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.

Flashman wrote:@ Scipio - Fantasy is great and all, otherwise we wouldn't be here. But everything has a breaking point before it gets ridiculous. Allow me to illustrate using blockbuster films as a metaphor.

Raiders of the Lost Ark involves a magical box for communicating with God, yet for most of the film, the characters act within the boundaries of reality whilst they hunt for it. The truck chase is one of the most exciting action scenes in cinema, yet at no point does Indy do anything that is physically impossible. The only real moment of fantasy is the payoff when they finally open the Ark, yet because they haven't overplayed the fantasy elements, it doesn't spoil the feel of the film.

In modern blockbusters, they tend to overcook the pudding as it were and just throw as much as they can at the screen just because they can. The extreme example is Transformers where none of the "action" scenes are particularly exciting because they're not believable and there's too much going on to take in.

This is kind of where I think Warhammer has gone or is going. Basically, it's become a fantasy blockbuster directed by Michael Bay.

Has it ever been really different? Old models and miniatures had lots of silly stuff too.

Funny you brought out Lost Ark: the Nazi aircraft portrayed in the film was utterly impractical. What's wrong with good old Ju-52?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frankly mate I think you're trying to be pithy and just coming off as a bit of an ass. I did mention the use of siege engines on galleys in classical sieges in my post. It's not some sort of devestating rebuttal to show a picture of one. How about actually replying to some of what was said instead of trying to show that history is fantastical (which is only true up to a certain point) with one-line replies?

Scipio, calm down there. I'm not trying to make it realistic, if the game is your cup of tea then feel free to play it and I hope you have a good time. I genuinely mean that, different strokes for different folks. I (and everyone else here) is just arguing the toss - its what the internet is for.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frankly mate I think you're trying to be pithy and just coming off as a bit of an ass. I did mention the use of siege engines on galleys in classical sieges in my post. It's not some sort of devestating rebuttal to show a picture of one. How about actually replying to some of what was said instead of trying to show that history is fantastical (which is only true up to a certain point) with one-line replies?

Scipio, calm down there. I'm not trying to make it realistic, if the game is your cup of tea then feel free to play it and I hope you have a good time. I genuinely mean that, different strokes for different folks. I (and everyone else here) is just arguing the toss - its what the internet is for.

Re-read your own post, then take the following advice given to others: 1) don't be an ass, 2) calm down,

Dreadfleet and Man o War (I own both) have very similar ship deisgns in terms of many ships that could only work in a world with plenty of magic. If you go back and look at the Sjkaven and Orc designs, or the Dark Elf lets build a fortress on top of a sea serpent, even the human ships had cannons almost the same size of the ship (good luck firing that and stull having a ship after) etc - the only thing that has really changed is the size and quality of the sculpts.

They are supposed to be ofer the top with each ship as a Character so when you get five or six people together they all can feel they have a special ship and abilities.

I for one love the Tomb Kings ship - very very cool, many of them will go very nice with my Uncharted Seas fleets.

Mr Morden wrote: If you go back and look at the Sjkaven and Orc designs, or the Dark Elf lets build a fortress on top of a sea serpent, even the human ships had cannons almost the same size of the ship (good luck firing that and stull having a ship after)

Italian WW1 era monitors get pretty close to this...

Cool - most interesting - thank you, would also make great 40K models! How effective were these ships? Guessing mainly used for coastal work?

I was thinking that the recoil would be too much for wooden warships as it might shake the ship to pieces but I oculd be very wrong as I know there were Napolonic mortor monitors etc - also punt guns for duck shooting are very large in comparison to the size of the rowing boat. I guess that often reality is stranger!

They were built because Italians had surplus 15" battleship turrets from cancelled battleships, and the turrets were bolted to smallest imaginable hull. They were for coastal bombardment, just like (slightly more sensible) British monitors. IIRC their top speed was around 3 knots.

mikhaila wrote:
Re-read your own post, then take the following advice given to others: 1) don't be an ass, 2) calm down,

Well I'm obviously gutted that you don't agree with me, but I don't think I am being an ass. I'd just prefer it if someone who disagreed with me actually replied to what I was saying, rather than posting one-liners and pictures. I am also as calm as can be - I don't think I come off as very excited, I say specifically that we're just arguing opinions and it doesn't matter to me whether other people like the game or not.

