while to count up

>>54864061
>figure out what ships to round out my fleets with using the last of my KS/starter sprues and build that shit
>assemble my chaotic pile of DZC blisters
>prime that shit
>wait for ordered airbrush to arrive in a couple weeks
>learn how to not suck at airbrushing
>paint my fleet schemes better than my previous attempts by hand
>plan and scratchbuild some Dropzone terrain before 2.0 releases
>budget for a £100 order from Hawk when the map credit comes in (hopefully around the time the 2.0 rule book drops)
>get more than one other person involved in playing either game
That last one's going to be the hardest task, I think.

>>54864061
Two battlecruisers left to paint/assemble and after nearly a year I'll have nothing in the painting queue. Two fleets, space stations (which are meh but whatever I'm counting them done), two sets of launch assets, ground asset tokens, all done to a moderately tolerable level since I'm bad at painting.

It seems like the best way to get the Scourge battlecruiser prows interchangeable is with pinning, which I've never done. So that's a model that'll inevitably get fucked up.

>>54864352
ugh fuck not ground asset tokens, I meant sector tokens. I like the idea of making ground asset tokens out of DZC models but it just doesn't seem practical for the space they'd take up around clusters.

>>54864352
Pinning isn't all that bad, anon - obviously, a pin vice helps, if you dont already have one. Just notch a pilot hole with your knife, drill a small hole, glue a piece of paperclip into that end, and then put a small dot of paint on the end of the paper clip. Match up the two pieces as best you can, and press them against the piece of paper clip with the paint on it. Bam, you've marked the guide hole. Drill that one out, clip the paper clip to fit, and you're done. It's a quick process.

The biggest problem I've found is keeping the drill bit level and straight - drilling a hole and then realizing the paper clip is stick out at a 45 degree angle is incredibly frustrating.

Played some games this weekend... with the UCM deck finally in hand! Managed to somehow draw Superior Numbers twice, and used it to soak espionage both times from an actually more important card: In one case, atmos bombers (so that my New York slaughtered 3 enemy strike carriers!), and one double-shot laser card so that Avalon could gut an Akuma it rushed into range of in one shot.

Espionage is more important than ever with these things.

>>54867932
The cards are great. I've never liked the DZC ones since their effectiveness is all over the place, but they really nailed it with DFC. Combining Gunnery Masters with a St Pete is the best feeling, and Leviathan of the Void is terrifying on a big ship.

>>54864061
>7 Shaltari cruiser, 16 frigates, battleship and corvettes
>Two UCM starters
>About 1500p of dzc shaltari
>About 1500p of dzc scourge
>3 UCM dzc starters
>PHR dzc starter


W H Y

>>54869940
You better skip work and focus on painting.

>>54867932

Superior Numbers is a pretty damn kick as card as well. I feel like in DZ the cards were nice to haves. The decks really change the game is looks like in DF.

>>54870272
What does Superior Numbers do? I haven't seen any of the decks yet.

>>54871301
You add a squadron of 1 Rio or 3 Toulons to a selected battlegroup. They come on from the board edge and have the outlier rule so they don't fuck up formation.

Free 105 points worth of spaceship. Pretty fucking sweet.

>>54871335
Oh god damn, that's nasty. I love it.

>>54871335
>>54871543

And gets those Rios assembled too, I guess.

Cards are pretty good at getting across faction character from what I've seen.

>>54871543
archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/53468183/#q53637199
archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/53149889/#53292271

And because I'm just the most charitable fellow around, here's full lists of UCM and PHR+Scourge cards respectively. I don't think anyone has given us the hedgeheg deck.

File: 1502077473732.jpg (204KB, 876x1920px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 876x1920px

>>54871644

>faction character getting across!

>>54871543
>>54871335

What do you all prefer? The Rio or the 3 Toulons?

I am kind of thinking Toulons especially if you have that sweet mass driver volley card.

But Rio is a sexy little minx that dances on sand too.

>>54871659
You're a saint, anon.
>Nanomachine colonies
>Massed Weapon Banks
>Electromag deflectors
>Repair drone squadron

Mah god.

>>54871827
I dunno really, I guess it would depend on exactly what I needed at the time. Both are useful, really - having more targets for the enemy to shoot at is always good, but the Rio is an excellent distraction in and of itself.

>>54871827
Depends on what you need. I'd default to Toulons, especially late game. Outlier is helpful for flanking and the extra speed helps them make up for lost time. An extra big ship to help hold ground is a pretty decent proposition too, though. Early game I'd need to have a serious think about it.

Rio would actually be a better use of Mass Driver Volley if you go weapons free (and why wouldn't you), as you'd trade out one of your extra 4+ shots for a 3+ shot.

>>54871981
Repair drone is my favorite. Especially with PHR armor and launch asset superiority. How annoying would that shit be to double viper laser a Herc only to have it repair like it was no big deal.

>>54871981

Remember though- CRIPPLED SHIPS CANNOT USE THE "REGENERATE" SPECIAL RULE TO REGAIN LOST HULL POINTS!

>>54872089
Yeah, it's definitely a card that would need to be played early in the game (assuming you draw it, of course).

>>54872047
>launch asset superiority
If anything that's a weakness with repair drones. For other factions it would be a no-brainer to use that card, but PHR bombers are so expensive and valuable that

>>54871659
I made a rough post from work a couple weeks back, I'll go through my deck and format it properly this morning.

>>54872240

That sounds like on paper thinking. You don't always have a target that is worth while. Would you rather try to run the guantlet of PD from a bunch of Jakartas with intensify point defense? Or would you rather take a sure bet and potentially bring a heavy ship back from the dead. Especially when its firing DMC or Neutron missiles.

>>54873062
I'm not saying it isn't a great card, just that the PHR's style of launch asset superiority isn't an advantage in that context. They're all about quality over quantity of strike craft and pay a lot for each asset, but the drones don't care at all about that quality. They'd do the same work for the cheaper carriers of other factions if they weren't PHR exclusive.

>>54873191

I see what you are saying, what i was trying to get at is that PHR are already very likely to have max launch assets. Its all the more reason to grab more.

Since it says any number of fighter tokens from the target ship, you could swarm a ship with launches from all over the board and get some serious repair done.

Shaltari deck dump incoming

3x Advanced Picket Ships
>Play: During Cleanup Stage of Planning
>Target: one friendly Group of Tonnage L
>Effect: Ships in this group use their lower base Signature even when their shields are up this turn.

3x Warspire Nexus
>Play: During Cleanup Stage of Planning Phase
>Target: One Cluster or Station containing Shaltari Assets
>Effect: The target gains 2+ Passive CM until end of turn

2x Stealth Impel Mines
>Play: at the end of Set Strategy Deck Stage
>Target: one enemy ship
>Effect: You may turn this ship up to 45 degrees. This does not affect the ship's activation or orders this turn.

2x Orbital Disruption Field
>Play: after moving a friendly ship with an Ion Aura weapon
>Target: that ship
>Effect: This ship must go on Standard Orders and cannot fire weapons this turn. For the rest of the turn, treat the area within 3" of the ship as a Dense Debris Field for all other ships.

>>54874339
3x Misdirection
>Play: After Movement Stage of Ground Combat
>Target: One Cluster
>Effect: Any Friendly ground tokens in this Cluster may move to any other Sector in this Cluster freely this turn.

2x Scout Gate Expedition
>Play: When deploying any number of Ground Assets
>Target: One Voidgate
>Effect: You may deploy one token with 18" of that Voidgate instead of the usual range.

