/dcg/ Dropzone/Dropfleet Commander General

keeping this thread alive may prove impossible at this point

Finished up my first UCM box, waiting on a few more in the mail. Havent played a game yet but have watched a few. Trying to actually paint fast so it doesnt become an unpainted game that sits in a box like my DZC has been doing since it came out. Anyone play linked DFC/DZC games yet? Might actually paint my ground stuff after.

How much PHR stuff really has to be glued? I'd swear these frigates are holding together on their own.

id really like try a mixed game, I know i have enough ground forces for it.

Looks pretty solid for a fast paint, do you think youll go back and do another pass?

I would if I didnt have more to paint. In my opinion they look way worse in photos then at normal tabletop distance. I have touched up a few things I didnt see until the photo though.

Never say never, bucko.

If you're going to leave them on your shelf and never touch them, pressure alone would probably fine.

If you're actually going to play, glue that shit son.

The jaws on the frigates and most of the non-heavy cruisers should hold themselves in. But there's not much of a reason to leave them unglued if you're going to paint them, since jawswaps are nothing compared to the problem of magnetizing broadsides if you want to go modular.

mostly just the gun barrels for me, everything else looks fine, feel like the gun barrels need more definition, could be the lighting in the photo though.

I did a mixed game when it came out: It was a blast. Ground forces weren't firing up much, but crap and bombardment was raning down a lot. Ended up seeing a strike carrier explode and rain fragments on top of the Shaltari commander, nearly killing him.

>the problem of magnetizing broadsides

PHR broadsides are a straight-forward magnetization, but you have to know you are going to do it before you glue to two main hull-pieces together.

so you did the simultaneous game setup? How many people did you have?

>still haven't received my Commodore Pledge

At this rate, I'll fly across the Atlantic and punch them in the face.

So, how cheap do you think the Glass will be? I'm expecting 20 points.

For an user too lazy to read the OP.

If I liked Battlefleet Gothic in the hoary old days, will I like Dropfleet?

Considering how Andy Chambers cowrote the DFC rules, I have a hunch you might.

Download the rules in the OP and see if you can recognize any old BFG in there.

>DFC Rules and Scenarios
mediafire.com/file/li17bl14bute5ee/DFC_RulesScenarios.pdf
>DFC Units
mediafire.com/file/oa35v9pq7gfe1fs/DFC_Units.pdf
>DFC Fluff
mediafire.com/file/oysd2f64iytbd69/DFC_Fluff.pdf

More than likely, Id say it fixes alot of the less interesting and more random aspects of BFG, while adding alot of tactical depth and interesting choices.

Am I the only one who feels like the UCM models, overall, have the most love and care put into them?

Like, overall, all of the factions have the same amount of detail, but the UCM have better detail, if that makes sense.

We did only 1 board Dropfleet, 1 board Dropzone. The DZ players were on the center cluster, worth the most points, so naturally we gravitated to it.

It really was neat. We added the house rule that things that blew up over the objective caused the effect of 'falling debris' from Reconquest Phase 2 to occur, which helped add to the flavor as we rushed over to the battlefield and went 'That strike carrier looming over the battlefield explodes in flame, raining firey debris on you!' and then rolled where the things landed, wrecking buildings and so-on.

UCM models were designed first--- and I can see that. They feel like there's more care in them than the Scourge or Shaltari, which kinda look a bit more similar to their ground units. I do feel a lot of careful work was put into PHR though, as they're very different, yet having some similar elements to what you'd expect.

We're all in agreement on the following, right?

>2+ lock: Excellent, doesn't even need good stats or specials to be worth it
>3+ lock: Good, solid primary weapon regardless of stats or special
>4+ lock: Acceptable as a secondary weapon or as a primary with good stats or specials
>5+ lock: Utter shit, needs some amazing stats to make up for it
>6+ lock: Why

Yes.
The main difference remember in how you think of it:
From 3+ You're as likely to miss, as you are to hit, as you are to crit.
From 4+ You've lost half your chance to crit as compared to 3+, which is instead now a chance to miss. Your chance to hit only is unchanged.

