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.

Sikil, just measured the print outs, took thickness of the board off one end and roof and marked and cut. its quite a thick board I'm using, 3 mm but was not tricky really. the key is to picture how you will assemble the box and make the outside dimensions fit and go from there. went really well first time. want to pick up some spray mount however, the glue I'm using sucks, but cost nothing so not worried. I'm an engineer and an estimator so I may be over simplifying something which came natural!

Druidic wrote:Been experimenting with scenery.

I have some old plastic signs which I use for stuff, cut and shapped into a box then stuck printed buildings onto... I think it works quite well! About 30 minutes per building and zero cost!

Looks excellent! What are the dimensions of that?

RE: the armour. Just a quick look at the "battle line" stuff of each faction, the range of armours is as follows:

Scourge: 8 (8 is the highest of any Scourge armour, heavy tanks have 2 damage points. No passive countermeasures)

Shaltari: 7-9 (all the grav tanks are 7, the warstriders are 9. Damage points run from 1-4. Obviously all have passive countermeasures to deflect any attack on a 5+)

PHR: 9-10 (the regular walkers are 9, heavy walkers are 10 and have 5+ passive countermeasures, all have 2 damage points)

UCM: 10 (no passives, the heavy tank designs have 2 damage points each)

The issue is with the range of weapons that can target units of varying armour - lower armour vehicles with passive countermeasures & multiple damage points can still go down to sustained fire from Energy7 or 8 weaponry (which is plentiful) but those same weapons simply cannot touch a bog standard UCM Sabre with its armour of 10, despite it having no shielding or multiple damage points, it's totally safe. A UCM force I think will need a more specific list to counter it, featuring far more railguns, heavy lasers etc.

5x2 residential.

85mm tall x 180mm x 72mm.

So I cut 2x177x82, 2x69x82 and a roof 180x72.

Druidic, if you make more, can you post the dimensions used?

Nick, that's awesome!

Riquende, thanks for the analysis. I'm glad UCM are tough... Looks like my Scourge are scary but fragile.

The Hawk site down load gives you the basic dimensions.

Residential floors 17mm, commercial 21mm with segments being 36mm wide for all.

So 3x2 108mmx72mm.

Also makes it clear these dimensions match the card and resin they will be making!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
General I'm very impressed with the print outs, the roofs have been designed to match up with the buildings, which I had not noticed so I got this first one wrong, as cheap chuck together scenery however works really well!

Charax wrote:
Really, don't you think you should read the core system before declaring that "you have to rewrite" it to represent something?

Basic games design 101, if basic units have top tier anything then you cannot upgrade that particular stat. There are ways around, but no way to actually indicate improved armour beyond that point. So a 'titan' can have more hull but cannot have a thicker hull or better hull materials. Furthermore the Sabre is written up as being lightweight, fair enough, but it means if you want to go the other way and replicate superdense materials in game you cannot easily do so.

Orlanth wrote:

Charax wrote:
Really, don't you think you should read the core system before declaring that "you have to rewrite" it to represent something?

Basic games design 101, if basic units have top tier anything then you cannot upgrade that particular stat. There are ways around, but no way to actually indicate improved armour beyond that point. So a 'titan' can have more hull but cannot have a thicker hull or better hull materials. Furthermore the Sabre is written up as being lightweight, fair enough, but it means if you want to go the other way and replicate superdense materials in game you cannot easily do so.

Perhaps not all games designers have power creep as part of their design. Why would there be a need for a 'super unit'? Why cant we just have expansions with different units which are not necessarily super.

We might, but armour 10 implies something, the 'best' armour.

UCM tanks are written up as being made of lightweight composites.

This begs the question of what happens when you apply the same manufacturing tech to denser materials.

Your question necessitates that it is even possible to apply the manufacturing techniques to denser materials. It is not always possible to retool your manufacturing to deal with different source materials.

We are dealing with a game here, where you push toy soldiers around on a table. I wouldn't try to get too technical about it.

since you're fond of 40K comparisons:

AV is capped at 14. Land raiders have AV14, so how do you represent something with thicker or more improved armour than a Land Raider? it must be impossible! there's no way you could represent something like a Titan in 40K

No, wait, it isn't, because armour and AV arent the only methods by which the game system/s account for a unit's armour or resilience, they also include uncapped Hull/Damage/Structure points

Orlanth wrote:We might, but armour 10 implies something, the 'best' armour.