2x Navigational Mastery
>Play: On Activation of a Friendly Battlegroup
>Target: One Group in that Battlegroup
>Effect: All ships in that Group gain Vectored and +2" Thrust for this activation.

1x Concealed Gate Network
>Play: At the beginning of the Launch Phase
>Target: One Cluster or Station
>Effect: Any number of friendly Shaltari Ground Assets in the target Cluster/Station may move to a single Sector or Station within 18" of the target. They may not take part in Ground Combat or contribute to scoring this turn.

>>54874492
3x Foresight
>Play: Before drawing Command Cards
>Target: Your Command Deck
>Effect: Look at the top five cards of your command deck. You may put any number of them on the bottom of your deck, then return the rest to the top in any order.

2x Lives of Experience
>Play: After drawing Command Cards
>Target: Your command deck
>Effect: You may draw 3 additional Command Cards.

1x False Diplomacy
>Play: At the end of Set Strategy Deck Stage
>Target: One Opponent's Strategy Deck
>Effect: For the rest of the turn, whenever players reveal their Strategy Cards, the opponent must roll a DICE. On a 1-2, they add 5 to their Strategy Rating. On a 3+, they must reveal the next card and activate that card instead. Return the first card to the bottom of their Strategy Deck.

1x Power to the Weapons
>Play: Before firing with one Group
>Target: All ships in this Group
>Effect: All ships in the Group may fire all weapons on Standard Orders this turn, but may not raise shields this turn.

And that's it

>>54874591
>>54874492
>>54874339
Man, there is some serious douchebaggery in the Shaltari deck. Thanks for sharing though, it's appreciated.

>>54876740
Looks great.
But I do think, making the Dots of the propulsion system in a contrasting bright colour Like blue or even green would help to make it more visually interesting.

>>54876740
Dunno how I feel about that. I can see the technical skill, but it seems...I dunno. Like it's missing something, I guess.

>>54878339
Needs both contrast and something to define the edges of the sections better; the model all blends together. Painting the engine panels a different color and maybe some edge highlighting or something like that would do it.

>>54876740
This dude won best painter at the last hawk tourny

How are the scourge ships painted again?

Silver base coat
Purple and Green ghost tints?

>>54868720
I imagine they'll release a 2nd edition command deck since they'll be changing a few mechanics. Hopefully with the experience of now two separate games and a larger staff to play test, they'll fix it up. Personally, I don't like the cards being super effective. I kinda like the ones that are just enough to nudge an even fight or if they are powerful, they come at a drawback. I do appreciate how the decks play to the strengths of the armies though and don't have one to one equivalents all the time or are even straight better than other decks. Case in point, opfor training and enemy within. Opfor training adds CQB dice flat out, where as enemy within removes them from the enemy and adds them to your own. I like that, it makes you play aggressively with scourge and even their basic warriors can give exotic infantry a run for their money with that card where as with the UCM they have a more balanced all around approach where in a pinch they can get a slight boost.

>>54881697
Pretty much, yeah. Do the tints in a stripe pattern across the model, add a bit of detailing to the engines and exhaust ports, put something nice and bright for the eyes to make them pop.

>>54882536
>are even straight better than other decks
This is my main problem with current DZC cards. They're imbalanced as fuck. Situational cards are fine, but they should at least be good in their chosen situation to make up for that, otherwise they're nothing but worthless filler. If UCM was normally bad at CQB but could gain a big advantage with command cards, that would be cool and unique. But the cards aren't good enough, so UCM is just bad at CQB and has a bunch of dog shit cluttering up their deck (Heroic Sacrifice being an exception since it works well with their playstyle of running away and dropping the building).
DFC cards might be a little imbalanced too, but it's very hard to tell because all the decks are so useful and unique that I'd be happy with any of them.

>>54883129
That is kind of a core mechanics problem though. The way the game has grown for UCM, CQB is a bad call. The result is you have a lot of worthless cards. 2nd should really address some of these issues.

DF will probably have a few of those too, but hopefully it is minimal.

>>54885871
Even if UCM was decent in CQB, most of its cards would still be bad.
OPFOR Tactics, Soldiers of the Resistance and Partisan Strike are nice in concept but don't make enough of a difference to take over the possibility of an Espionage or Call For Extraction, No Retreat has the triple whammy of being minor, highly situational and a terrible fit for the faction, Heroic Sacrifice is literally a worse version of a generic card, and Ace In The Making only applies to fast movers (no matter the quality of FMs no card should be that specific, it's like a DFC card only affecting battlecruisers).
Intel Report is okay if niche, it helps you decide how to use your beautiful precious Espionage. For Mankind has managed to just barely claw its way to relevance based on the merits of a single unit, but I'd still much rather one of the good generic cards. I'll admit Black Project and Fighter Escort are pretty solid after their buffs though.

But that's the problem. For DFC the worst cards are still something useful that can significantly change the outcome of the game, whereas the worst DZC cards can safely be dismissed because even the potential of a decent card is far better than the certainty of terrible trash. I'm not completely against the cards not being as significant as DFC ones, but the quality needs to be more consistent and the baseline level of usefulness needs to be above where it is now.

>>54886462
Dave said that in DZC 2nd edition each faction will have 60 cards to build a 40 card deck out of, meaning that some cards will be highly situational but you wonxt have to include them.

>>54886650
NEAT

>>54886462

You have a valid point, though I think mine still has some merit as well.


Dave will save us though.

>>54886650
Oh yeah, forgot about that. Seems good then, it allows for more specific cards.

>you will never protect Jakarta-chan from enemy fire while she keeps the bombers and missiles off your back

>>54890643
> Formation Defense – Until their next activation, ships in this group that do not already have aegis gain aegis 3

Fuck yes I can

What do you all think will be the Gen con exclusive?

>>54893953
I don't think there's one specifically. The alternate warstrider and the Athens-class cruiser will be there though.

File: IMG_3952.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

Beep bop sf here with Muh table

File: IMG_3817.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

>>54881697

Muh one day to paint scourge

File: IMG_3628.png (98KB, 393x328px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 393x328px

>>54896558
I-is that metallic gold?

File: IMAG0948.jpg (2MB, 2688x1520px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2688x1520px

>>54896558
Well painted, scourge scum. Let's fight!

>>54883129
I agree, guess I didn't really lay it out clearly, I wrote that after being up for like 36 hours straight.

DZC cards are imbalanced. Quite a few are just shit and the UCM gets the shaft the hardest, and yeah, a lot of that is from the way the game grew with new units and changes to mechanics. I'm hoping after DFC and the way they did cards for them, we'll see a far better balanced command card system that still plays to the asymmetrical balance they've got. Some ideas for cards based off of what we've seen for DFC could be things like "Call in a free FM attack run" or maybe for the UCM specifically "Call in either two squads of Legionaires in a condor and bears OR a squad of Praetorians in a Raven." I'd actually also like to see the SR system brought over, I like that and could add a lot of depth to planning your turn.

>>54896558
I like the blue growths.

>>54902976

Agreed. The blue really brings to life such a neutral color. The models are very simply painted, but the combination makes them look very complex. The growths help break up the solid beige color well. Love it!

>>54899321
I really enjoy the smug look on the PHR ship. The PHR shipgirl might be my least favorite but I do still enjoy the personality in the design.

Fucking gen con tomorrow. Need to see completed VTOL chopper!

>>54882536
They already announced what they're doimg for the DZC decks in a beasts of war video. The deck you buy will be like 56 cards or something, and then you build you're deck of the same size as the current decks are.

They wanted cards that can play off of certain army bulds and synergies without making those useless draws for someone not running that kind of list.

>>54910446
He still has a point though. Lots of those cards need a version 2.0.