That's huge, considering how almost everything has 4+ or better armor, and two factions are very 3+ heavy. That makes criticals worth MUCH more.

Don't forget also the effect of crossing an orbital layer: 3+ turning to 4+ is acceptable. 4+ turning to 5+ is garbage.

Interestingly enough, the following are the average-damage multiplier for the varying lock and armor combinations. As is obvious by inspection, any given lock versus 3+ armor is superior than a lock one greater versus 5+ armor.
The average-damage multiplier steps in increments of .555... in this way, so it can be generalized that increasing enemy armor by one point increases your average-damage multiplier by a little .5, while decreasing your lock by one point increases it by over 1.5

Conversely, increasing your lock by one point reduces your average damage multiplier by 1.5, while an enemy decreasing their armor by one point only reduces your average damage by .5

The average-damage multiplier effects the product of the weapons attacks and its damage, with the only difference between, say, a 4 attack 1 damage weapon, a 2 attack 2 damage weapon, and a 1 attack 4 damage weapon being the probability spread and variance of the damage inflicted.

Forgot pic*
multipliers used the usual formula of ([probability to crit] +[probability to hit!crit] *[probability of failed armor save])

Wew, what the fuck am I saying;
.0555* increments
multiplier by .15*
multiplier by .05*

I played two games yesterday against hegehogs.

Game 1 my opponent took 2 groups of Carrier/Mothership/3 Gates, 1 group of Bombardment Cruiser/2 CA Frigates and 1 group of 4 CA Frigates and a Gate.

He walked the game. 30" range bombers meant I was slowed right down having to course change and launch fighters, while he zoomed gates forward, dropped 6 troops a turn and got multiple intercept chances on anything I tried to drop.

Plus his frigates proved hugely effective, and his motherships just crawled along the back of the board.

In the second game my opponent had a Mothership, an Obsidian, a Basalt, a gun cruiser, two Impel cruisers, two CA frigates and 6 gates.

They moved their mothership a bit too far forward, I active scanned it and fired a double burnthrough at it for 4 damage, then bombed it dead by turn 3. They then had no troop launch at all, and I just used an Orpheus and Theseuses to blast their stuff off the objectives.

Sheltari are, it seems, a faction that noob stomps well but are easy to shut down.

That's more a case of a player doing something stupid and being punished for it. Only taking one mothership is a bad move, you need at least 2 for skirmish games and at least 3 for clash.

What fleet were you using?

PHR, I had an Orpheus + 2 Medea, 2 Theseus + 2 Medea, Orion + 2 Ikarus and Bellerophon.

My BTL and bomber rolls were stupidly good, I felt really terrible as I ended up critting ships off the board. The game was a real bad experience, I felt very WAAC-.y

Bear in mind if he has 3 gates above a cluster, he only gets one roll to blow your stuff up, not 3 if that makes sense.

I feel like you need the lucky dice rolls as PHR for dealing with Shaltari though, as usually they lack closing firepower, and with Shaltari having such a low sig rating you need to be closing at least a turn more than you would against anybody else.
Until he pops his shields, which is actually pretty much to your advantage since a LOT of your ships primary weapon systems are massed banks of 4+ gundecks that do most of their damage through weight of dice rather than critseeking like Scourge.

That is the shaltari's biggest weakness. If you manage to push on their motherships their ground game just falls apart.

Does anyone have the hapless commodore imae from back when kickstarter was happening by any chance?

>I felt very WAAC-.y
?

Reading the rules, I'm sold. Even if I don't play, I love the aesthetic of the models.

On that note, what's the best way to paint these? Back in the day I just thinned my paints and used a brush. Is an airbrush essential for these models? After looking at prices, I'd really rather not shell out that kind of money since i'm a filthy casual with no delusions of grandeur (ie: I want 'table good', not award winning).

Win at any cost, or powergaming.

Airbrush isn't essential, it's just useful considering how convoluted some of the contours can get, especially on the Shaltari.
In general, most ships can be painted by:
>primer
>base
>wash
>detail
Really simply; and you can get as fancy as you'd like with edge highlighting and all that.

