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.
Ciciro

Dystopian Legions Announcement Coming Sometime in January

67 posts in this topic

I don't know how many of you follow Firestorm Planetfall threads. Yesterday I've used the opportunity to ask Spartan Mike, who roams through whirlwinds of discussions there, about Dystopian Legions. Spartan Mike said:

So, I've asked directly:

"Does it mean that Dystopian Legions are also worked on?"

And Mike was kind to answer: 

"Whilst I am unable to offer ANY details whatsoever, this game is in my pile. And that is a good thing to have in my stack! ;) "

So, there you go. Take it as you wish.

roadkizzle likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it does mean something - the game support hiatus prolonged. What will future bring? They can start supporting the game. However, it's also just one step from a cancellation of the project...

roadkizzle likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I enjoyed playing legions, its always going to suffer from the 'we have way too many games too support' syndrome.

Will there be a Kickstarter for legions, doubtful.

 

roadkizzle likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2017 at 8:07 PM, Voyager said:

No, it does mean something - the game support hiatus prolonged. What will future bring? They can start supporting the game. However, it's also just one step from a cancellation of the project...

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.

Presidente, Voyager and alamo like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, roadkizzle said:

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.

Indeed, it is the same old story. I've just said that it was some kind of information and Mike's statement technically meant something. :) He might have just said "We'll let you know." which would mean nothing regarding the status of Dystopian Legions. But now we at least know that the game is still hibernated.

And sure, I'll wake you up when something important happens. Hopefully, I'll do it by the cries of joy and clang of money poured into Spartan's sacks when the fantastic and abundant update of the game appears. ;)

Presidente and roadkizzle like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2017 at 7:56 PM, Voyager said:

But now we at least know that the game is still hibernated.

And sure, I'll wake you up when something important happens. Hopefully, I'll do it by the cries of joy and clang of money poured into Spartan's sacks when the fantastic and abundant update of the game appears. ;)

this is indeed a great positive attitude about legions as it is nice to see some have hope. i do have concerns that the longer legion languishes it can quietly go the 'uncharted' way without a whimper and we will still be whistling in the dark.......hoping.........waiting........for some scrap of comms to fall our way. i have kept all my minis for now hoping for the day that interest from the company returns.

if there is no interest or legions is not in future plans it would be nice to know so the tone of the forums could improve. if legions is to go the 'uncharted' way just say so we all can move on and do our own thing  with our legion collections. truly, i hate to part with those gorgeous models esp. the investment of time etc. but if nothing is to be done by the company we just need to know.

btw has anyone seen the medusa radar set lately, do you own one? was it ever made and sold?

Voyager likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm just a positively inclined guy. And that also covers Dystopian Legions. :)

However, when all fails and Legions' trireme eventually sinks somewhere on the still uncharted by Spartans sea, I just hope that somebody (maybe an enterprise established by our community initiative?) buys out Legions' IP from Spartan and then revives the game. There is a game "Achtung! Cthulhu Skirmish". It is based on a Dystopian Legions 2.0 ruleset trimmed to skirmish battles. Maybe that's the way to go?

By the way, I've never had "Achtung! Cthulhu" in my hands, but would really like to. I'm wondering if that ruleset could work as Dystopian Skirmish.

sleeping_squirrel likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Voyager said:

I just hope that somebody (maybe an enterprise established by our community initiative?) buys out Legions' IP from Spartan and then revives the game.

Given that Legions is tied up with the rest of the Dystopian Wars IP I don't think that would ever happen.

I think Spartan will suddenly show a renewed interest in Legions out of the blue one day as if there was never any long period of silence.

Voyager likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Robanes said:

Given that Legions is tied up with the rest of the Dystopian Wars IP I don't think that would ever happen.

I agree that it might be difficult. However, if you eradicate common units in Wars and Legions (which are actually only a few) then it might be possible. The games might live their own separate lives then.

You might also think of licensing the right to write rules. And make a joint venture - Spartan provides miniatures (and fluff?), while the outside company writes and releases rules etc.

However, my biggest concern is that Spartan won't agree on anything similar. They will prefer to just sit on everything, just in case...

6 hours ago, Robanes said:

I think Spartan will suddenly show a renewed interest in Legions out of the blue one day as if there was never any long period of silence.

Now, that's perfectly viable and truly in a Spartan's style. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Voyager said:

There is a game "Achtung! Cthulhu Skirmish". It is based on a Dystopian Legions 2.0 ruleset trimmed to skirmish battles. Maybe that's the way to go?

By the way, I've never had "Achtung! Cthulhu" in my hands, but would really like to. I'm wondering if that ruleset could work as Dystopian Skirmish.

This might actually be a really good option. Wonder if anyone has looked at this and compared the stats for the two games, which would be the biggest part of any conversion.

sleeping_squirrel and Voyager like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't tried Achtung Cthulhu, but you'll note that the game is based on DL 2.0, but was completely rewritten, so I don't know how much it kept from DL.

