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.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Yasbir

  • Rank
    Lokhagos (Captain)

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

394 profile views
  1. I second that. Especially as the hardcover rulebooks are (A)more of a prestige object to look good next to our showcase and (B) presumably out of date as soon as we get them. With all the feedback the community is giving a few things will be corrected/updated/clarified in the pdf I think. But the prints can't be updated anymore I gues. They are set in stone, so to speak.
  2. It still sais "Any model firing [...] out of the template..." All the other templates are triggerd by touching any point of it (Storm, Time Flow) or hit the model they are touching (Mines, Area Bombardment, Nodes, Particle Acc.). Yeah, I see Maik said something different, but thats why I am asking again. Are those "stick your nose out" and "drop your AA" tricks really intendet? The RAW seem to imply another way of playing it and until now the sentence was quiet clearly formulated. Even considering language barriers. But I guess, now that Maik statet you can "stick yout nose out" of the template, it is to be played that way. This should be no boohoo OP whining, I just struggle to understand the gap between RAW and RAI as this discussion had been around for a while and a simple change of words would have cleared everything up. I guess I have to print this topic and put Maiks explanation into my rulebook, otherwise I will get in trouble with the BE players in my Meta. Rulebook sais X but intention was Y and here is the proof...
  3. Like a rainbow? A high voltage rainbow? A high voltage not-to-bombardy-looking-bombard-delivered rainbow of doom. A simple return to the older stats would be okay too. Even with 3 AP and faster movement and better range bands I never saw them on the battlefield if it wasn't me bringing them. I love the model, but they just don't work (for me) at the moment and I am really stoked to see the new orbats. And the new models of cause.
  4. Fighter SAS hit strato. Flyers on 5+. (6+ base for Strato & Hunter Aerial +1) Doesn't sound immune to me. Tough. But not immune. And (a lot of?) factions have Aerial Hunter on Flyers of different sizes. Tunguska will still wreak your day. But it's an academical question right? Or is someone playing pure Air Forces against each other on e regular basis? Tried it. Developed to be the most boring game. Clunky and with little finesse. I like supporting Air and the combined arms aspect but pure air is nothing for me.
  5. It's the same discussion we had with 2.0. The Rule clearly states: "Model" Therefore it doesn't matter if your turret is inside the field or not. As soon as the field touches the "Model" --> half AD But regarding to Maiks explanation it should say "Weapon" not "Model". Then it would be clear how a situation should be interpretatet. And a clarification for the interaction of dilation field and AA/CC would be nice. As far as I understand the field it's a locally working weapon damage effect. But aux. weapons don't suffer from that. (Thats what shredded defense and prussian generator are for.) If it's halve AA and Weapon outside of the template can shoot with full AD I guess I can put my dozen other fleets away and shredd my opponents with BW. Most of their models can use this rule interpretation to great effect and if there is no compromise between offense/defense ... Don't know. BW is scary enough ^^ As will be the discussions in turnement: "My turret is shooting at this tiny point of your model, because I have LOS but my LOF does't touch the field if I shoot there, so your model is 95% inside the field but I hit it with full effect." Touched models are effected was relatively easy to see. Now damn you if you forgot your laser liner.
  6. Good luck in getting a Black Wolves Commodore in a strato. Retriburion down. Ablative and delation? Even dedicated air hunters (interceptors) etc. will struggle. Especially as my BW opponent loves guardians and is to paranoid to go deeper than possible to negate as many boarding threads as possible. Dive Bombers go. Dive Bombers go. Dive Bombers go. Btw: can an undamaged Carrier 6 relaunch 2 Wings at a time, for example if the 10 free Fighter Wings in a 1000 points game have been shot down earlier? And nothing prevents me from changing thoses LAS fighters to something else with my Carriers nearby, right? Can't see how the new carrier rules reduce carrier Spam, as it is even more tempting to use them now. Old CoA tactics for everyone. No more bombs? I fly the bombers into a dogfight and relaunch them next carrier activation. On one side they "feel" more like carriers should (besides the abusive CoA Style posibilities) but on the other side this is what made me hate playing against CoA before drones got toned down. Am I missing something in the rules by now or are we all CoA now? ^^ Besides CoA. Without the ORBAT and what kind of special rules it will bring Drones seem to be horrible now.
  7. Typo: Missing "H" Page 73 - "...Infantry, they all move and operate at this eight Band."