Which faction are you most interested in?

>Reinforced brigade escorted by Carrier TF

Well, it's what I'd build with a fluff/RP-hat on, so can't help you on being WAAC'd out. Break the light cruisers and Orion down for frigates ('This task force has Bellerophon, we can't afford to give you an Orion as well, make do with a brace of Pandoras and Europas), I guess.

PHR first, then Scourge. UCM, and Shaltari tied for dead last.

Agreeing with , you could drop the Orion for 3Europa or 2Pandora. I'd keep the Theseus, simply because they're a solid ship.

Also, is it just me, or do the ratios of tonnages feel different for the fleets, 1500 point wise?
>UCM
Fairly evenly balanced between all the tonnages.
>Scourge
Focused mostly on lights and mediums, but also with a good heavy showing.
>PHR
Very, very heavily frigate based with a lot of mediums; not many heavies save for the Bellerophon.
>Shaltari
Almost entirely heavy and superheavy in my experience, with the only mediums being the obligatory Emeralds and Basalts. Very, very few lights besides voidgates and sometimes Amethysts.

Aesthetics wise or playstyle wise? I absolutely love the look of Shaltari ships, but the weakness of their lances and how much needs to be invested in 2-3 Emeralds, points wise, throws me off.

Aesthetics. For playstyle, PHR or UCM .

Having played a fair bit of both UCM and PHR, they're both really fun.
UCM can work with pretty much any fleet composition, but generally speaking their beams are the main stars of their roster, with their guns generally being relegated to their carriers or battleships, maybe a squadron of Osakas if you really like good arcs.

PHR broadsides are in a strange place right now, but are effective if you're clever with your maneuvering and positioning. Going Bellerophon heavy with lots of frigates is an amazingly solid composition.

In both cases, make sure to take corvettes. They make or break games when it comes down to actual scoring.

Ta. I'm going to pick up the 2p starter set and give things a go, see if it sticks as a game or if it becomes just a source of neat ships to paint.

>In both cases, make sure to take corvettes. They make or break games when it comes down to actual scoring.

WTF is a PHR corvette model?

CAW is only on the same orbital layer, correct?
Do catastrophic explosions effect ships on separate orbital layers?

This guy; they haven't started selling them yet, but the renders are done.

And here's the rest for the other factions.

This is the rear view of the Glass

...

Take a PHR frigate hull, take the Andromeda/Calypso prow attachment then attach a cruiser forward turret to it, leave off the rear ventral drive fin?

Hey, thanks!

I think he meant why did you feel that way.

I feel like all these things mostly work fine.

PHR aren't really that tough, they're just the toughest - that extra Hull Point doesn't always come up but when it does it can be pretty important. Still, they function fine.

Broadsides are all good besides the heavies on the Achilles, which are just pure shit for their cost.

In general, PHR are much like they are in DZC. They pay a little more than they really should for some units - the Achilles for example has no business being more expensive than the Moscow, and nor does the Hector, they're simply not as good - but they're still competitive with all the other factions.

One minor complaint I have is that the Ajax's broadsides are way overkill. They should be able to split their fire between frigates. It feels like the Ajax charges you for the ability to kill four frigates at once but doesn't actually give you it.

>One minor complaint I have is that the Ajax's broadsides are way overkill. They should be able to split their fire between frigates. It feels like the Ajax charges you for the ability to kill four frigates at once but doesn't actually give you it.
Get rid of broadsides entirely as a weapon statlines, replace them with linked batteries.

this would probably work well, but i dont think such a major change will be put in place anytime soon.

I have no idea why they didn't do this in the first place. It can't have been to save space, since there are a load of ships with 4+ weapon profiles.

The Leonidas would have 9 weapon profiles including CAW, but I don't think that'd be too bad.

I hardly feel the need to assemble Shaltari frigates having already built 4 Amethyst and 1 Opal.

>not having 4 Opal 4 Amethyst
Literally all you'll ever need.

>their corvettes are ayyfunnels
>my Shaltari are pale green
I know what color glow to give my lances now.