Since there seems to be some interest I'll share these. I've playtested these rules for about a year, they're close, but not quite finished: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-BqVEVQz4thSuoLEOugtBQ2UWAWgaWYviXsW7ufdQAE

If anyone wants to play with some more skirmishy rules, here's a list of significant points:

  • A new orders format
  • New command system
  • You can use the existing orbats
  • new blast based firing system (indirect and weapons with aoe and scatter)
  • significant changes (though streamlined) to morale and experience of sections and how it influences orders and actions
  • The option of using a whole section or individual models is based on the command structure
  • Modifier cover system instead of success based
  • Melee is very different with individual strikes and breaking off
  • A new mechanic called "momentum" distinguishes veterans while functioning similar to "upper hand"

My observations at the moment are that games are dramatically shorter in time (totally doable to go 4 rounds in 1-1.5 hrs), while developing more nuance to the battlefield and significantly more use of officers and CP. Officers are now critical to making use of militia sections, while veterans can be powerful and autonomous to some degree, while being fragile to receiving concentrated fire or disruption from specialists.

I'm in full summer mode right now, so I won't likely be able to work on these much more until the fall, but then my hope in sharing this is to have some constructive feedback for if anyone at Spartan is watching and is working on the rules. These rules aren't intended to supplant theirs, but to augment the game for smaller and more unique collections of models. I think you can have a half decent game with a handful of models broken into fireteams, and just as good a game with your whole collection.

Voyager and AsleepByDay like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Jlav likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.

2

Reactions and suppression are something I've played with a lot of options and haven't landed on something firm yet. Would love some suggestions.

Quote

-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.

You'll notice that officers are aplenty in FSA lists and non-commissioned officers can bolster every attack in their section, in addition modifiers cannot change natural 6's. I can accept that the frontline infantry are pretty chaff, but are extremely effective with combined arms and the new orders setup.

Quote

-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.

I've had mixed feelings about this. They should be punchy in my opinion, but then once they are in melee, the mandatory disengagement from melee makes priority very important to counter them since then you can fill their face full of lead. This means that if they don't kill what they hit, they die a horrible death. I do agree though that there needs to be some more parameters on charge targets and perhaps a reduction in speed. They are also heavily limited by terrain restrictions (except the Eotbs due to skimming)

Quote

-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.

Momentum applies to any attack that causes a wound, meaning subsequent attacks are effectively bolstered. It is possible to get into melee with a veteran section and they don't have to win to gain dice, just wound someone, making them punishing, hardy troops. In addition, they get free orders and better morale. I can see how it would seem like a cp would amount to the same, but that would mess with the orders they can receive from officers and complicate when models in a section are behaving differently. For example there are some veteran sections that have battle hardened MAR already granting a CP of sorts and the section can only receive one order per turn, so Momentum effectively allows them 2 in some circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jlav said:

Reactions and suppression are something I've played with a lot of options and haven't landed on something firm yet. Would love some suggestions.

You'll notice that officers are aplenty in FSA lists and non-commissioned officers can bolster every attack in their section, in addition modifiers cannot change natural 6's. I can accept that the frontline infantry are pretty chaff, but are extremely effective with combined arms and the new orders setup.

I've had mixed feelings about this. They should be punchy in my opinion, but then once they are in melee, the mandatory disengagement from melee makes priority very important to counter them since then you can fill their face full of lead. This means that if they don't kill what they hit, they die a horrible death. I do agree though that there needs to be some more parameters on charge targets and perhaps a reduction in speed. They are also heavily limited by terrain restrictions (except the Eotbs due to skimming)

Momentum applies to any attack that causes a wound, meaning subsequent attacks are effectively bolstered. It is possible to get into melee with a veteran section and they don't have to win to gain dice, just wound someone, making them punishing, hardy troops. In addition, they get free orders and better morale. I can see how it would seem like a cp would amount to the same, but that would mess with the orders they can receive from officers and complicate when models in a section are behaving differently. For example there are some veteran sections that have battle hardened MAR already granting a CP of sorts and the section can only receive one order per turn, so Momentum effectively allows them 2 in some circumstances.

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%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would first say that the designers of the game intended there to be a disparity between the two weapons you are describing, so what you're saying is that the probability with modifiers exaggerates the disparity between the weapons, whereas a cover save keeps the probability closer together, with an equal chance of negating the attack altogether. After running some calculations myself, I agree that it would be better to keep the cover save option, but to use black dice for the cover save instead of blue. The blue made sense when entire sections were shooting at eachother, and now that happens less. The only motive with the modifiers was to streamline a little, and while it does that, I think the disparity is too big, especially against models with IR 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2017 at 0:00 PM, Jlav said:

Reactions and suppression are something I've played with a lot of options and haven't landed on something firm yet. Would love some suggestions.

You'll notice that officers are aplenty in FSA lists and non-commissioned officers can bolster every attack in their section, in addition modifiers cannot change natural 6's. I can accept that the frontline infantry are pretty chaff, but are extremely effective with combined arms and the new orders setup.

I've had mixed feelings about this. They should be punchy in my opinion, but then once they are in melee, the mandatory disengagement from melee makes priority very important to counter them since then you can fill their face full of lead. This means that if they don't kill what they hit, they die a horrible death. I do agree though that there needs to be some more parameters on charge targets and perhaps a reduction in speed. They are also heavily limited by terrain restrictions (except the Eotbs due to skimming)

Momentum applies to any attack that causes a wound, meaning subsequent attacks are effectively bolstered. It is possible to get into melee with a veteran section and they don't have to win to gain dice, just wound someone, making them punishing, hardy troops. In addition, they get free orders and better morale. I can see how it would seem like a cp would amount to the same, but that would mess with the orders they can receive from officers and complicate when models in a section are behaving differently. For example there are some veteran sections that have battle hardened MAR already granting a CP of sorts and the section can only receive one order per turn, so Momentum effectively allows them 2 in some circumstances.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.