Dropzone Commander News/Rumours

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**infinite_array**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Polonius wrote:So, I suppose you can take grave issue if you'd like, but until I see evidence of people diving in to the backgrounds for Warmachine, Infinity, Malifaux, etc. to that extent, I'm going to stand by my assertion.

Then I'll go one step further and say that your assertion is stupid, or at the very least horrifically narrow-minded. I've seen/spoken to/met people with emotional investments in BattleTech, Pokemon... Halo... Batman... Transformers. Anything! You name it, someone out there cares about it a bit more than your or I might. I don't see how 40K sits above a bunch of other games in this arena, or why someone might choose to have or even inherently have a greater investment in it over any other game (not mentioning WM specifically because it is interchangable with anything that isn't 40K in this example).

Ok, taking this more off topic, but I've already said my bit on DzC - great minis, rules look ok, gotta see a bit more. I'll put it in a spoiler, so it doesn't detract too much from the main topic:

Spoiler:

**Polonius**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Polonius wrote:So, I suppose you can take grave issue if you'd like, but until I see evidence of people diving in to the backgrounds for Warmachine, Infinity, Malifaux, etc. to that extent, I'm going to stand by my assertion.

Then I'll go one step further and say that your assertion is stupid, or at the very least horrifically narrow-minded. I've seen/spoken to/met people with emotional investments in BattleTech, Pokemon... Halo... Batman... Transformers. Anything! You name it, someone out there cares about it a bit more than your or I might. I don't see how 40K sits above a bunch of other games in this arena, or why someone might choose to have or even inherently have a greater investment in it over any other game (not mentioning WM specifically because it is interchangable with anything that isn't 40K in this example).

Ironically, your counterexamples are in no way inconsistent with my assertion, which was narrowly tailored (not narrow minded). I could have been clearer, but all of my examples were minis games. I also specifically cited Battletech as the other system with dedicated background nuts.

Everything else you cite is beyond the realm of minis. Which is what any direct competitor to 40k would entail. I mean, sure, there are guys as deep into Pokemon as there are into 40k, but outside of both being games they aren't horribly comparable.

Unless I'm missing something, I've thought it a pretty well established principle that the well detailed, yet open for innovation, universe of 40k is one of it's strongest selling points.

I mean, you spend some of your time developing an RPG that exists primarily to explore the more vaguely known quarters of the 40k universe. There is a reason that is a more interesting roleplaying universe than, say, the world of Starship Troopers.

**H.B.M.C.**

infinite_array wrote:I've got to agree with HBMC. Not in the you being stupid part...

I didn't say he was stupid. I said his assertion was. There is a difference.

**infinite_array**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
infinite_array wrote:I've got to agree with HBMC. Not in the you being stupid part...

I didn't say he was stupid. I said his assertion was. There is a difference.

Oops. Meant to write 'your assertion'. Lemme go back and fix that...

**Polonius**

infinite_array wrote:] I've got to agree with HBMC. Not in the you being stupid part, but in the fact that in only 40k/Fantasy can people 'dive in'.

I'd agree with that too, which is why I never said that only 40k has a background that people can dive into.

I said that people relate more to 40k armies than to, say, WM ones. I could have been clearer, so allow me to restate. Generally speaking, people tend to relate more to 40k armies than to the factions in other games. Sure, there are die hards for every system. But I think that given the basic tropes that 40k has (knights in space, barbarians in space, mystical elves in space), and the 25 years of fluff that's accumulated, it's easier for a player to get "hooked" by some aspect of the world.

When you look at the continuum of age and popularity for minis games, you see the same patterns. The two that have hung around the longest are 40k and Battletech, which have deep backgrounds. WM is getting more fleshed out and more popular. Some of that is simply time. Hell, most of it is simply time.

It doesn't change the fact that for a person looking to tell a story with their army, GW is stronger choice than, say, Dropzone Commander. 40k has more armies, more subfactions, more characters, more hinted at but not fleshed out ideas, more known unknowns, etc.

Unless I like the idea of playing as Colonial Marines, superhuman technologists, not-protoss or hive mind I'm not going to get hooked on DCZ's fluff. Luckily, i want to build colonial marines (and option essentially lacking in 40k).

**infinite_array**

So... we can all go back to talking about how cool looking DzC's models are, whinging a bit about the prices, and generally looking forward to the game?

**Polonius**

infinite_array wrote:So... we can all go back to talking about how cool looking DzC's models are, whinging a bit about the prices, and generally looking forward to the game?

I was just trying to explain possible reasons that people weren't willing to pay GW prices for non-GW stuff.

I don't know if acknowledging that there is a reason 40k is popular is seen as white knighting, but it's seemed to trigger some bizarre animosity for what I thought was a self evident point.

I mean, I think there's also a reason a lot of people like the UCM: a lot of people want to build a futuristic, but still relatable sci-fi human force.

**infinite_array**

Polonius wrote:
infinite_array wrote:So... we can all go back to talking about how cool looking DzC's models are, whinging a bit about the prices, and generally looking forward to the game?