I suspect its because with the full broadside its a ship meant not necessarily to hunt frigates so much as hunt strike carriers in specific. The broadside wipes them out in space, but more importantly its enough shots to fish for hits in atmosphere.

Not saying splitting them wouldnt be nice, but I suspect thats the reason for the full battery to begin with.

But a split-linked set up can still pump all that firepower into a single target no problem, so that can't be the reason.

There were actually a few interesting ideas tossed around on the Hawk forums as how to make the PHR tougher so that they can get into proper broadside positions. Basically, they were:

>more hull based on tonnage, ranging from +1 to +4
>reinforced armor
>6+ passive save on medium, heavy, and superheavy ships
I feel like the first is just too much and would make the PHR just annoying to chew through, rather than being properly tough.
The second is horribly OP for a faction wide buff.
The third is interesting, since it doesn't make them that much tougher, but it certainly puts a chunk in most of the damage the PHR take.

CAW can cross layers at the usual penalty to-hit
Explosions and other death effects are only are same layer.

I found it interesting to note that as the "toughest faction" they actually only have 1 more hull point and better saves on their small ships compared to UCM so being able to survive crits occasionally is tempting

They don't need to be tougher: They're already the toughest ships in the game, and a full broadside firing is already slightly better than most cruiser's usual output.

Just, some variants have poor weapon selections. And they play different. Stuff like the Bell and Orion / Theseus are pretty optimal.

I think the main complain among the forums and other plebe sites is not the damage, but rather the difficulty PHR ships have in getting into good positions against competent opponents.
Them being tough is the means by which they're able to get into position, but they're not tough enough to tank enemy fire enough to properly get into position.

On the other hand, it may just be that normie PHR players are just retarded who can't into maneuvering. I've actually had great success with using Theseus or Orion wolfpacks coming in at the corners towards the center diagonally and doing one of three things, pic related:

>Grey
Starting vector on turn 1
>Red
Loop around through center towards enemy corner to get behind them if there's a large clump heading down that edge.
>Orange
Stay mostly on my side of the board if there's a wide line of enemy presence and no safe holes to slip through.
>Purple
Inflect around centerpoint and get behind enemy if there's a large clump on the other side of the board.

In the Red and Purple situations, it's entirely possibly to get one, two, or even three double broadsides off.

>with their guns generally being relegated to their carriers or battleships
>forgetting based Moscow
Rio I can understand, it's nothing special and can be overshadowed by Seattle. But Moscow is a fantastic brawler.

On everything but weapons free it's just a slightly tougher Rio.
On weapons free it kicks ass.

This is generally the stuff I keep in mind too.

I've found a lot of other PHR players are minimizing broadsides entirely and just swamp their enemies with bombers. I can't do that because I love the Orion and the Leonidas way too much.

What is better; two battlegroups of two medea and three echo, or a battlegroup of four medea and a battlegroup of six echo?

That's a good question one gets you sr 4 on the stroke carriers. Depends on how important that is.

I'd go for the first option. The second gives your Medeas a slightly lower SR which could be good for avoiding CA frigate kill teams, but it also forces you to group all your corvettes together.

>but it also forces you to group all your corvettes together.
Open, bruh

Outlier*

Echoes only get outlier.

I know, see

Outlier only removes battlegroup coherency requirements. They still need to stay in coherency with their group, and since all ships of the same class in a battlegroup form a group the corvettes can't split up.

>They still need to stay in coherency with their group, and since all ships of the same class in a battlegroup form a group the corvettes can't split up.
That's a shit rule that's represented by an illegal battlegroup in the rulebook anyways; me and my group homerule that away, and we fully expect it to be fixed in DFC 1.1.

I think it's generally agreed by everyone that groups in lists should correspond to groups in games, except the guys who want to cheese stuff like 18 Djinn.

I don't think it'll get erattad honestly. It's likely meant to keep people from stuffing duplicates into one battlegroup, since they'd then have to activate together and stay near to each other.