On the subject of siege engines and massive guns on monitors and such, yes, all of these things were mounted on fairly slow-moving platforms meant to put out in calm weather and attack some coastal location. The siege tower on 2 triremes pictured - that would be in real trouble the second it got a little rough. Even without such a huge construction on top the ancients tried to avoid being caught in storms, and taking a galley of that era into the atlantic was extremely dangerous. Monitors, same sort of thing, you wouldn't want to be out too long in case the weather turned (even if it got a bit choppy those guns wouldn't be able to fire accurately). My point is that these sort of inventions are amazing achievements of engineering, but they have to accept big drawbacks in logistics and the situations they are suitable for use in. It takes the whole thing past any point of sense or for me, interest, to have every single ship in the game ignore the laws of physics. I repeat, if one or two ships were supernatural I would be fine with it, but every ship is more outlandish than the last. I think this decision (and the accompanying visual style) is a step away from what I'd like to see in a warhammer naval game.

My point is that various fantastical looking ships have been built in history, which of course had practical limitations due to excessive top hamper and other such factors. Nonetheless they did exist, did take the sea, and sometimes were used in combat within their practical limitations.

The fantastic ships in Dread Fleet draw on a variety of historical ideas and exaggerate them

It seems a bit pointless to make a fantasy naval game and not to include genuinely fantastic elements.

In historicals there are many good rule sets available, covering almost every period of history, supported by many ranges of ship models.

Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems a bit pointless to make a fantasy naval game and not to include genuinely fantastic elements.
.

It seems a bit pointless to make every inch covered with skulls and call it fantasy The problem here is NOT including fantasy elements the problem here is spamming fantasy to such a degree that crosses the boundaries of believable... its more like please include a bit of credibility to those bubbles of nonsense you call ships.

You know what my 4 year old kid said when he saw the pictures of the boats? - Are they pirates sinking ships?
Maybe because Im from a country with a big history of caravelas and Naus these models do strike me as silly... Much like a small child kind of fantasy, mind its ok... Just not for me.

Looks like a fad to me.

I would have preferred something more in the line of Space Hulk or Necromunda but hey, it's always nice to see something different. I quite like the models and fancy this sort of toned down game that I can play with my little kid.

90€ is a bit overpriced but it's biggest drawback IMO is that the models are in a different scale than the other game systems. How often I've seen Space Hulk termies in Blood Angels armies and thought hey that's a really cool mini

Read a couple of awful reviews for DF's rules from Quirkworthy and some other website. Pretty happy with my decision to buy Earth Reborn instead even though I've had the game since DF was released and I still haven't learned all the rules.

Zarren Wevon wrote:Read a couple of awful reviews for DF's rules from Quirkworthy and some other website. Pretty happy with my decision to buy Earth Reborn instead even though I've had the game since DF was released and I still haven't learned all the rules.

Well, I have had a chance to play the game now from both sides (Dreadfleet and Grand Alliance). There are a few minor issues that could be cleared up, but overall, I enjoy the game very much. It plays well. It is a nice changeup from 40k. Yes, there are only 12 scenarios and I am sure they will get old. But, to be honest, what game doesn't? I have probably close to $1,500 in xbox and PS3 games sitting at my house that I no longer play either. But, for the most part, I enjoyed them. I think DF will be the same way.

While I was initially turned off by the "alliance of races" for each side, I have quickly come around. Each boat has its own abilities and I find that it adds to the game rather than subtracts. I agree the models may be a little "over the top," but so is pretty much everything in GW. WHFB and WH40k are not exactly noted for their realism, are they? I can understand why a historical buff may not like them, but that is their opinion. I have mine. I will agree that the castles on the ship are a little much, but this is a "fantasy" based theme so I just went with it.

NAVARRO wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems a bit pointless to make a fantasy naval game and not to include genuinely fantastic elements.
.

It seems a bit pointless to make every inch covered with skulls and call it fantasy The problem here is NOT including fantasy elements the problem here is spamming fantasy to such a degree that crosses the boundaries of believable... its more like please include a bit of credibility to those bubbles of nonsense you call ships.