UCM tanks are written up as being made of lightweight composites.

This begs the question of what happens when you apply the same manufacturing tech to denser materials.

It becomes too heavy to be dropped by Dropship?

Or it becomes too unstable to handle vibrations from airlifting and groundtravel? It cracks under its own weight and preassure when vibrations from usage is factored in.

Charax wrote:since you're fond of 40K comparisons:

AV is capped at 14. Land raiders have AV14, so how do you represent something with thicker or more improved armour than a Land Raider? it must be impossible! there's no way you could represent something like a Titan in 40K

.....and 40K is badly designed for this reason. They capped out early by including S9 and 10 for early man portable weapons. Either that or not extending S and T to 15. The eventual brainfart solution we get is strength D weaponry.

Charax wrote:
No, wait, it isn't, because armour and AV arent the only methods by which the game system/s account for a unit's armour or resilience, they also include uncapped Hull/Damage/Structure points

Again bad design on GW's part as they ought to have used armour beyond 14 to represent armour beyond 14 and other rules to represent other factors. Structure points come from size, not armour. Hawk understands this. A Gladius is bigger thus it has 2Hp. Make a new tank of the same size with new improved armour they you are having to fudge the game mechanic because what you need is armour 11 when what you have got is 3Hp, wheras 3Hp properly indicates an even bigger tank of similar materials.

Sikil wrote:

Orlanth wrote:We might, but armour 10 implies something, the 'best' armour.

UCM tanks are written up as being made of lightweight composites.

This begs the question of what happens when you apply the same manufacturing tech to denser materials.

It becomes too heavy to be dropped by Dropship?

Or it becomes too unstable to handle vibrations from airlifting and groundtravel? It cracks under its own weight and preassure when vibrations from usage is factored in.

I am alrrady with you on this, it is to be expected. Say heavy compositie armoured units are transported two or three per Albatross, maybe they are defense only or even installations.

Take UCM composite technology, plus dense materials plus mobile bunker equals titan equivalent?

So whats to stop the table being expanded? Its currently capped at 10 as the max for the current available vehicles, lets say in a year he releases some sort of uber tank, it will have its own uber stats and an errata for uber toughness 11-12 armour...

Apocalypse DzC anyone? :-)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and uber weapons at higher stength obviously

Druidic wrote:So whats to stop the table being expanded? Its currently capped at 10 as the max for the current available vehicles, lets say in a year he releases some sort of uber tank, it will have its own uber stats and an errata for uber toughness 11-12 armour...

Apocalypse DzC anyone? :-)

I hope it is. I hope Hawk learns from GW's mistake.

it appears they might as 'Strength' already breaks the round number cap and the armour factor only goes to 10 because that is as high as it currently goes.

GW on the other hand couldn't make S11 or S12 guns because they had painted themselves into a corner with their games design doctrine.

In fairness HP is also how they represented the Colossals in Warmachine and Gargantuans in Hordes. Even though it was said they're the best armor in the land, their armor stats aren't obscenely high.

Armor 11 is possible from what I can tell but that is where it'd max out. Also, heavier armor isn't necessarily better. What matters is how the armor is applied and what it is made up of. There is a lot to take into account before adding in more armor as well. Since this is a game about mobility from what I can tell, heavier armor might be to big of a trade off.

I would say some exotics could have Armor 11. All this means is that you have to dedicate the heavy fire (such as rails which IIRC is 9 or 10) to destroy it. Light fire wouldn't be able to bring it down, and I think that measures heavy armor more than anything.

Rat wrote:Your question necessitates that it is even possible to apply the manufacturing techniques to denser materials. It is not always possible to retool your manufacturing to deal with different source materials.

We are dealing with a game here, where you push toy soldiers around on a table. I wouldn't try to get too technical about it.

Yes I think so too... let's see how it plays out. If Hawk Wargames doesn't have the concern of trying to 'codex creep' with each new release (and to be fair, it's mostly GW that has done this in the past, rather than the smaller game producers) then as long as it turns out to be balanced I'm not too bothered about the technical specifics as long as the suspension of disbelief isn't stretched too far.

