Warcradle Studios are looking for active community members to support the forum upon its relaunch!
If you're interested, drop us an email at forum@warcradle.com.

roadkizzle

Members
  • Content count

    2,680
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About roadkizzle

  • Rank
    Strategos (General)

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Dallas-Fort Worth, TX

Recent Profile Visitors

1,411 profile views
  1. It's ALWAYS good to see a new face around here. Lets see if I can help you with all your questions. 1. I glanced through the Force Building and the Game Setup sections. I didn't see it say whether or not you show your opponent your army list. I'd say discuss with your opponent and do whatever y'all want to. I will say that my friends and I never really felt a need to hide anything from each other regarding our lists but we never really felt it necessary to really show or explain our lists. In the Game Setup section it does say that written lists are good to allow verification of the legality of the force. But it only says that the players "should" make a written force list. It doesn't say they "must". I'd say just play it as you and your friends would like. 2. The Command Capability (Militia, Regular, or Veteran option) ONLY affects the command checks. The Senior Officers rating determines the Initiative dice color and some orders. The units rating determines the color of the dice used for receiving orders, and taking morale checks. BUT there is also some optional supplemental rules that provide additional rules for command and control. 3. The model cost is for each individual model. In the FSA Orbat the sections really should not say Linemen. It appears to have been copy-paste errors by not changing Linemen to Infantrymen like it was everywhere else. BUT. The HMG section is comprised of individual models and pairs of them are then upgraded to HMG teams. For a Regular HMG team: 2 infantryman section is 50 points. Upgraded to a HMG the section is 60 points. 4 infantryman section is 100 points. With 1 HMG the section is 110 points and with all infantrymen upgraded to HMGs is 125 points. 6 infantryman section is 150 points. With 1 HMG the section is 160 points and with 2 HMGs it is 175 points and all infantrymen upgraded (3 teams) it is 195 points. If you add an extra model to be the sergeant then it is an extra 30 points. The Field Gun is different because instead of a section of upgraded infantrymen it is a vehicle with crew that you must purchase. The infantrymen have "crew" in parenthesis just because it is trying to say they function as the crew of the Field Gun and are required for it to work. The Field Gun costs 90 points and 2 Regular crew models costs 140 points (This is the minimum cost of the section). Any extra crew is purchased on top of this at 25 points each.
  2. I had some reaction and suppression mechanics in my drafts of skirmish rules but they relied upon some unique designs in the rules... I really didn't realize the fall back rules in the melee section for the side that lost the rounds melee... How in the world does Momentum work then? Melee doesn't seem to last past a single round because one side is constantly getting out of base contact. The attacking section is a valid target for shooting attacks as you say then how can you say they are still in melee? If they're not in melee then how do people really track momentum of a section that fell back and the winning section will have to advance to re-engage the opponent in melee so I'd assume they'd get their charging bonus. The rules just don't seem to really flow or mesh for this. But even then, with the disengaging fall back move at the end of melee I really can't see why I would spend the points to bring Veteran sections for any ranged section. I think that the upgrade for melee power sections is a guaranteed braindead option because no matter what they can control the melee's. But otherwise ranged sections like Line Sections just would be best served working to get out of the situation and let other people do the fighting. Sure Battle-Hardened may need to be changed or just giving still more flexibility to the section, but the reason Veterans are what they are is because they should have flexibility and independence. The CP gives virtually what you want them to have but seems to work equally well for ALL types of veteran units and will help streamline the overall rules putting the Veteran rules all in one place instead of scattering them throughout the rules.
  3. I'll respond to the other points later. But just for illustration. 1 PE Grenadier and 1 FSA infantryman are on the other side of soft cover from each other in Effective Range. The Grenadier has to get 1 6 and one 5+ on his dice roll. The probability for this is 8.3% The Federal Infantry must get 3 5+ rolls. The probability for this is 3.7% The Effective Range for the Grenadier is also twice the distance of the Federal Infantry meaning they have a reasonable chance much sooner. Plus Combining Fire and Bolstering for the Grenadier is MUCH more effective because you're adding 1 Blue dice giving a chance of 2 hits on 6 instead of 1 Black dice. With cover on the table there is just no contest between the FSA and PE. Edit: Bolstered or with 1 Combined Dice the PEs kill probability is brought up to 20% while the FSA still only has a 12% chance to kill the PE. With 2 additional dice the PE now has a 33% chance and the FSA is still stuck at 22%.
  4. I like those rules largely. I really like the allocation of CP prior to activations. I was really trying to figure out how to fix up officers to make them useful and that looks like a great method. I'd like some suppression/reactive actions in the rules to hopefully open up some more nuanced activations. And I've never was much of a fan of the straight Kill Rating from V1.0 but I also didn't like the loss of it in V2.0. when I was thinking of Skirmish Rules I thought that a mix of the two seemed good. CR allowed for a chance for further injury, or a chance for being forced down to try to avoid further injury, or other morale options. -Ah a return to the good old V1.0 cover modifiers. Those KILL the FSA infantry firepower. Without the ability to get multiple successes on 6's due to the more black dice it was impossible to dislodge PE infantry if there was any cover. The cover dice did a lot to balance the games in my experience even though they did have problems. -From my experiences with the cavalry and jetpack units especially I really don't like the double speed At the Move and Charges. It really seemed to limit the ranged combat especially with the number of excellent close combat fighting units. I think I prefer just a move and a half or making the cavalry move fast and function but without the half table moving or charging distance. -Veterans benefit is just being able to keep +1 MAD? How about they automatically get 1 CP. That would allow you to remove them as exceptions for getting all of the orders free. They could use their CP for combined fire, or at the double. Or they could use it to bolster ranged or melee attacks.