>>54911716
for sure, which cards are we thinking, I think alot of the CQB cards for any faction are too minor of a boost and situational for the most part, you cant really be certain you will engage in a CQB during a turn, and having to hang onto a card for several turns in the hopes you can swing that CQB. I feel like the UCM Could use some more cards that convey the fact that they have superior numbers on the ground and the air in most situations.

>>54911716
>>54912459
Many of the current cards are 'too situational and too weak'. Best example: Crazy pilot. LZs are already so generous, I've literally never seen this used in a necessary way in over 50 games of DZC.

DFC has the right idea. There's a lot of moderate power but very applicable cards. Simple bonuses to hit. Bonuses to your sig, etc. And a few very strong 'turn shifter' abilities.

In DZC, think of how many useless 'add a meaningless number of die to CQC' attack type cards there are. The vital ones that do out of turn activations are a tiny minority of the deck. Weapon, Drive and Countermeasures hacks are the only worthwhile cards in the entire PHR deck for example, the rest being generic crap.

>>54912459
Thats why I was advocating a bigger change to infantry. There should be situations where they are actual opportunities to use all their stats. Right now CQB and objective searching is pretty much it.

>>54914659
Some of them can use their guns while searching for objectives, or are harder to kill while searching for objectives.

Pre-nerf Hazard Suits were really strange and interesting because sometimes they spent a turn not searching for objectives but instead shooting people. Some stuff more like that would be intriguing.

Simply put, infantry doesn't behave like Infantry. Why would 40 people cram into a building? They should be dispersed, moving quickly from place to place. Crossing a street shouldn't take two turns in this game.

Infantry should relocate between adjacent buildings easily, and APCs should be much faster in how they drop off or pick up troops. Infantry should also be able to fight armor that gets too close with high effectiveness, and be very hard to kill except when machine gunned in the open.

>>54916311
infantry should probably be faster, or at least harder to hit solidly with single shot AT weapons. I wonder if the rules are too strict with getting in and out of vehicles


Another thing I wonder if may certain weapon types should ignore embark/disembark restrictions on shooting, like say Flame weapons, and weapons under a certain strength like machine guns, maybe a speical tag for em like assault, this weapon can be fired even if a unit will embark or disembark, but gets a +2 accuracy penalty or something.

>>54916311
>Crossing a street shouldn't take two turns in this game.
I remember someone suggesting that infantry be able to move at double speed if they performed no other actions in a turn. Could be a decent idea to give them a speed boost without making them inexplicably as fast as vehicles, and also do more to distinguish the different movement values (Hazard Suits would be as effectively immobile as ever, while Sirens and Razorworms could move between buildings more easily)

>APCs should be much faster in how they drop off or pick up troops
I like the idea of APCs being able to drop their cargo after a full move, it would help distinguish them from dropships which need to spend more time slowing down and landing. That seems to be a popular one, I wouldn't be surprised if it made an appearance in 2.0

>Infantry should also be able to fight armor that gets too close with high effectiveness
Eh, I feel like that should depend on the unit. But if you're talking about basic general purpose troops, Warriors and Resistance Fighters can already fuck up armour that gets too close with E11 and a one-shot E13 respectively. Braves are lower power but their long range makes up for it, Legionnaires could potentially make 9" E9 work if they were cheaper, and Immortals... Yeah, you've got a point with Immortals. Longreach teams can make E7 sniper rifles work (though why they don't have strafe I have no idea), but in the normal squads they're just rather ineffective.

>be very hard to kill except when machine gunned in the open
That's something I don't agree with so much, but changing the effects of different weapons towards infantry is probably a good idea. I think AT weapons are in a decent place, as they can only do 2DP per shot and don't have many of those, with cover also making them 3+ to both hit and damage. Area weapons are rather excessive though with their 2d6 hits on garrisons, and demo is a whole other can of worms.

So some rules hints posted.

Dropships aren't attachrd to battleground anymore.

Vehciles can shoot after disembarking at a +2 accuracy penalty(AA weapons can't shoot at aircraft, though).

Some changes coming to CQB and how infantry in buildings work as well.

>>54920196
Link to info

https://www.hawkwargames.com/blogs/articles/gen-con-sneak-peek-dropzone-commander-2nd-edition

>>54920257
I dig em. I'm hoping that +2 applies to infantry as well so I can redeploy them quickly and not lose them for effectively half the game if I don't drop them in a decent spot to begin with.

>>54920257
For the lazy. Keep in mind none of this shit is finalised

>Open Transports
>Previously squads were only able to be carried by transports bought for them whilst building your army. This led to squads unable to be redeployed if their transport was shot down. Transports now operate flexibly and are able to activate and carry squads in a different battlegroup from their previous activation, provided they have not already activated and have the capacity to carry that squad.

>Disembarking and Shooting
>Vehicles may now fire their weapons after disembarking from a transport with a +2 penalty to their accuracy. This encourages redeployment of squads during the game as they no longer lose out on a full turn of shooting. Certain weapons may not fire after disembarking such as AA weapons at aircraft.

>Objectives
>All squads in a building may search for an objective whether they are the occupier or not, although the occupier receives a bonus to their roll. Nearby APCs also provide a bonus to the squad's roll.

CQB
>Certain factors now affect a squad's effectiveness in CQB, receiving more dice for being the occupier or losing dice for searching or shooting that turn. In addition, CQB dice may be distributed more freely to opposing squads of your choice.

>Collateral Damage
>The rolls to resolve Falling Masonry, now named Collateral Damage, have been simplified and reduced to Energy 5. In addition, buildings can no longer be dealt additional damage by weapons without the Demolisher keyword.

Firing after deployment is a big deal, they seem dedicated to making dropships central to everything which is a good thing imo.
Demo change is vague. It could mean that area weapons no longer double down, which opens up some future options for Hawk I guess. Or it could mean that non-demolisher weapons can't crit against buildings, which totally changes the game and gives demo a well needed smack with the nerf bat. E5 masonry is nice for Immortals.
Extra APC utility is cool.

>>54920196
>Vehciles can shoot after disembarking at a +2 accuracy penalty(AA weapons can't shoot at aircraft, though).

Rapid Assault Ares HERE WE GO

>>54920520
Well so far it looks like it's only for vehicles.

>>54920591
I feel like they're trying to make dropships more what they were intended to be the first time around. Personally I found dropships were useful for getting units near the objectives and then just peace out and either run away or get shot down. Except maybe gates because of their rules.

Being able to shoot after disembarking will be huge. It'll really open up some opportunities.

>>54920592
Rapid assault Broadsword fun-times

>>54920667
>Rapid assault Broadsword fun-times
Eh, it's more about the fact that the Ares' lock can never be anything worse than 3+, meaning they're at full combat effectiveness when hotdropped.

>>54922574
True, but being able to shoot the turn you disembark a Broadsword will be fun.

But yeah, the Ares is about to be brutal unless they change its rules.

>>54922637
>hot dropping a swarm of Sabres
Oh boy

>>54924762
Oh hey, indirect buff to heavy dropships?

>>54924890
Perhaps, but there's not much difference between an albatross and three condors when it comes to swarm drops.

>>54927040
It does encourage you to bring 9 sabers though, and the albatross does end up being cheaper. 9 4+ energy 10 shots should give someone a headache.

Think of it this way: 9 sabres hot-dropping has the firepower of 5 sabres. If you knock out at least 5 sabre's worth of enemies using Articulated formation fire, what the hell can they possibly hit you back with?

File: IMG_0856.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

How do these look? all WIP

>>54930098
Pick out the details and they'll look good. Do some selective edge highlighting and it'll be good too.

