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.

Some Shaltari nerf was in order, mostly due to how extremely good Gates are, while their other units are as capable in combat as anyone else's. It's minor if anything, probably an extra 30 points in a 1500 list.

And still their gunships are quite useless...

with the release of all these new infantry units, I have to question:

1. Are anti-infantry units and weapons now worth investing in?
2. Are the original infantry choices that werent used all that much still worth investing in?

chaos0xomega wrote:
with the release of all these new infantry units, I have to question:

1. Are anti-infantry units and weapons now worth investing in?
2. Are the original infantry choices that werent used all that much still worth investing in?

I'm not sure I'd say any of the original infantry weren't used much at all...they're pretty much staples in every list. The majority of the new infantry are not Troops choices, but rather Exotics and Scouts, so you won't see them outright replacing a lot of other infantry.

chaos0xomega wrote:
with the release of all these new infantry units, I have to question:

1. Are anti-infantry units and weapons now worth investing in?
2. Are the original infantry choices that werent used all that much still worth investing in?

1. CQB specialists were always potent, but now flamers are more worth taking than they ever have been. This is particularly true if your opponents run units like Freeriders or Medusae.
2. Infantry are necessary to find objectives and count double in focal point missions inside of buildings. Up until now each faction has only had a couple of options regarding them; so most of them always saw use. These new choices are not replacements, but options. They cover different niches than their counterparts (often fitting in an exotic or scout slot instead of the standard infantry one*) and they typically bring a stronger shooting presence to the battlefield**. This is always at a cost. Normally with a reduced body count or CQB presence.

*The UCM and PHR each received alternatives to their standard infantry selections, but both suffer from reduced CQB performance. The UCM options in particular also suffer from reduced body count.
**Scourge Eviscerators and PHR Valkyries are the outiers here. The former is new dedicated CQB specialist, arguably the best in the game, that has reduced objective finding capability and loses the shooting attacks of its Destroyer brethren. Valkyries on the other hand are a fast scout option, but they lose the firepower of a team of Immortals.

TL;DR: None of these units replace their original counterparts and more or less all of those units saw play to begin with. The only exceptions that I can think of are Razorworms (an upgrade choice for the Scourge heavy grav-tanks) or the Aged-Ones upgrade to basic Scourge Warriors. The former many people love or leave and the latter is simply a non-modeled upgrade available to Scourge Warrior stands. It was a stop gap put in place before the Scourge had dedicated exotic units.

How many infantry units do you really need in a DzC list?
It seems to me that vehicles are more effective combat wise, and infantry are just for objectives.

Then again, I don't play the game. Interested, but I don't have it.

seems like that's precisely the perception they're trying to change with the new releases - making infantry that CAN stand up to tanks and AREN'T just for objectives

Charax wrote:
seems like that's precisely the perception they're trying to change with the new releases - making infantry that CAN stand up to tanks and AREN'T just for objectives

Ah, so that was the old way.
Interesting.

but are they better at it than non infantry options are?

Dropzone Commenter has been making a number of great articles about the game recently. I feel like his analysis of the new infantry (see the link below) is spot on. Also note that not all of the new releases are infantry. A number of light vehicles have come out too. Which make the lighter anti-tank weapons (like PHR stealth missile batteries) a lot more useful.

http://gamerati.com/hawk-to-the-future-new-troops-new-tactics/

They also had one of the UCM commanders in a bad-ass tank at GenCon, besides the aforementioned light vehicles.

I'm still not sold on "optional" commander characters. I dislike the very GW style hand waving they do in this regard. It's either in the game, or not, don't drive potential wedges into your already limited player base this early in the game's growth period. If you want to have rules that are wildly unbalanced, just release alternative wild rules, rather than spending time and money and release schedule on something no one might use, or worse, misuse.

Same for the command cards, I hope in the next book they do more in-game with command, rather than offloading it into random cards.

I think they've handled the special commanders thing quite well.

Basically, if you want to field one, the best thing to do is have your mate field one too.