I don't really see why that's a problem; it allows for more maneuverability in smaller games, and drastically decreases the variety of stuff you can take in larger games if you abuse it.
Think about it; you could have a pathfinder battlegroup of three 2Djinn squadrons, but that takes up an entire battlegroup for something that could easily be one squad.

In any case, you could have a compromise, something like "Ships of the same type in a battlegroup automatically form as many groups of their maximum group size as possible, while respecting minimum group size.

For instance; a battlegroup of two groups of two Theseus would become a battlegroup of three Theseus and one Theseus.

Or, more precisely, you could simply make it a list building requirement.
"For any given number of a specific ship within a battlegroup, those ships must be distributed among groups in a manner such that it results in the most largest sized groups possible while remaining a legal list"
Example:
2 Djinn: 1 group of 2
3: 1 group of 3
4: 1 group of 4
...
6: 1 group of 6
7: 1 group of 5, 1 group of 2
8: 1 group of 6, 1 group of 2
etc

Alternately, not even worry about it any just let people cheese group distribution.

I'm pretty sure I know why they did it. Without the combined groups rule you can grab multiple small groups of your cheapest frigates and active scan with all of them, effectively using them as ghetto Limas. A tester probably got 3 active scans out of a 3 Gargoyle battlegroup or something and so the rule was made in response.

Or you could not cheese them, and actually follow battlegroup formation rules as they are written until errata says otherwise.

The whole purpose of the identical groups => one group on the table clause is to force people to obey cohesion rules so you can't just toss all your corvettes/strike carriers/Limas into one battlegroup, spread them as if they were independent, and call it a day.

>"Ships of the same type in a battlegroup automatically form as many groups of their maximum group size as possible, while respecting minimum group size"
That keeps half of the spirit of the restriction, but adds a non-negligible amount of bookkeeping to both player's workloads and also ignores the fact that Hawk leans heavily towards avoiding spam lists.

That's an extremely good point.

Another good point, but my main issue with the rules as written is the fact that it allows for really bullshit cheese, especially in the case of massed CAW frigates. On the other hand, what said is more of a problem than the odd "12 Djinn" BG, so I don't know.

I personally feel like, as it's written now, it's just a clunky method to rectify some problem in play testing without modifying other rules in the game to provide an elegant solution.

>and also ignores the fact that Hawk leans heavily towards avoiding spam lists.
It'd only factor in to spam stuff in the case of massed frigates. If you're worried about the bookkeeping, make it a list construction requirement rather than a "game initialization" thing.
I just think its silly to be able to have four Amber groups, or two Beijing groups, or other stuff like that.

Except you can't really run that many small groups. Your battlegroups are limited to 3 individual groups at the standard point level.

I mean, if you want to do that, you could just mix up 3 seperate Frigates. But the limitation is not nearly on who can do it, but the order requirement for the group (unlike Limas, who can scan while Avalon or Moscow-senpai goes weapons free)

Honestly, I really dislike the 'group combine' thing. It devaluates unit size as a balancing mechanic because there is no unit size.

It's not like a 'mere' unit of 6 Djinns wasn't going to slaughter anything it jumped anyway.

That's 3 active scans a turn for about 100 points, and it's not like you're giving anything up by having a BG of 3 strike carriers. Mixing and matching can't even come close to comparing. You need 2 extraneous ships and the whole thing costs nearly twice as much, not to mention that those ships don't work together nearly as well as they would with others of the same class.

Limas do it slightly better since they can be spread throughout a fleet, but Limas are an important part of their faction and were designed solely for active scanning at the expense of everything else, so that's to be expected.

I honestly wouldn't want to use more than 6 CA frigates in a group, they'd just get in each others way and prevent me from splitting up to pursue multiple targets or prevent explosion chaining. Going through PD again without fighters isn't that big of a deal when you're talking about 12 Djinns. The target isn't going to have a fun time anyway.

Out of curiosity:
strawpoll.me/12184762

Note, for some reason Strawpoll likes to turn colons into "'"

i think is right and this is to prevent active scan abuse with frigates so without changing how that works I dont think you could change the rule

bump