>>54930335
Yes I'm planning on doing red lights on all of them, black engines with some kind of rudimentary glow, and general highlights once I have a couple more thin layers on.

>>54929894
A big AT template. They're pretty common now.

Gencon bump

>>54930717
What factions have a big e11 template aside from scourge, phr, and resistance, and on one unit each, not that common

>>54933943
Larger E10 templates can also do a decent job against Sabres. 1/3 chance to kill and it'll hit quite a few.

The number of 'L' sized AT-templates is pretty darn small and very easily spotted. It's what: Some resistance barrage, the Firedrake, and the Retaliator?

Firedrake can only do it at short range, and should be shot to death. Or you scatter more.
Retaliator can be anticipated and is rarely seen.
Resistance rarely uses barrage trucks since they suck balls. Scuds are good, but they're only blast-M. The trick is when facing Cyclones, but they're becoming rarer with how stupid good the Typhoons are.

Formation battle is more viable than ever with the hotdrop change.

Can't type it out right now, but answers from Dave forthcoming soon(tm)

Gencon is pretty schway tbqh

>>54938762
Barrel Bomber, Phoenix and Alexander, though they have limited shots. Desolator technically counts too I guess. Smaller templates like Hades/Aether nanobots also do good work against close swarms.
I'm not even saying it's an invalid tactic, I intend to use it myself (I already use a 6Sabre+3Rapier Albatross at times) but you seemed to have a rather foolhardy level of confidence in it in your initial post. The firing on drop rule is good for tank gangs, but they still have effective counters that will not simply go away. I'm not entirely confident in using such a tactic against skimmers either, as hitting on 6 is always bad juju.

I don't face Resistance much these days. I thought the barrage trucks were generally considered pretty good? Or has that changed? Either way if they're really bad they'll likely be buffed, the firing on drop rule will not come alone.

>>54939818
I think people are seriously overestimating the effectiveness of E10 templates on A10 armor formations, they are alot better served as anti shaltari/scourge weapons, doing damage on a 5+ doesnt really get you alot, especially given the points you have to spend on the platform that does it, your gonna need a few barrage trucks, and a transport

Alright, Gencon stuff in no particular order

>future Cruiser/Frigate variants
Most likely similar to how the KS battlecruisers were done; future variants will be sold as resin add on blisters that fit the plastic models.

>DZC/DFC expansion schedule
Both will advance the story line in general and leapfrog each other, but obviously with more emphasis put on space or the ground

>spoilered units in DFC
Osprey, Chromia, Executor, and type-5/6/7s are all secret hush-hush, will not be coming out in DZC 2.0, but are on the way.
Type-5 is "big", but Dave didn't specify whether that was smaller than the type-4, the same size, or bigger.
Type

The Chromia will indeed be a variant of the Ferrum's chasis

>Ares and the new hotdrop attacking rule
The Ares' special rule is being entirely reworked, or just given a special case where it doesn't apply at all the turn it's dropped.

>DFC launch asset 10mm models
Dave does want to make them, even if just as collectors edition stuff.
Bulk landers will NOT be getting 10 mm models, as they'd be between 1-1.5 feet long in 10 mm scale

>launch assets, super carriers, and dreadnoughts
The New York is still just a regular battleship/carrier despite it having 7 launch assets; the classification is relative entirely on the faction itself.
UCM will be getting an actual super carrier at some point with 9-10 launch assets, or somewhere around there, which implies that dreadnoughts will definitely be a thing as well.

>Shaltari civvies / infrastructure
Hasn't been revealed yet, and likely won't for a very long time, but the vast majority of Shaltari are involved in the military in some way or another.
There is a smaller population of "civilian" Shaltari, but they've done their time in the military.

>>54944341
>Chromia is a Ferrum variant
well shit damn is that interesting. I wonder if they stripped out the launch bad to add in other things or if it will also launch drones that do other things.

>>54944476
Probably some kind of buff like the Overseer, perhaps?

>>54944476
It seems like a fat Kodiak so it could get bigger bombardment support, but for the most part I'd expect it to be mostly comms based (dealing with initiative, command radius or other stuff not directly fighting related)

>>54947264
Maybe some kind of accuracy bonus?

CQB Hazard Suits when?

I wonder how different unit sizes will work with flexible dropping, now. For instance, would a condor built to pick up Bears be able to pick up Sabres?
I would assume do, otherwise it would affect only UCM and Scourge.

It will be interesting to see how light dropships work, and infantry in general.

>>54954848
>TERMINATORS READY

>>54954848
I can only imagine how embarrassing they would be in comparison to other CQC troops. UCM just can't win when they start fighting in buildings.

File: angry_pepe.jpg (40KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 900x900px

>Decided to finally paint the 3 UCM dzc starters I have for demos
>Order green spray from Wayland
>Oh actually it's not in stock you'll have to wait :^)

REEEEEEEEE let me try and work through my massive backlog so I can demo

>>54958369

As perky Ajax knows, it isn't the size of the broadsides it's what you do with them and how fast you can get them in somebodies face.

>>54962773
It disturbs me how rapidly the Japanese desire to fuck cute military hardware disseminated into the West.
Dropfleet Collection when?

File: ship girls.jpg (4MB, 6995x2256px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 6995x2256px

Gonna be working on shaltari shipgirl soon, thinking about making it one of the motherships. The Big question is what do you ppl want.

1.true shaltari waifu (lol)
2.geometric non organic waifus
3.shaltari given human proportions
4.normal human in shaltari outfit

on a minor side note I am on 20% off commissions should you want to get me to draw any of the other ships.

>>54964420
absolutely option 1

>>54964420
Shaltari waifu piloting a geometric non organic waifu suit

>>54964420
#1 or 4. Shaltari Monstergirl in Shipsuit.

>>54964420
#1 riding in #2, preferably. I like the contrast we'd get out of hot girl > hot girl > hot girl > urchin grayyylien in space mech.
I can't say if I'd prefer abstract geometric shapes or hot mechgirl for the outer frame, though.

>>54964612
>I can't say if I'd prefer abstract geometric shapes or hot mechgirl for the outer frame, though.
>implying they're not the same

>>54944341
I thought they mentioned dreadnoughts already - unless I'm mistaken, dreadnoughts are not going to be some massive super ship 2ft long, but tougher, bulkier and upgunned models only slightly larger than a battleship.

Unless that was entirely imagined. It's possible.

>>54965695
Nah, you've got it right. Basically they'll be to battleships what heavy cruisers are to normal cruisers.

File: shaltariwaifu.jpg (232KB, 988x1600px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 988x1600px

>>54964420

>>54964420
4

>>54970648
Shit taste tbqh, omae

>>54969613
alternate name would be Taipei getting into scourge scald range.

Anybody at Gencon? I want to feed vicariously off of Dropzone funtimes

>>54975519
>Anybody at Gencon? I want to feed vicariously off of Dropzone funtimes
I was there on Friday, see >>54944341; didn't play any games though, since couldn't safely transport models onnaplane (and not because they weren't painted :^) )

Snagged 3 Athens, a Scorpion, sectors, and a UCM command deck.
The studio models are beyond amazing in person, especially the new BC's.

Anything being shown at gencon?

>>54976540

Nevermind I'm certifiably retarded.

>>54944341

Wait no super heavy walkers for 2.0?

Lame.

>>54976689
The type-4 is a superheavy walker, anon.

Personally, when it comes out, I'm expecting the type-5 to be the PHR's version of the Broadsword; some big walker (but smaller than the type-4) that takes up an entire Neptune as its only transport option.