  8. ... How are they not attachments? Don't get your logic path, sorry. Rulebook is quiet clear in this point. Parent Squadron + Attachment Group (Escorts) = Mixed Squadron. The Specialised Squadron you mentioned is just a pre-specified and named Mixed Squadron. The Escorts take the Slot for the Attachment Group and they don't loose theier Escort designation, in which the "no disorder test when scrapped" is defined. Therefore: No test when Picket Squadron looses an Escort. Page 196 has a handy list for Escort rules. Please double check that.
  9. No longer possible. It's either CAP or Escorts, as CAP is an Attachment Group now and only one Attachment is allowed. Everything else you said is the same as I understand it. @Maccabeus: yes
  10. P. 79 No problem so far... P. 80 so far nothing changed. The squadron construction is ruled a bit differently but in the end: As long as it is an Escort-Model it will not cause an disorder check if it is scrapped. No matter what it is attached to.
  11. Maybe a higher authority will help us with a little spoiler or something. ^-^
  12. Battle crusiers don't. But the Halifax does with squadron support (at least until it is going to me changed soon). It has the combat patrol MAR but as far as I can see it can't use the fighters it brings as CAP. But it could use some LAS fighters as CAP instead which would give you a 3-Wing-Fighter-Squadron to use freely. It's a bit ridiculous at the moment. Same with the ottoman dread, which brings 5 fighters (and will keep that rule, as far as the latest blog post indicates). Fighters that can't be CAP as they are not part of the LAS. I hope the ORBATs won't take to long now. So many gaps to be closed. They just support the parent model. The counter attack is made by the protected model. Only in the case of a dogfight they are counter attacking on theier own. In this case they combine without the parent model helping out. At least thats the way it has been in 2.0 and I can't find anything else regarding that topic in the rules. But maybe I'm just tired and should stop scrolling up and down the pdf for today ^^
  13. The CAP combines the AA into the link pool. Then you halve the link pool and add this to the parents AA. In most cases it results in +1 AA per "CAP Token" Another question recarding CAP: They can only be from LAS. As there are no rules for attaching Fighters later on, I think they have to be placed as part of the protected parent model when placing it. As a result carrier launched fighters can't be attached as CAP when the CAP is destroyed. What about those models that can have a CAP but don't come with one? battle cruisers and some heavy bombers come to mind. RAW lead to the interpretation that Halifax, Kanuni, etc. are bringing fighters, but can't use them because these fighters are not part of the LAS? Have I missed something else in the rulebook? If not, we might have to wait for the new ORBATs for some clarification. Some changes und reductions are leading to confusing gaps in the rules. But as I know this board, alle these problems will surface and be discussed in the next few days. Even with the search function in the PDF it's easy to miss something.
  14. Waiting for DW2.5 to be shipped I thought about bridging the gap with some Planetfall. Never played the system, but I have collected something around 8k points of terrans and now would be a good opportunity for something non steampunk related. Given the more or less bad reputation terrans seem to have here (slow,short ranged etc.) I never started playing. Now reading the latest changes I seem to have missed an opportunity, as terrans have been hit with a lot of nerfs and are even weaker than before? Is it fun playing them and is it worth painting my stuff? Or are the terrans as crippled as it reads and I should keep my stuff in it's box, waiting for another change? A few veteran insights would be helpful, as I know the Dystopian systems, but I am relativly new to the Firestorm part. Could be it's just sounding as bad because of the missing experience so far.
  15. With the new Corsican Incident Box and the new battle ships I just realized that the deck is looking different as there are no horizontal "gaps" where different planks should be meeting. It looks like multiple looong plank from bow to stern. Both the new models from the CI Box have this and the new french BB has this. It looks strange next to the older models with the more detailed decks. Is this the case with all the new BBs? Especially Eider would be nice to know, as the render in the pdf is hiding this detail with a clever angle. Even some of the new kickstarter models seem to have this, if you look closely at the renders. I know models may look a bit different than the renders, but as Spuntone, Gascony and Cyclops are definitely having this. Is it part of the new 2.5 design? I am not a big fan of the new "everything has to be round and bulgy" trend and I am definitely not a big fan of the new deck design. It feels kind of lazy if you consider the overall degree of detail we get otherwise. Don't get me wrong. I still really like the new BBs and the new MERC models but I was a bit taken aback when I saw the models next to the others. Maybe its less obvious if the models are all painted. Maybe someone could comment on this? Maybe even with a pic of a painted Spuntone or Cyclops next to another ship from the faction? I am curious what you are thinking about this. Maybe I am the only one who is bothered by this.
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.