I was just trying to explain possible reasons that people weren't willing to pay GW prices for non-GW stuff.

I don't know if acknowledging that there is a reason 40k is popular is seen as white knighting, but it's seemed to trigger some bizarre animosity for what I thought was a self evident point.

I mean, I think there's also a reason a lot of people like the UCM: a lot of people want to build a futuristic, but still relatable sci-fi human force.

Right, I can kind of see that.

I mean, sort of. I'm the sort of player who wants great rules first, and I can fill in what I need to to flesh out any sort of universe/setting.

Then again, I'm also coming from the perspective of a person who likes each faction equally-

UCM are Colonial Marines/Halo/standard future humans. Cool.
PHR are Ghost In the Shell, transhumanist mech users. As a transhumanist and a fan of mechs, I'm all thumbs up.
The Scourge are a combination of the Flood, the Borg, and other parastic galactic scary things. I'm not sure if anyone else remembers them, but I used to be a big fan of the Animorph books when I was younger, and the Scoruge just ooze (pun intended) Yeerk-yness all over the place.
And the Shaltari... well, ok. Maaaaybe I'm not so big on them. But they're interesting to me in their Warrior-Intellectual lifestyle. The pursuit of knowledge is admirable, but kicking ass is preferable. I love that!

**Lysenis**

All this was a point on the fluff, if DzC wants to get it right they have to get it right the first time. They cant afford to pull a GW when it comes to fluff. If its something that is decent and draws me in, I will write a book.

**Polonius**

infinite_array wrote:
Right, I can kind of see that.

I mean, sort of. I'm the sort of player who wants great rules first, and I can fill in what I need to to flesh out any sort of universe/setting.

Well, there are other built in advantages that a gaming company can utilize. Selling minis that go along with a great game is one of them. Selling good looking minis is another. selling minis that go with a good tournament game is a third.

Most successful games have different advantages. GW's are player base, background, and modelling. Confrontation had gorgeous minis (and little else). WM has good rules and tournaments.

**spaceXjam**

i think i light the scenery more than anything else! wow the buildings look awsome! ive always wanted to play in a city type of thing.

however, for me its 40k or death. to much fluff in the 40k universe to go somewhere else...

also i think its funny how people complain about prices from GW and how other minatures are cheaper... by the looks of things your going to be spending about 200-250 pounds for a full army... that is allot more than you would on a average starter sized 40k army

**Kwosge**

spaceXjam wrote:also i think its funny how people complain about prices from GW and how other minatures are cheaper... by the looks of things your going to be spending about 200-250 pounds for a full army... that is allot more than you would on a average starter sized 40k army

So what you are trying to say is that it will cost more to make a fully fleshed out army in DzC than it would to make a bare minimum army in 40k? Why... didn't I see that before!? Please speak more on this topic oh great wise one.

**Surtur**

Polonius wrote:
infinite_array wrote:] I've got to agree with HBMC. Not in the you being stupid part, but in the fact that in only 40k/Fantasy can people 'dive in'.

I'd agree with that too, which is why I never said that only 40k has a background that people can dive into.

I said that people relate more to 40k armies than to, say, WM ones. I could have been clearer, so allow me to restate. Generally speaking, people tend to relate more to 40k armies than to the factions in other games. Sure, there are die hards for every system. But I think that given the basic tropes that 40k has (knights in space, barbarians in space, mystical elves in space), and the 25 years of fluff that's accumulated, it's easier for a player to get "hooked" by some aspect of the world.

When you look at the continuum of age and popularity for minis games, you see the same patterns. The two that have hung around the longest are 40k and Battletech, which have deep backgrounds. WM is getting more fleshed out and more popular. Some of that is simply time. Hell, most of it is simply time.

It doesn't change the fact that for a person looking to tell a story with their army, GW is stronger choice than, say, Dropzone Commander. 40k has more armies, more subfactions, more characters, more hinted at but not fleshed out ideas, more known unknowns, etc.

Unless I like the idea of playing as Colonial Marines, superhuman technologists, not-protoss or hive mind I'm not going to get hooked on DCZ's fluff. Luckily, i want to build colonial marines (and option essentially lacking in 40k).

Ok, who ever is relating to 40k may be in for a visit from their local sheriff. I'm just saying between the sado masochism and religious zealotry and eugenics and soul eating and exterminatuses...

**xole**

Back on topic(forever, I hope. Games Workshop has tainted enough of the hobby as it is) does everybody know what army they want? I kind of want to get a feel for what armies are going to be most/least popular. Personally, I shall be going scourge. We may have floating parking garages, but we also have the not-reaper.

And I really like the fluff on the website. To me it gives a feel of what each unit is capable of doing, but I'm hoping to see some stats eventually. Do the scourge remind anybody of the Yeerk from animorphs?

**Chimera_Calvin**

UCM all the way for me, although I'm holding off on model purchases until I get my other painting projects done (yes, I know I've said that before but I'll stick to it this time dammit

). I just love their flyers, especially the archangel

I'll be picking up a rulebook as soon as they're available, though. £15 is a steal and I want to read the fluff/rules before I start to design the army.