Type-6/7 might be too big to even have models of, except as collectors edition stuff.

>>54976739

Man I hope the type is bigger then the type 4. I need an even bigger stompier breakthrough walker.

File: PHR-Aegaeon-Dropship.jpg (141KB, 1712x889px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1712x889px

>>54976739
>>54977158
I kinda want them to be a semi replacement for the main walkers for PHR, im really not a fan of the basic type 1 walkers. Type 2 walkers are ok though.

Or atleast give us a hull variant, I love my Aegaeon variant.

Wonder if PHR in general will get a speed boost, though the new dropships will make it a little more forgiving.

Gencon'r here. Just invested in both DZC and DFC, starter boxes and rulebooks for both armies. Brother got Shaltari.

Any tips to new players? (Where to find other players, how to treat the armies, fun stuff to try out in the beginning?)

>>54978437
Check your LGS. As for trying stuff out, definitely play with the different scenarios. Some will favor certain compositions and styles of play. And don't be a dick about measuring, the models are small and it's easy to be imprecise in placing them.

>>54977245
Another standard choice would be cool. I don't play much PHR so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the type 1s will always step on each other's toes. I think dumping Menchit and Phobos into support would be for the best, with Menchit teaming up with its A2 friend and Phobos possibly receiving a slight price drop to compensate. Then another AT thing, maybe a long range glass cannon or whatever, can step in as an alternative to Ares.

Personally I'm waiting for a non hideous Marauder variant so I can buy as many of them as I'll ever need.

Does PHR even need more speed anymore? Dropships are slightly slower than UCM, type 1 and type 2 mechs are slow as hell, and Janus is pretty slow for a scout vehicle, but aside from that they've got a wide range of 6" stuff, some 9" infantry and even 12" pseudo gunships. If anyone needs a speed boost at this point it's UCM.

>>54980857
>Then another AT thing, maybe a long range glass cannon or whatever, can step in as an alternative to Ares.

I'm wanting a standard choice jetskimmer tbqh; maybe something with an Apollo railgun stuck on the turret or the like.

>>54983639
Eh, I feel like only having the E11 and scanning array isn't really good enough if the competition is faster and also tougher. Jetskimmers are better off as supporting units imo, they're not meant to be a focus for PHR like they are Scourge and Shaltari.

Hotdropping could breathe a lot of lofe back into standard units. I just hope we see more of them hit the table.

>>54983954
Seems like it'll breathe life into conventional tanks in general. They rely a lot on dropships to get around, so the new universal transport and hotdrop rules mean a lot to them.

>>54976689
Fuck no. I hope they never go much larger than the current bricks. Every time i see the huge stuff in 40k and warmachine they just seem completely unwieldy and unfun.

File: knights.jpg (10KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 275x183px

>>54986260
Wait you don't like having gigantic super heavy models that are usually poorly balanced and dominate the field? WHAT WRONG WITH YOU!?!?
I once played against this sort of this btw it was painful.
I just hope it doesn't get much bigger than the hades unless they intend on making a separate game for it.

>>54986260
I wanted to see them as terrain/ scenario pieces.

Were there no pictures of new stuff at Gen/Con?

>>54986361
As someone who loves combined arms listbuilding, superheavies (and the ability to spam them) were the tipping point that convinced me to quit 40k.
Well, that and the gut-wrenchingly imbalanced aircraft rules.

>>54986260

We need bigger stompier toys anon. Search your heart you know it to be true. I need a mech that the size of the annihilator in height and three times the length.

I wish to stride the battlefield as a god of war and shit on my opponents then die via a billion paper cuts.

File: 20170818_111116.jpg (3MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4128x2322px

>>54989376
I've got some pics of the scourge station bits and gubbins

File: 20170818_111102.jpg (3MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4128x2322px

>>54989475

>>54964420
I want me a st. Petersburg tan but while my wallet could afford it I'm not sure my dignity would survive.

>>54990919
Please, its anonymous dignity unless you're hanging it on a wall. And that shit ain't worth nothin'.

>>54993235
>not printing your weeaboo art commissions for display
Shame is for normies

>>54944341
>Osprey, Chromia, Executor, and type-5/6/7s

What are these asa new guy? There's a part of me that really wants big stompy shit as a PHR fan and large scourge hovertanks or something.

File: 20170822_023759.jpg (5MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4032x3024px

Getting stuff painted up for demos, do I do the cockpit gloss black, or does the two tone grey work better?

>>54996286

I don't think that is a cockpit, but I think it looks good as is.

>>54995275
Osprey is a UCM dropship, Chromia is an 'orbital relay base' based on the Ferrum chassis, Executor is a Scourge grav tank, the type 5 is another PHR walker, and the type 6/7 are huge 'grand walkers' that take a whole bulk lander to move. All were mentioned offhandedly in the DFC book.

>>54996522
>and the type 6/7 are huge 'grand walkers' that take a whole bulk lander to move.
And considering that apparently bulk landers are around 1-2 feet or about that range, it seems pretty safe to assume that the Type 6/7 could reach a foot in length (especially considering the shape of the Pegasus), maybe less oe more.

Basically, it'd be the equivalent of using the 2-up Beijing in a game of DZC.

>>54986260
This. When models get too big to be practical it ruins the game because suddenly you have to accommodate the stupidly huge models and it makes normal armies leas fun.

File: IMG_3965.jpg (291KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 720x1280px

My $1 mechwarrior tank count as general wade because fuck direct ordering a broadsword

>>54998260
It's too short. Strap a Sabre to the front of it.

>>54999122
Two sabres*

>>54851243

File: 1422190189093.jpg (68KB, 820x576px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 820x576px

>Live, thread!

>>54989475
>>54989498

Not sure if I like these. They look kind of plain.

>>55004573
Well, to be fair, they're not supposed to be entirely Scourge built stations; they're just supposed to be EAA stations that have had Scourge add on components and such.

If all units can hot-drop, I wonder what that means for the Resistance Hovercraft. Gun Wagons need no buff, being incredible already, but Rocket Technicals aren't exactly the bees knees.

>>55005124
They'd probably get a buff even without the dropship changes. Rocket Techs need some help, and Dave will not rest until the game is balanced.

>>55005991
>Our Great Lord of Resin

>>55005124
on a similar vein as this, what do people think the best single dropship activation deploying a unit to hot-drop with? my gut instinct is a 9 hunter despoiler drop, since that's pretty reliably toasting something.

>>55009843

>menchit says everything burns

>>55009843
>no mention of Shaltari units
Hot drop an Ocelot for a 4+ E13 shot

>>55011074
I was wondering if its mf value of 0" would keep it from doing that.

That said holy shit you guys would finally get a use out of those large gates, which would be really nice.

>>55011810
>drop two leopards an a dreamsnare from a Gaia right in the middle of shit
>fuck up everything

>drop three ocelots down right in the middle of a lane
>fuck up some big exposed thing from LONG RANGE, relocate when it does

>>55009843
Albadross pooping 9 Sabres, that adopt Articulated Roman Formation (assuming safety from templates is calculated). Enjoy fighting that head on with anything, including super-units like Hades and Thunderstorm.

File: Eaw_keyart.jpg (2MB, 1521x2148px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1521x2148px

Dave, pls. License game to Petroglyph. Tell them to make Colonies at War or something.

>>55012130
Oh fucking god that would be awesome. Especially if they swapped out the ground combat for something like Wargame/Steel Division.

>>55013253
>>55012130
Stop I can only get so erect.

File: ucm invasion.jpg (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>55013253
Let's be honest. The way UEF Transports work in Supreme Commander is literally how Condors look.