You know what my 4 year old kid said when he saw the pictures of the boats? - Are they pirates sinking ships?
Maybe because Im from a country with a big history of caravelas and Naus these models do strike me as silly... Much like a small child kind of fantasy, mind its ok... Just not for me.

Yeah, Killkrazy, I see your point, but I prefer fantasy to be a relatively realistic setting (or at least sort-of-obeying-internal-logic) and then when some magic or such happens it has a much greater effect and is very impressive. It would be interesting to see if they could create some sort of logical power balance of all these different cod-historical navies (Norse longships, early age of sail empire, medieval european brettonians and vaguely middle eastern elves) and then all the important magical characters had options to mix things up and create chaos. Too much magic makes the whole exercise pointless. Why do they have ships with castles on at all, instead of just magicing the castles about? In the same way, on the historical note, the enormous trouble and difficulty in using the discussed creations is what makes them interesting. If such things are standard fare on every single pirate vessel as it sails the seas, it's silly. The style and design just seem so crowded.

Navarro puts his finger on it - everything is just covered in skulls. If there was a gigantic skull rock in the ocean, I imagine it would be an unmistakeable landmark and the object of superstitious dread. In the world Dreadfleet conjures up, I imagine the captains just get confused "hang on, is this the skull rock off of point murder? Or Skull Island? That skull-encrusted temple over there looks just like the one we sailed past a week ago . . " There's no sense of restraint at all, they've just decided that everything in this creation has to be as insane as possible. Anyway, I'll leave it alone now.

How many of the ships have skulls?

Hint: Less than half.

Hey, a game about pirates fighting. Lets take a google image search of pirate flags:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1440&bih=672&q=pirate+flag&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1314l3829l0l4512l11l5l0l0l0l0l922l2183l0.2.4-1.1.1l5l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&wrapid=tlif131827424487510&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

Oh Noze! Skullz!

If you are gonna criticize, you ought to at least be accurate. Not everything is covered in skulls.

NAVARRO wrote:
You know what my 4 year old kid said when he saw the pictures of the boats? - Are they pirates sinking ships?
Maybe because Im from a country with a big history of caravelas and Naus these models do strike me as silly... Much like a small child kind of fantasy, mind its ok... Just not for me.

I think that you're onto something here NAVARRO. I have also noticed that GW skeletons and zombies look like people that have already died.

Alternatively it could be that GW decided that a ship golem was one of four possible answers to the question what would an undead ship look like? Along with floating tomb, zombie fish and ghost ship.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:
Navarro puts his finger on it - everything is just covered in skulls. If there was a gigantic skull rock in the ocean, I imagine it would be an unmistakeable landmark and the object of superstitious dread. In the world Dreadfleet conjures up, I imagine the captains just get confused "hang on, is this the skull rock off of point murder? Or Skull Island? That skull-encrusted temple over there looks just like the one we sailed past a week ago . . " There's no sense of restraint at all, they've just decided that everything in this creation has to be as insane as possible. Anyway, I'll leave it alone now.

Well, it wouldn't be GW if there weren't some skulls, wouldn't it? And I reckon it has been that way for long time: my 2nd Edition Terminator Sergeant has total of 23 skulls around him (might have missed some). Terminator Captain of the same era is probably even worse, his belt is made of skulls. etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green is Best! wrote:
Well, I have had a chance to play the game now from both sides (Dreadfleet and Grand Alliance). There are a few minor issues that could be cleared up, but overall, I enjoy the game very much. It plays well. It is a nice changeup from 40k. Yes, there are only 12 scenarios and I am sure they will get old. But, to be honest, what game doesn't?

How many board games get played even 12 times? My cousin and I used to buy those Avalon Hills etc. strategy games and played them like twice each, at most. Nothing in those games can be used in another setting, none of the components make even display pieces.

CptJake wrote:How many of the ships have skulls?

Hint: Less than half.

Hey, a game about pirates fighting. Lets take a google image search of pirate flags:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1440&bih=672&q=pirate+flag&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1314l3829l0l4512l11l5l0l0l0l0l922l2183l0.2.4-1.1.1l5l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&wrapid=tlif131827424487510&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

Oh Noze! Skullz!