**Riquende**

PHR for me. I'm not a fan of mech stuff generally, or the anime that some people are citing as inspiration (I don't get an anime vibe from them myself, I see massive ED-209s), but there's something about the range as a whole I like. Possibly the strong consistency of design across every model, regardless of whether it's tracked, legged or a flier.

Oh, and the Athena. Lovely model. Hope it's awesome in-game, because I want loads. In fact, if you've decided on a faction, what one model from it did the most to sway you?

**Nightwolf829**

Riquende's Wrote:
Oh, and the Athena. Lovely model. Hope it's awesome in-game, because I want loads. In fact, if you've decided on a faction, what one model from it did the most to sway you?

The Athena is indeed a really great looking model. I'm especially a big fan of the inbuilt miniguns that the PHR have. That said I've fallen for the Shaltari Tribes. I think the model that did it for me was the Jaguar Warstrider. The exotic and elegant nature of the walker caters to the Eldar player in me.

**angryboy2k**

Riquende wrote:
Oh, and the Athena. Lovely model. Hope it's awesome in-game, because I want loads. In fact, if you've decided on a faction, what one model from it did the most to sway you?

Definitely the Kodiak ACV.

**obsidianaura**

No one appears to be showing much love for scourge it seems.

One thing i dont like about them the rack mounted tanks in one of the dropships so much.

The thing that looks like a Reaper from ME though is superb.

**Lork Skystompa**

I like the Shaltari and my son likes the Scourge . We both like like the UCM and PHR , so there will be a fight over who gets what but I see us getting all four .

**Hercule Pyro**

obsidianaura wrote:No one appears to be showing much love for scourge it seems.

I like the worms, the mini-walkers and the tiny fliers, maybe the big gunship/mech/honestly-not-a-Reaper thing if only because they can make the leap to 15mm quite easily. The rest just doesn't do anything for me, they just look like eeevil versions of normal equipment.

**Charax**

obsidianaura wrote:No one appears to be showing much love for scourge it seems.

One thing i dont like about them the rack mounted tanks in one of the dropships so much.

The thing that looks like a Reaper from ME though is superb.

Lots of people love the scourge!

I agree with you about the dropships. Marauder's...OK I guess, but for the other one I'm hoping to convert it into a 3x3 long transport rather than a 1x9 column

**Squidmanlolz**

Charax wrote:
obsidianaura wrote:No one appears to be showing much love for scourge it seems.

One thing i dont like about them the rack mounted tanks in one of the dropships so much.

The thing that looks like a Reaper from ME though is superb.

Lots of people love the scourge!

I agree with you about the dropships. Marauder's...OK I guess, but for the other one I'm hoping to convert it into a 3x3 long transport rather than a 1x9 column

Yeah, with TLOS, maybe a floating tower, taller than many vehicles are wide isn't the greatest idea...

**Charax**

TLOS doesn't apply to fliers, LOS is measured to a point 6" above the base on the stem, so depending on whether Dropships count as fliers, it may not be a problem.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Scourge dropships will become skimmers after they land, though, which will present a problem.

**SlaveToDorkness**

I'm ordering Shaltari and PHR. My buddy and I will play a bit with those before deciding what to play. Being more of a modeler at heart I'm just buying what I like.

**RiTides**

Lork Skystompa wrote:I like the Shaltari and my son likes the Scourge . We both like like the UCM and PHR , so there will be a fight over who gets what but I see us getting all four .

Yeah, my favorites are actually Shaltari and then Scourge, too! For now, I only have the funds for one, but as all the other guys here are going Shaltari/PHR/UCM, I may end up getting some Scourge eventually.

**Kurce**

Probably UCM. I have never played what I like to call the 'vanilla' army in any tabletop game (Chaos Demons/Dark Eldar in 40k, Trollbloods in WM/Hordes, Skaven in Fantasy). They are probably the easiest to learn and they are supposed to be the 'balanced' army that is decent at everything so I will probably try them. Plus, their stuff should be the easiest to paint.

EDIT:

Now that I read my post, it makes it sound like I am calling the armies listed the vanilla armies. Those armies I listed are the armies that I played. But, the more I think about it the more I think that these are not really vanilla armies but they are just the human armies in a given game. So, I suppose that is a better way of putting it. I have not played a human army in any tabletop war game that I have played.

**Lysenis**

I am going with PHR once I have an established ultimate army (roughly 2 mega armies worth of points) I will transfer to UCM

I am going to write up fluff and send it in based on what I find out of the phr style. Goin for a book!

**Fjalldreki**

PHR. Because of the Odin. The rest of their gear is pretty cool, too, though I'm not fond of the Janus. I really want them to have power armored infantry that can ride into combat on the walkers. My favorite (fluffy) aspect of BattleTech's OmniMechs and Elementals.

**kestral**

You know what I would do if I was a brand new wargames company - release cardstock versions of my minis. They would make it easy to play games and get into the system, and I'm pretty sure the minis would follow quickly, if the cardstock was literally pictures of them.