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.

Erwl

Members
  • Content count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Erwl

  • Rank
    Lokhagos (Captain)

Recent Profile Visitors

342 profile views
  1. Well, once per model with an ice generator, but the way I read it, multiple ice generators could be used to move it further
  2. That. Would. Be. AWESOME. Of course, it would make the Alma completely redundant in naval games, but still. Full-sub list Ftw
  3. Well, the 16" spotter stings, given that expert spotters were given 24" spotting in most other cases, and with the changes to corrosive, the epaulard lost some of its bite. But I agree that the Marans is the alma's best friend. I'll try to run such a list once mine arrives, I'll see how the alma fares then
  4. I really don't know what to think of the Royan: as pointed out above, it seems lackluster compared to our other medium options, but it also works in a completely different way, which makes me think that if used properly, it could really find its place in my lists. I guess I'll have a better opinion after some playtesting. The Marans, on the other hand, seems absolutely awesome
  5. Well, to me, the rulebook's fluff reads more like they didn't have a standing army to begin with, relying on the Portuguese East India Company for their military, so when the EIMC bought the PEIC, they also took control of the Portuguese military forces. So Portugal isn't ran by the EIMC, but any Portuguese involvement in the war is going to be through them. As for Romania, they weren't annexed (unlike Belgium which is effectively french now), they merely signed a treaty with the PLC.
  6. I've had my opponent's Lord Hood double-crit a pristine Kanuni dread on turn 2, then completely cancel the all my attempts at retaliation via shields, then, in the next turn, teleport my Sadrazam off the table. Then again, there was a time when I completed my field order with the second shot of the game, courtesy of a ridiculous chain of mag explosions, against the same opponent, so it goes both ways
  7. Some really good news appearing here . Always nice to have slightly more varied ways to play
  8. I know, but (unless devastating applies) its not: its the same effect, but ONLY when you roll a six: so usually the same on big AD pools, and worse on small "plinking" pools where there might be no six. I might have phrased that incorrectly: I meant that you have you to consider the case when, if you had rolled the die that was removed by rugged, it would have rolled a six In theory, but it's much less likely. Again, its a question of odds: lots of sixes can compensate rolling less dice, but you're less likely to roll a six if you have less dice, even if its just one dice less: every die matters. I think the reason you see it like this is that, as you said, you're so used to it that you and your opponent consider the AD pools with the die already removed, so you don't take it into account as much. I know the point-by-point answer might seem a little aggressive, I didn't mean it as such. The "rugged is a useless MAR" point of view is pretty common, and I just wanted to address it
  9. it depends on the to-hit value of the shot: the old rugged would sometimes preemptively cancel a 6, but it would sometimes cancel no successes edit: a quick estimation tells me that, without high payload / devastating shenanigans, an exploding dice averages about: 0.4 successes on a 6+ 0.6 successes on a 5+ 0.8 successes on a 4+ 1 success on a 3+ 1.2 successes on a 2+ So it seems like the change is advantageous in most cases edit bis: with devastating an high payload respectively, the results become: 0.47 / 0.73 on a 6+ 0.7 / 1.1 on a 5+ 0.93 / 1.47 on a 4+ 1.17 / 1.83 on a 3+ 1.4 / 2.2 on a 2+ So the bottom line is, special munitions and/or to-hit bonuses can close the gap a bit, but overall the new rugged is better than the old rugged
  10. I find it interesting how the consensus seems to be that Rugged construction is useless, while retardant armour is powerful, when they both boil down to the same effect: "Remove X dice from the attack dice pool". If anything, rugged is better, because it always takes effects, while retardant requires a 6 to be rolled. The real difference lies in the fact that prussians are limited to rugged(1), and don't have the cloud generator to go with it. edit: well, with the buff Josh just announced, this comment is remarkably irrelevant
  11. Well, our AA remains an effective way to ward off rockets, but it seems torpedoes are definitely going to be our week point. Then again, they're also getting better against shield-reliant forces, so this seems to be part of a global buff to torpedoes. Josh also said that "the majority of ROF units" would get P&S retardant, so some models in the ORBAT could get more exotic variants of the MAR
  12. Well, as you said, this mostly impacts exploding dice: usually there aren't too many successive rerolls, and the results wouldn't be so different. And to be fair, with alittle bit of luck / terrain to hide behind, corvette spam can be ridiculously devastating in 2.0, so some form of nerf was to be expected.
  13. No one commented on generators activating after moving now? One of the tweaks I was hoping for, and a real help to make offensive gens more useful. Overall, the changes seem good, although I'm a little worried that the damaging critical effect, on top of the extra damage from the hard pounding, explosion and flare results will make games a little too brutal
  14. Yes, that's right: TT only generates extra AD, not extra AP.
  15. Well, stealing others' tech is kinda the league's whole shtick, so it's not that weird, but I have to agree that the major nations seem to be loosing some of what made them special other time.
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.