If you are gonna criticize, you ought to at least be accurate. Not everything is covered in skulls.

Yeah your right! The matt doesn't have skulls, neither does the wind marker or 45 degree marker or almost all the islands etc etc... Didn't read the fluff but there's a vortex of skulls?... Man I may not like skull spam but I respect that you do but what I find totally biased is your line of argumentation, really man its a piratz games so lots of skulls are justified? YEAH! what's next your going to say warhammer and 40k don't have any skulls either?

I don't understand the need to try to justify your tastes by being totally autistic about the reality... If you like the skull spam and the OTT ship design than accept that and stop fishing for nonsense excuses.

The skull spam is quite annoying in almost all GW games its their thing yes, but that one trick pony is really getting old to watch... I could even forgive that if the ships were less childish.

@Holdenstein yes because all ships are undead and all ships are not supposed to errr float right? I think your on to something, get back to me when you get there

Justify MY tastes? I generally play modern historicals and near future Sci Fi and post apocalyptic stuff. I also have a lot of 15mm and 6mm ancients/dark ages stuff. I've never owned any Warhammer anything, and what little 40k stuff I have is used with other rules. Take a look at my gallery and see what little 40K stuff I have, and count skulls. You won't find many, most have been filed off.

What I am saying, and can prove, is that skulls are part of about all pirate themed games/movies/other forms of entertainment (see Pirates of the Caribbean logo or Disney ride for an example), and that not all the ships in this game are 'covered in skulls' as you allege.

As for skulls on all the islands, well I would fully expect a chain of islands, even in a fantasy world to all be similar, these seem to be designed to fit the theme of the game, and since the game takes place in some sea of the dead place from what I gather, well undead type things make sense.

So you respect other peoples opinions, but reserve the right to imply that people holding those opinions are autistic, are childish, and then shower them in condescending GIFs.

Good work, your dislike of something is much more adult than other peoples appreciation of something.

CptJake wrote:Justify MY tastes? I generally play modern historicals and near future Sci Fi and post apocalyptic stuff. I also have a lot of 15mm and 6mm ancients/dark ages stuff. I've never owned any Warhammer anything, and what little 40k stuff I have is used with other rules. Take a look at my gallery and see what little 40K stuff I have, and count skulls. You won't find many, most have been filed off.

What I am saying, and can prove, is that skulls are part of about all pirate themed games/movies/other forms of entertainment (see Pirates of the Caribbean logo or Disney ride for an example), and that not all the ships in this game are 'covered in skulls' as you allege.

As for skulls on all the islands, well I would fully expect a chain of islands, even in a fantasy world to all be similar, these seem to be designed to fit the theme of the game, and since the game takes place in some sea of the dead place from what I gather, well undead type things make sense.

Skulls are everywhere on this game not only on ships, sure you could say all pirates games have some degree of skulls and you could even say that literally every inch is not covered with them but you cannot deny that they are quite a BIG part of this game and all Games GW does and its not because its just a pirate themed game. Heck everyone knowing a bit of GW knows about Skull spam and is kind of a recurrent joke...
As I said before its not even the big drawback for me, because skulls you can cut them down but the OTT design you cant.

So you respect other peoples opinions, but reserve the right to imply that people holding those opinions are autistic, are childish, and then shower them in condescending GIFs.

Good work, your dislike of something is much more adult than other peoples appreciation of something.

See, stop taking things out of context please you look like a parrot that only repeats part of what's said and out of contest.

-I respect anyone opinion.
-Autistic remark was not because he was expressing a opinion and just because he was justifying his claims totally out of the reality... His justification was kind of autistic yes, not his opinion and for heaven sake not him.
- Childish remark, if I consider the look and design of the game childish does that mean in your gross interpretation that I consider everyone that likes this design Childish? LOL!
- Shower of condescending gifs? Man wake up! The lol gifs are nothing but LOL so that the other side knows I'm just having a relaxed chat and its nothing worth to be serious about... Guess what If everyone loled a bit more maybe you would actually enjoy a chat for what it is.