>>55013586
>Supcom
My dude

I'm curious as to what the Osprey might be.

The only two possibilities are either a combat dropship similar in scope to the Njord and the Firedrake, or it's a half-way point between the Condor and Albatross, somehow being able to carry only 6 normal vehicles or 4 bigger ones.

In all honesty, I'm halfway hoping for the latter; it'd make sabre+rapier groups more cost efficient, as well as stuff like double gladius squads or scimitar groups.

>>55015439
Could be either, but I'm guessing something based on the Albatross chassis. The weapons would be pretty easy to switch out for light railguns or missiles or whatever, would only require switching the wings.

I'm hoping Sabres get a bit cheaper and more spammable so I can use my heavy dropships more. They're meant to be the backbone of the reconquest, and I've never really gotten that impression from the little bastards.

>>55013586
While true, supcom gameplay would be wildly off base with the setting. But yes, need visible vehicles hanging under/on all air transports.

File: tumblr_nx5gs4bYU21sesp2ko1_1280.png (238KB, 562x324px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 562x324px

Okay you fucks, I might as well try at least a little to keep the thread alive.

I'm statting a bunch of speshul snowflake homebrew units, and I'm beginning to run out of ideas. Instead of taking this as a sign and stopping like a sane person, I am instead coming to you all to ask for suggestions. Can be any faction, either game, doesn't even need to be fitting for the tabletop. You can tell me about different types of logistical vehicles for all I care, I'll stat those too.

>>55023945
Some kind unique weapon loadout for a Scourge cruiser, Vakama, based on long range anti-frigate swarm duties.

>>55012130
Gib DFC in Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion please. We've already got mods for everything else.

>>55023945
PHR nanomachines

but for DFC

>>55023945
UCM spec ops fleet outfitted with stealth projectors, meant to rapidly engage orbital defenses and retrieve highly sensitive and important UCM spec ops teams on the ground (crashed lysanders, a resistance contact that has to be brought to Ferrum, a scourge device that has to be examined properly by scientists) and secret raids like the raids that occurred in the DFC book. Stealth projectors aren't useful in close range combat, merely helpful in keeping the fleet unannounced until they get closer.

File: IMG_3797.jpg (199KB, 1366x837px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1366x837px

>get a handful of people at the LGS interested in DZC and/or DFC
>somebody else gets them to buy into Team Yankee instead
I didn't even know Team Yankee was a thing, thanks alt history Cold War boners

>>55030408
Don't worry: unless they want to play NATO on NATO training exercises all the time that might not last.

>>55030408
Wait a week and remind them how cheap DZC/DFC is.

>>55030960
Curious, why is that? Is NATO just straight superior?

>>55032281
Everyone likes national flavor NATO gear. The PACT just gets russian T-xxx stuff that looks the same. Plus weird bias against historically good russian equipment to make them dumb T-34 horde nonsense.

>>55032281
NATO gets all the great gear while the Warsaw Pact is dumbed down to just being a bunch of mindless horde armies with basically no real diversity between them while all the NATO factions get unique and interesting units.

Hi-res map files soon bump

>>55034841
SAUCE

>>55034930
Hawk had them up on their downloads page for a bit, but took them down to fix something. There's a post on the DFC Facebook group about it.

>>54962173
Your first error was ordering from Neverland.

>>55023945
UCM Firebats. Hazard suits that deliberately set the building they're in on fire.

>>55024307
I mean normally I'd just use gun cruisers since an oculus array can usually get the job done with one try, but I'll give it a shot.

>Krampus-class Cruiser: 120pts, Rare
>Scan:6", Sig:8", Thrust:10", H:10, A:4+, PD:6, G:1, T:M
>Oculus Beams: Lock:3+, At:1, Dam:2, Arc:F
>Charge Cannon: Lock:4+, At:6, Dam:1, Arc:F/S, Special: Reactor Overcharge*
>Plasma Storm: Lock:3+, At:D6+2, Dam:1, Arc:F/S/R, Special: Close Action
>*Special Rule - Reactor Overcharge: Any ship destroyed by this weapon (including those destroyed by crippling damage caused by the weapon) must add +1 to its result on the catastrophic damage table and +2 to its roll to determine explosion radius.

I'm sure this is either horribly overpowered or horribly underpowered, but I'm not sure which. It's a strange gimmick.

>>55027034
The repair drone card already has white nanomachines covered. I guess I could refluff the PHR CAW frigate I had hanging around to have black nanomachines, swarmer CA seems like it would be fitting for a swarm of nanobots.

>Nausicaa-class Frigate: 44pts
>Scan:8", Sig:3", Thrust:10", H:5, A:3+, PD:3, G:2-4, T:L
>Black Nanomachine Hives: Lock:3+, At:D3+3, Dam:1, Arc:F/S/R, Special: Close Action(Swarmer)

>>55027095
Interesting concept, but I might need more detail. What I'm getting from it is basically an escort for Lysanders to give covert operations more teeth, with similar stealth abilities but focused on shooting stuff rather than carrying dudes. Not sure if that's right though.

>>55037735
This one I already made ahead of time. Hazard Suits were practically begging to be covered in flamethrowers and mines.

>Assault Hazard Suit Team: 51pts
>A4, Mv1", CM:-, DP3, CQB4, F2+
>Type:Infantry, Category:Exotic, S+C:2 B2B
>Special Rules: DF, Dodge 5+, Hazard Suit, Bloodthirsty
>Pioneer Flamethrowers: E4, Sh6, Ac3+, R(F):6", R(C):6", MF:1", Arc:F/S/R, Special: Flame, RW-2
>Transport: 1x Raven-A (2 units) or 1x Bear (2 units)

>>55038503
>Krampus class
That sounds really, really interesting; rather than being anti-frigate, it sounds more like a dedicated "coup-de-grace" ship, expressly for the purpose of activating last (or later) to maximize catastrophic shenanigans.

Imagine popping it off on an enemy BB.

>>55040147
Could work as either, really. The weapon is formulated specifically to deal 2 average damage to a 4+ frigate, thus activating the gimmick and starting an explosion chain, but it could definitely do good work finishing off big shit as well.

>>55037735
>>55038503
>Assault Hazard Suit Team: 51pts
>A4, Mv1", CM:-, DP3, CQB4, F2+
>Type:Infantry, Category:Exotic, S+C:2 B2B
>Special Rules: DF, Dodge 5+, Hazard Suit, Bloodthirsty
>Pioneer Flamethrowers: E4, Sh6, Ac3+, R(F):6", R(C):6", MF:1", Arc:F/S/R, Special: Flame, RW-2
>Transport: 1x Raven-A (2 units) or 1x Bear (2 units

This one sounds good, but why dodge? They already have wound on 6+

>>55040944
1/6 isn't good enough for elite CQB troops, at least not ones with only 3 man bases. Compare to Sirens with a 1/9 chance to get damaged and Destroyers/Eviscerators/Firstborns that only take 1/12 damage. Even with the proposed stats the Assault Suits are worse than every other faction's best CQB troops, with only the flamethrower levelling the playing field. With no dodge they'd be even worse than Praetorians.

Depending on how useful the flamethrower actually turned out to be I'd consider buffing them up to 5 CQB, but considering a major change to the CQB system is incoming I'll wait and see if there's anything more interesting I could try.

What if AA hazards?
We flakmax now.

>>55041275
But maybe that shouldn't be there role?

They could do damage before the battle starts with fire going in and or defending a psotion with a special rule as well.