  5. So are you saying this new feeling of uncertainty over the future of the game shadowed by vague platitudes from SG is different from the previous feeling of uncertainty over the future of the game shadowed by vague platitudes from SG? It's just more of the same from them. Wake me when we actually get something of substance from them.
  6. It means nothing. We've been told that for the past 5 years and generally has been a dead end. SG loves talking about nebulous ideas of "stuff coming" but then they get distracted by a squirrel and forget about DL.
  7. The problem I saw was when the game was first being released. All of SG's marketing clearly stated it was a 28mm game. The majority of the steampunk community was excited about it. There were also rumblings from a lot of other parts of the gaming community, a lot of people were excited about integrating the models in their collection. As soon as some models came out there were side by side size comparisons. Then you had a small group of people going around the internet whenever DL was mentioned they'd start yelling that the game was horrible because the models were 2-4 mm to tall. That basically drowned out any actual discussion about the game. If SG had marketed the game from the beginning as 32mm I don't think there would have been a big problem. It's the same size as Warmachine, Infinity, and Dust. I really don't understand the problem using terrain for the 28mm games in DL. It's not like you're trying to use 15mm terrain. Sure the doorways may only go up to the models forehead but when you're playing a game or even taking off hand pictures it really doesn't seem noticeable. The focus is normally on the action that the models are engaged in. If you're only doing display dioramas then sure you'll want to be exact. But then you'd be better making your own terrain regardless of scale.
  8. That's a tricky thought. Just dropping the size of the miniatures to 28mm while keeping the proportions the same I think would actually make the models look more out of place on the 40k tabletop. They would look like teenagers fighting amongst a bunch of professional wrestlers. In the middle of a game from the perspective of a player the girth of the models is much more noticeable than a few millimeters of height. When looking at single models side by side from a flat perspective then the height is noticeable but I think the DL models currently don't look bad as they are. (Granted the PE Grenadiers seem to be the largest DL infantry which is fitting as that was what Grenadiers were. The largest and strongest soldiers in the armies) Then I think that if Spartan wants to keep production in house I expect even 100k very well may not be nearly enough to create a plastic line and start transitioning DL to plastic. For one thing does their production floor have the space for a new production line with machinery not used for any year product line? Then you'll have inventory space, needing manufacturing expertise, and as always the molds are expensive without having the expectation of large volume of sales to counter it. If they want to contract out the production like Halo then that's different but Spartan hasn't seemed to want to do that on their own IP.
  9. That would be very surprising. It would be a complete miracle if the Kickstarter actually succeeded. How many people will actually invest in a Kickstarter for DL? My expectations are next year they will be focusing on getting the successful Firestorm Armada Kickstarter promises out the door for the first half year then they will make some big Halo, and/or Planetfall releases along with some small stuff for DW and push DL back yet another year. Then the next year will be another big DW year.
  10. And now SG is starting their Firestorm Kickstarter to further distract themselves from their promised updates to DL.
  11. I will say I wouldn't play against that. Ironclads are already so difficult to kill in DL. That Faust compounds those problems with even more HP, along with being faster than a Kettenkarre, more firepower than anything else, a melee attack, and Terrifying. There is not enough AT weaponry available in the game to make it a fair fight. The Ironclads are alright because they have limited arcs of fire, fairly low mobility, and the inherent unpredictability of weaponry in this game but even at 425 points the Faust has none of the downsides of the Ironclads but even more of their positive attributes.
  12. I had made my own medium carriers a year or two ago with a similar style to the Calico out of Princetons.
  13. I assume he forgot the word 'wait' 'Can't wait to see them both together' But I may be wrong and then I'd have no clue what was meant.
  14. I'll take that. The Lexington's had vestigial Fore Guns for so long I'll trade the Independence's rear guns for usable stats.
  15. Hmm... My son is 10 months old. Maybe next month I can start teaching him tabletop gaming. It is always good to see a new force being built. And that squad of grenadiers are looking very good. Infantry are critical for this game. The big tanks are much to unpredictable as it is. The 1st edition of the game did definitely have it's problems. And the Activation cards looked really out of place especially without actually trying it out, but I do think they were definitely not the worst mechanic. It should have been an optional rule and did absolutely nothing in small games but in larger games it provided a new little strategic challenge and helped players to actually outplay each other. I hope that you can find some opponents in your group.
Warcradle Studios are looking for active community members to support the forum upon its relaunch!
If you're interested, drop us an email at forum@warcradle.com.