Might want to look up the word "imply".
I prefer to let people know I'm having a relaxed chat by actually having a relaxed chat rather than throwing insults around and then plastering LOL and gifs everywhere to try to look like a jolly fellow who's just having a bit of fun.

plastictrees wrote:Might want to look up the word "imply".
I prefer to let people know I'm having a relaxed chat by actually having a relaxed chat rather than throwing insults around and then plastering LOL and gifs everywhere to try to look like a jolly fellow who's just having a bit of fun.

You are the one implying lots of things and trying very hard to put me inside the rotule you imagined for me...Imagination can be a tricky thing you know? So go ahead have fun with that.

If the chap I was actually talking with felt offended I'm truly sorry for that it was not my intention though... I think when someone replies to any post in a teasing way ( like he and the other fella did) he understands people may reply back taht way also... Mind I was not teasing just having a relaxed chat... If I wanted to tease a bit I would say for example; Plastic trees do stop making waves in a glass of water because the ships never sailed and are sank
Relax man.

Zarren Wevon wrote:Read a couple of awful reviews for DF's rules from Quirkworthy

You're right, it is an awful review.

Pages and pages of repeating "the game is utter trash" based on a single complaint, that the fate cards are too random. This Quirkworthy fellow probably ragequit Fantasy 8th edition when he read about the charge ranges...

Check beasts of war vid review I think its pretty good, seems like a enjoyable enough game to play with some ideas and new tools, nothing superb like spacehulk but still quite fun.

lord_blackfang wrote:This Quirkworthy fellow probably ragequit Fantasy 8th edition when he read about the charge ranges...

The fellow is Jake Thornton, who hasn't played 8th according to a comment he made, but did design the sort of board game GW should have been releasing.

Another quite negative review on the 'Frontline Gamer'. Very amusingly written as always

http://thefrontlinegamer.blogspot.com/2011/10/review-dreadfleet.html

He has also started a topic on changing the rules, for those people who have bought the game but feel such a thing is needed.

Be reasonable man - that's standard marketing.

Nope, standard marketing is along the lines of, "This is ace even more ace than the other stuff out there you really need it or you will be a sad git because your life will be sooo incomplete/if you don't buy it your children will alll die horribly!"

Stating that it is limited edition when it is, for example, 750 resin casts by McVey is totally different from calling a production run bigger than most box games is "limited".
This sort of marketing says, "This is ace even more ace than the other stuff out there you really need it or you will be a sad git and OMG there are not many available so you had better buy one NOW! or your children will HATE you and never speak to you ever again for missing the chance of owning this exemplar of aceness!"


It is whichever way you want to address it deceptive, as most people won't know that there are a crapload of the things available. They will just see "limited availability" as a message to buy soon or miss out. It is telling an untruth the purpose of which is to exert some pressure on the customer's decision to buy.
Sorry for having a different set of values to the rest of Dakka
and I am being reasonabe.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

Be reasonable man - that's standard marketing.

Nope, standard marketing is along the lines of, "This is ace even more ace than the other stuff out there you really need it or you will be a sad git because your life will be sooo incomplete/if you don't buy it your children will alll die horribly!"

You're right on this.

Stating that it is limited edition when it is, for example, 750 resin casts by McVey is totally different from calling a production run bigger than most box games is "limited".
This sort of marketing says, "This is ace even more ace than the other stuff out there you really need it or you will be a sad git and OMG there are not many available so you had better buy one NOW! or your children will HATE you and never speak to you ever again for missing the chance of owning this exemplar of aceness!"

You're wrong on this.
Stating that it is a "limited edition when it has a production run bigger than most box games", with no further printings planned is not fallacious.

It is whichever way you want to address it deceptive, as most people won't know that there are a crapload of the things available. They will just see "limited availability" as a message to buy soon or miss out. It is telling an untruth the purpose of which is to exert some pressure on the customer's decision to buy.

No, it's really not. You're just seeing it as an untruth because you're looking at the simple numbers as being the most important thing.

The White Dwarf model each year is a "limited edition", despite being cast up in the same amount as the regular stock levels of a model that would be on the shelves of your LGS.
Why?

Because it is only available for that year, and they do not cast up another one or continue to sell it the following year.

Sorry for having a different set of values to the rest of Dakka
and I am being reasonable.

You're really not being reasonable, Chibi. You're looking at one aspect(the numbers aspect), and making a judgment based upon that.