The would keep Prets relevant.

bamp

https://www.hawkwargames.com/blogs/articles/d-day-1-2670-tournament-sweden

Some sweet terrain boards

>>55044992
The only way to make Praets relevant without just lowering the price would be turning them into MFR. Praetorians are really bad, the only reason they're taken is because UCM has nothing else to bully troops with apart from Fireblades.

>>55048907
Give em unique rules. Bonus CQC on the initial contact when assaulting for example. It leaves them weaker on defense when CQB lingers.

Or let them mine the building to inflict casualties before combat starts when defending.
Either makes them more commandoey.

>>55051019
>>55048907
Right now their price needs to be lower. Prior to destroyers they were pretty useful. No they are just very out classed so you need to be able to take a few units.

Hopefully 2.0 addresses this.

>>55055331
Destroyers themselves need to be smacked to shit with the nerf bat. 5+ save instead of 4+ that only functions against E6 shots or less (like warsuit countermeasures) and possibly doesn't work against flame. 50% chance to shrug off a railgun is ridiculous.

>>55055585
Ehh, I feel like maybe some flame resistance isn't that bad of an idea. Really, really thick hide and armor, you know?

>>55057747
I dunno man, I feel like a squad of Fireblades all working together should be able to take out one base of infantry. A4 already shits up flame super hard.

Unit thoughts time!
How would you fix the Janus, the PHR scout walker? How about Wolverines? Or Stalkers? Or Tomahawks?

All are kinda lacking now.

>>55058024
>Janus
Infiltrate is a suggestion I've seen that I really like. That would compensate for the low speed. Maybe 2+ accuracy on missiles as well?

>Wolverines
Redesign Ferrum. Remove scout from Ferrum drones.

>Stalkers
It mostly suffers from being a slow unit in the current speed meta. The introduction of hot dropping in 2.0 will likely make it quite powerful.

>Tomahawks
Dunno. Its problem is that it has no real function other than chasing down artillery and APCs. APCs will likely get used more in 2.0 so maybe that will help? Not sure though.

Spartan's gone, anons.

>>55059038
Looks like Dave ducked out and set himself up at a good fucking time then. I know I never got into spartan's shit because of how unreliable they were. Still a bit of a shame.

>>55059038
I'm surprised and kind of impressed they lasted even this long with such crippling ADHD. Glad Dave got out when he did.

Their IP and assets will be bought up. Halo will likely keep on trucking with another company since MS doesn't particularly need to care, and the other two main games will probably get bought but may be left unsupported. It's kind of a shame since their new FSA stuff looked nice and they seemed to be becoming less of a schizophrenic shitshow recently

File: BSG.jpg (47KB, 728x432px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 728x432px

Do you think we'll get Resistance in space after 2.0?

>>55061208
No, anon; the only way Resistance will get in space is if the UCM starts building shipyards over the cradle worlds.

>>55061321

Ooh... like in Glen Cook's "Passage At Arms"?

>Das Boot... IN SPACE!
>But part of it is a sparsely populated agricultural colony under siege that crews the lions share of a fleet of space submarines based/built out of it in part of a much larger war

>>55060052
I agree.

I don't know a single person playing a spartan game anywhere. Their rep is beyond terrible. And they keep pumping out products and systems.

Hawk is a much better company.

File: SmugWeeabooRobot.jpg (106KB, 1165x660px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1165x660px

>>55059038
>mfw remembering all the Firestorm Armada shills during the DFC kickstarter threads

File: IMG_3878.jpg (67KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x480px

>>55061208
No

File: HUMANITY FUCK YEAH.png (832KB, 1151x504px) Image search: [Google]

832KB, 1151x504px

United Colonies of Bumpkind.

Interview with cool table anon
https://www.hawkwargames.com/blogs/articles/dropzone-commander-display-board-by-stevefamine

>>55067319
This dudes table makes us all jealous.

I'm amused that the flavor text for all of the scourge special cards are court-martialled UCM officers, or black box recordings of dudes being surprised before their ship is destroyed..

>>55060052
What IP? Dystopian wars maybe, but Firestorm, despite being perfectly serviceable game with cool models, had jack shit for setting, there's no point in paying money for it.

>>55071358
Honestly there isn't much worth taking in any of their settings.

File: cJzCquY_d_grande.jpg (66KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 600x450px

>>55067319
Steve is a god

>>55072362
The concept of this alien material originating from a crashed starship (that's what I presume the Vault is, given the description) on Antarctica jump-starting the industrial revolution several centuries early and extrapolating from there is quite compelling for a Victorian Sci-Fi setting.

It can certainly be worked on to further flesh it out, but Dystopian Wars has a fairly comprehensive back-story.

>>55070645
That's really funny, actually; 10/10 fluff.

>>55070645

Any gems?

We need some fresh content. The general is pretty quiet lately.

>>55077643
(From 'Espionage')
"Their cloaked ships... those cursed spectres of the night doomed this mission from the outset!"
-Excerpt from the opening statement of Commodore Northrop at his Court Martial

(Leviathan of the Void: Grants a Scourge ship 'beast' for rest of game)
"With the greatest respect sirs, this was no ordinary adversary. It was like a thing possessed, some ferocious beast from the darkest depths."
- Captain Tang, ONI enquiry #11681, on the loss of Taskforce Siren, Battlefleet Olympus, 2671

(Aggression:Allows rerolls of all main weapon to-hits within scan range)
"You wouldn't think a ship could look mean, but somehow they manage it."
-Jon Lin, Official War Imager, Office of Morale and Media, 2670

>>55080483
>Agression
Oh fuk. Is that just for a single ship? Stacking that with a Basilisk/Akuma would be terrifying.
I'm assuming that CAW isn't counted as main weapons.

Also, on a scale of "CIA" to "IngSoc Secret Police", how spooky is ONI?

>>55080523
ONI seems to be 'Movie MI-6+CIA'. MF-B teams attached to them dress like solid snake, and can somehow fucking sneak onto PHR ships, which has to be nearly impossible.

Presumably they do lots of propaganda stuff.
Also, Aggression is single ship, and CAW is not counted.

>>55080483
>"Their cloaked ships... those cursed spectres of the night doomed this mission from the outset!"
-Excerpt from the opening statement of Commodore Northrop at his Court Martial

They are court martialing him for not being super pissed enough go down fighting like the dude on the detonate drives card.

>>55080483
Seems odd that first one is on Espionage. Does UCM even have any cards to directly counter cloak?

>>55082955
Nope, that would kind of make a card set too situational

>>55082171

In his defense, he got Espionage'd.

>tfw you've painted half a fleet leave it for a while and when you come back to it you realize you hate the scheme.

>>55087307
Truly the worst feeling. How many ships, anon?

>>55087307
There must be some way to salvage? Show us a pic?

Is six gargoyles enough for a 1500pt game or should I take more (I also have nickars and scyllas)?

Also where did all the shipgirl art come from? Is there a site or booru with the whole collection?

>>55091318
Ehh, personally, I'd go for at least eight. If you were playing UCM or PHR, I'd recommend a troop carrier instead, but the Chimera is pretty shit in all honesty.

It's just those 3

>>55084003
Depends on how many ships eventually get stealth, which might be some.
Still, with how decks work and how players don't need to include all cards, a card specifically for X-hate isn't a bad idea.

Played a round today. Detonate Drives on a troopship saved the battle by maxing damage and taking down two damaged PHR battlecruisers and a light cruiser from chain reactions. Press F to pay respects for 15,000 dead legionnaires and sailors.

>>55097776
It's okay anon, there's enough escape pods on there for the whole lot of them, not to mention their bulk landers probably emergency launching.

