Nazduruk_Bugzappa

Notes and queries on 2.5

38 posts in this topic

With the carriers all having set numbers of SAWs launched from them:

-are all CV6 carriers 1×squadron of 5SAWs?

-are all CV9 carriers 2×squadrons of 4SAWs?

-what about CV12 carriers? Are they 2×5, or 3×4?

-what is going to happen to carriers with upgradable carrier values?

The reason I ask these questions is because I have over 70 assorted carriers and airfields, and a few hundred SAWs to sort out amongst each of my fleets (including several customised recon planes that I cannot even use as "spotted" markers)

Hubcap likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The change to target painters is the first change I really actively dislike rather than taking a wait and see approach. Ok, the orbats of some nations may have their target painters able to mark targets for other squadrons, but I do not see the reasons behind the overall change. It removes a layer of tactical planning just at the moment when target painters could finally become useful due to activating after movement.

I believe this to be a bad change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe cv6 should have been reduced too 5 and 9 to 8, then the amount of sas they come with will match carrier value, least not too confuse people:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Ramming section - it is stated that the Static Model resolves its collision against the Moving model AFTER the ram has been resolved (pg 112). Yet in the illustrated example (Pg 115), the first Uhlan rolls for Collision damage even after it has been sunk by the Majesty.

 

Is the wording "AFTER the ram has been resolved" merely reflective of dicing sequence, and that actual damage was done simultaneously by both parties? 

Seph and Kapitan Montag like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Thamoz said:

The change to target painters is the first change I really actively dislike rather than taking a wait and see approach. Ok, the orbats of some nations may have their target painters able to mark targets for other squadrons, but I do not see the reasons behind the overall change. It removes a layer of tactical planning just at the moment when target painters could finally become useful due to activating after movement.

I believe this to be a bad change.

The reason is real simple: taming broken mechanics and killing "uber combo" play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shaffer said:

The reason is real simple: taming broken mechanics and killing "uber combo" play.

entire play style destroyed because of a non-issue. no-one mentioned combo play as an issue, and making the mechanics boring would be the worst way to fix it even if it were an issue. this change is flat out bad.

right now 2.5 is looking like a flop to me. PAs are now typical AoE guns. target painters no longer do any of the fun planning aspects I loved in my CoA. I was starting up paining again, had my second epicurus magnetised, primed and ready to paint, but these changes sucked my excitement right out. It's back in the bubble-wrap bag now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OliJ said:

@Sebenko  Maybe the new COA orbat will save the day.Crossing finger;)

Maybe, but I'm not holding my breath.

1 hour ago, Zahariel said:

Tbh the PA looks nasty.  It seems to give the CoA the abilty to deal with a greater variety of threats now. 

Rules wise, yeah. But the flavour is lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sebenko said:

entire play style destroyed because of a non-issue. no-one mentioned combo play as an issue, and making the mechanics boring would be the worst way to fix it even if it were an issue. this change is flat out bad.

Hardly "Entire play-stile destroyed" it's more of a "can't no longer mark thing > kill thing, repeat"
It's like the PE litany in 2.0 "can't win by boarding > fleet is useless thing" (and I play only PE, so I know the song well. Guess what? you have to evolve and adapt.

And btw, 2.0 PE was way stronger and fun than the 1.1 counterpart.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shaffer said:

 

Hurff-durf fun means OP. Didn't say that it was useless. Try understanding what I'm actually saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Color me disappointed by SG inability to write clear ruleset. I just do not get it how it is possible that the rulebook was approved to printer with so many unclear passages which could have been easily picked up by experienced writer or community members in couple of hours. All the previous rulebooks had same issues, when if not this time SG should prove that they learned from their mistakes?

Even if I own all versions of rulebooks, campaigns and Fleet Action, I will not buy printed 2.5 rules just to collect dust on the shelf. Hopefully updated version of PDF will be available soon, till then only models for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now