Orlanth wrote:

Druidic wrote:So whats to stop the table being expanded? Its currently capped at 10 as the max for the current available vehicles, lets say in a year he releases some sort of uber tank, it will have its own uber stats and an errata for uber toughness 11-12 armour...

Apocalypse DzC anyone? :-)

I hope it is. I hope Hawk learns from GW's mistake.

it appears they might as 'Strength' already breaks the round number cap and the armour factor only goes to 10 because that is as high as it currently goes.

GW on the other hand couldn't make S11 or S12 guns because they had painted themselves into a corner with their games design doctrine.

There is no need to ever go beyond 10 in armor. To represent heavier armor you could just ad a -1, -2 and so on to the strength of the incoming attack to represent the armor absorbing the impact/heat wathever.
You dont need to errata anything or fiddle with anything.

Got my box in Maryland this morning!!

Unfortunately, missing 2 bits and 1 ship. I have emailed them and hope like Nick posted that they'll be sent out promptly.

Can't believe I didn't order the rulebook direct, doh!

RiTides wrote:Got my box in Maryland this morning!!

Unfortunately, missing 2 bits and 1 ship. I have emailed them and hope like Nick posted that they'll be sent out promptly.

Can't believe I didn't order the rulebook direct, doh!

Did you receive one of the "phone number" emails for customs, by chance?

Yes, I and all my friends who ordered direct did, I believe. No call, though, I think the number was just-in-case.

Haven't heard back from Hawk yet but will update when I do. Hoping it won't be after the weekend.

RiTides wrote:Yes, I and all my friends who ordered direct did, I believe. No call, though, I think the number was just-in-case.

Haven't heard back from Hawk yet but will update when I do. Hoping it won't be after the weekend.

Excellent. Gives me hope that my package will be waiting for me when I leave work. Huzzah!

You might be in the next zone, since I'm in an east coast state. Best of luck tho

I ordered my rule book today!

can't wait!

Some more buildings done

Just messed the last one up so stopping now!

enjoy!

They look great!!

My friend didn't get his order today, and obviously we're in the same state. Hopefully tomorrow/Mon

Ordered 2 large army and rules yesterday, 2 week wait I fear!

Bubbalicious wrote:There is no need to ever go beyond 10 in armor. To represent heavier armor you could just ad a -1, -2 and so on to the strength of the incoming attack to represent the armor absorbing the impact/heat wathever.
You dont need to errata anything or fiddle with anything.

He could, but that would be gak writing. You should never write two rules when one would suffice.

I'll be honest I want to invest but with no Idea of Points costs, average army sizes in points, and the unit platoon sizes I have no idea how to make an objective analysis of the different Army Sets from them Directly.

It's like FOW, if you buy a whole Company it rarely is exactly what you need to make the whole list and you need to buy odds and sods to round it out. It's these Odds and Sods buy's that drive the overall cost up and wipe out any saving.

I'm going to wait a few months and see who is still playing, in 2 months time and see if I can borrow a rule book.

Hopefully someone will come up with Battle Scribe or Army Builder files before then, even

Got mine in today. Impressed in some instances but disappointed in others. The pieces that are cast well are cast beautifully. Sadly, the few that I have that are cast poorly have some serious issues.

There is some pitting on quite a few models (similar to Finecast) but most aren't a big deal. The biggest issue has come with the spruce shoots. The models must be hollow, as on 4 or 5 of my models when I cut off the spruce shoot. It left a rather deep hole. One of my Zeus walkers has some really big and deep gaps in the back, further substantiating my thoughts that the models are hollow.

I did have two broken pieces when they were shipped as well as missing one of the plastic tabs that fits the acrylic flight stands, and frustratingly, the show piece, my large drop ship has some bad bubbling near the cockpit which is going to be really hard to fix.

With all that being said, I'm really impressed with the launch. The command cards are really nice and save for the minor problems affecting 4 models listed above, all the other pieces look great. Well see how the customer service goes from here, but I'm looking forward to painting these things up.

Some recommendations:
1. Use your hobby knife more than your clippers when cutting the sprues. I found the holes happened more often when I used my clippers to cut them off than with my knife.
2. Dry fit everything. Hawk wasn't kidding when they said the resin takes super glue well. It dries very quickly.