>>55097776
f

Looks like the forum grognards are being a bit conservative about 'drop and shoot' or 'hot dropping'. I don't remotely understand why. Armor blocks aren't exactly good in Dropzone at the moment compared to alternatives.

>>55099676
Grognards hate change, any change

>>55099676
wew, that's weird. We'll just have to see how the rules turn out.

New PHR cards are great. Had my Herecles in a tough spot, 4 hull left. Basalisk and another heavy cruiser had been bullying it all game, and it had only just survived the 6 djin bomb.

Decide to go for one last hurrah with it to at least cripple the basilisk, opponent plays card that lets him go first with the heavy cruiser to snipe the battleship. Goes to shoot me, my weapon hack card stops all shots and I go on to cause weapon 9 hull on the basilisk causing weapons offline, engines offline and orbital decay in a single hit and then the heavy gets obliterated by my 2 theseus.

That one weapons hack won me the game

File: 1468446723636.gif (2MB, 500x390px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x390px

>>55103482
Excellent work, commander.

>>55099676

Meaning?

>>55103971
Grogs gonna nard

>>55087307
> tfw primed fleet white
> suddenly craving brotherhood of nod black and red
Aaaaaugh

File: IMG_3888.jpg (345KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1000x1000px

>>55107869
>basecoat PHR fleet and army in hotrod red and gunmetal
>torn between gold secondary details, cream white secondary details, black secondary details, or just leaving the base colors red and metal and freehanding emblems onto the flat red surfaces instead
Help me

File: 300px-DVDbox3d1.jpg (44KB, 300x410px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 300x410px

>>55108012
Throw in some orange and you'll be the new leader of the PHR.

Made two scourge lists, any advice on which is better and/or what should be changed?

--------------------------------------
Scourge 1500 1b - 1445pts
Scourge - 6 launch assets

SR15 Vanguard battlegroup (295pts)
1 x Banshee - 190pts - H
+ Fleet Master (80pts, 4AV)
1 x Wyvern - 105pts - M

SR10 Line battlegroup (225pts)
1 x Ifrit - 110pts - M
1 x Sphinx - 115pts - M

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

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

SR9 Pathfinder battlegroup (298pts)
3 x Nickar - 66pts - L
2 x Gargoyle - 64pts - L
4 x Scylla - 168pts - L

SR5 Pathfinder battlegroup (193pts)
3 x Djinn - 129pts - L
2 x Gargoyle - 64pts - L
------------- dflist.com -------------

--------------------------------------
Scourge 1500 2b - 1486pts
Scourge - 6 launch assets

SR15 Vanguard battlegroup (295pts)
1 x Banshee - 190pts - H
+ Fleet Master (80pts, 4AV)
1 x Wyvern - 105pts - M

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

SR10 Line battlegroup (225pts)
1 x Ifrit - 110pts - M
1 x Sphinx - 115pts - M

SR8 Line battlegroup (231pts)
1 x Chimera - 105pts - M
3 x Harpy - 126pts - L

SR9 Pathfinder battlegroup (298pts)
3 x Nickar - 66pts - L
2 x Gargoyle - 64pts - L
4 x Scylla - 168pts - L

SR5 Pathfinder battlegroup (193pts)
3 x Djinn - 129pts - L
2 x Gargoyle - 64pts - L
------------- dflist.com -------------

>>55108386
Second list has the superior troop landing loadout, but Harpies are kind of so-so. Maybe a different frigate blob using those extra points, unless you're looking for a standup fight at full range.

>>55108138
YOU'VE GOT THE TOUCH
YOU'VE GOT THE POWAAAAAAH

>>55109140
I've heard that chimeras aren't very useful, should I swap them out for more gargoyles?

>>55088953
8 cruisers, 12 frigates and a Daemon all in various stages of painting, primed them bright chrome and did some ghost tints over the top. it doesn't look bad but I want to do a darker scheme.

>>55111466
Maybe try putting more layers of tints on top?

>>55105915

Not what I meant.

>>55112304
What DID you mean?

>>55110089
You always want one, they're useful for drive bys on back objectives, as you don't have to drop to atmosphere, and dunking out a defence battery and infantry on it to effectively kill 1/3 of anything your opponent tries to drop

>>55112390

Are they not doing it? Are they testing it, but only ever in moderation and not purposely trying to break the mechanism? What?

>>55112438

Nothing is finalised fully yet, it's all being playteated, but grognards are being super reactionary and are complaining about anything which changes the game that much from 1.1

>>55113644
I think most of the complaints are about how the rule works right now; that being, units can not embark if they've already shot, but otherwise, can embark, transport move, disembark, then shoot.

>>55116550
That, and the idea that it's somehow dumbing the game down.

>>55124066
Well anything that streamlines any aspect of a game is just dumbing it down for normies.

I just want to be able to reposition my PHR without loosing 3-4 turns redeploying across the board while my shaltari friend only looses 2.

Honestly watching shaltari getting into a building grabbing objective and insta leaving the board and getting to come back nearly anywhere on the board next turn. While they destroy your troop ships mid escape leaving them stranded is kinda depressing. Cant wait for shared transports.

>>55124066
>>55124680
I dont understand how theyd think this was dumbing the game down, it still requires a tactical choice given the accuracy penalty, but now it at least allows slower units to try and compete with the faster units. I mean the overall meta for each faction has shifted since the game was released to whatever is fastest being king. Most of the slower units have been relegated to the sideline because they dont get it done.

>>55124680
You just summarized the past fifteen months of shitposting in Warmachine/Hordes General.

>>54864061
I really should finish paining the UCM, PHR and Shaltari DZC starter kits I picked up. Ideally, paint them to the same level as my beloved Scourge, but so far it's not been quite as easy as "paint it gunmetal, glaze it with several coats of purple, and pick out details."

Then try to demo and win people over with the game so I can have a reason to collect more minis.

>>55126399
I don't doubt it. Ibsee a lot of talk about "normies" and how they're ruining the hobby over in /awg/ too.

I just love that people seem so adverse to change. Sometimes games need an overhaul to make sure they stay fresh and don't become stagnant. Seems like Dave really wants his game to keep going and not become dull and repetitive with samey lists all over the place. And I admire that in him.

File: KIMG0106.jpg (3MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x1836px

Hey guys I'm painting up the DZC starter set for my store. Apparently Dave is one smooth talker because he convinced my FLGS's owner to buy into both drop fleet and Dropzone.

Anywho, I'm making sure these things are super easy to read at a glance. I played this game a bit a few years ago and if I remember right ground units were matched to their transports. So I dug out some old Flames decals and gave each squad different markings so you can tell who rides with who. They're not quite done but so far so good.

Question I had was how on Earth I would do the same for the scourge. Owner wants me to roughly stick to the color schemes on the box and I know scourge aren't much for unit markings so what would I use to tell the transports apart? Perhaps different stripe patterns? I'm kind of at a loss of ideas here.

>>55129953
Stripe patterns and coloration differences give you a world of options. Two coloring choices, one to indicate unit type and one to indicate squadron grouping, would be plenty to accomplish something similar. Red 'prongs' for all hunters on the edges of their front sections, with a red stripe for first squad, blue stripe for second squad and yellow stripe for third squad gives you a ton of flavor and definition of the team. You can even reuse squadron designations since prong color differentation would indicate differences as well.

>>55129953
Maybe change the eye colors on the transport ships? That's not too much of a change, and the ships are already sort of bioorganic, so you could explain it away fairly easily. It might not look as cohesive, but you might be able to alter the color of each gun's plasma, as well.

File: 1500328781716.jpg (16KB, 169x184px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 169x184px

>when thread is sink

New thread, commanders

>>55132770
>>55132770
>>55132770