The thing is, the way the games rules work, if the Special Commanders were absolutely 100% totally in line with the power levels and costs of everything else.

They'd either:

1) Be not all that special at all, and actually rather boring.

OR

2) Due to the army building points value percentage rules, be unfieldable in games of less than 2500 points plus.

Plus, anywhere outside of a tournament, I'd be rather disappointed if someone complained about you using a Cato as a normal Ferrum, or Marcos Barrios as a Nemesis command walker.

Very excited for DFC, but a bit bummed about the kickstarter route. The company has done little that disappoints me, so perhaps it will all go swimmingly.

 Thokt wrote:
Very excited for DFC, but a bit bummed about the kickstarter route. The company has done little that disappoints me, so perhaps it will all go swimmingly.

They're making you wait for precioussss...

 Compel wrote:
I think they've handled the special commanders thing quite well.

Basically, if you want to field one, the best thing to do is have your mate field one too.

The thing is, the way the games rules work, if the Special Commanders were absolutely 100% totally in line with the power levels and costs of everything else.

They'd either:

1) Be not all that special at all, and actually rather boring.

OR

2) Due to the army building points value percentage rules, be unfieldable in games of less than 2500 points plus.

Plus, anywhere outside of a tournament, I'd be rather disappointed if someone complained about you using a Cato as a normal Ferrum, or Marcos Barrios as a Nemesis command walker.

It's a little unreasonable to assume both players have character commanders, or want to use them. Plenty of games do have interesting and unique commanders and find ways to balance them, not just through points. The points system exists, and DZC already uses points, so DZC isn't special in this regard. Overall, this seems like a big holdover from GW-style backwards thinking, the kind of thinking that gave us AoS.

Honestly, it smells of a bit of laziness, they wanted to push a few more models into the release schedule, but knowing that special characters take more time to balance, just hand waved away the need to balance them. Not that they are totally lazy, since Hawk does great work balancing the game's normal units, but this is one area where they've cut a very specific corner in terms of game design. Or it could be worse, they let themselves be held back by very backwards thinking that would limit the sales and use of such models.

As for Kickstarter, well I don't think Hawk actually has enough equity to fund their own new set of plastics. If they went to the bank now, or looked for other investors, they'd have to give up more than they would normally. So kickstarter is a way for them to have a bit more control and security.

I would just use the characters as awesome looking versions of regular units. At worst, they are variant models, so it's not really that big a deal to gripe about.

Very excited for DFC, but a bit bummed about the kickstarter route.

The KS is only for the starter-box. The starter being 200+K that is quite understandable. Either we wait longer or we kickstart it. The rest of DFC will be released as usual.

It's a little unreasonable to assume both players have character commanders, or want to use them.

No, cause it says right there in the rules that you should talk about using commanders beforehand with your opponent.

Plenty of games do have interesting and unique commanders and find ways to balance them, not just through points. The points system exists, and DZC already uses points, so DZC isn't special in this regard. Overall, this seems like a big holdover from GW-style backwards thinking, the kind of thinking that gave us AoS.

Honestly, it smells of a bit of laziness, they wanted to push a few more models into the release schedule, but knowing that special characters take more time to balance, just hand waved away the need to balance them. Not that they are totally lazy, since Hawk does great work balancing the game's normal units, but this is one area where they've cut a very specific corner in terms of game design. Or it could be worse, they let themselves be held back by very backwards thinking that would limit the sales and use of such models.

Yes, but still they are rather generic. The way DZC does it we can get more detailed characters without changing the rest of the game too much. Special commanders on the battlefield are intended to be special and not a commander you choose for every battle. Lesser commanders you choose all the time and you really need them to win the game. That´s not laziness that´s just offering an optional way of playing the game without changing the standard game too much.

Same for the command cards, I hope in the next book they do more in-game with command, rather than offloading it into random cards.

Won´t happen and the cards are not that random. You know quite well what to expect and what the chances are. The cards add some more narration which is always a good thing for games.

I'll be in on Dropfleet if the plan is 4 fleets in hard plastic, will get the lot.

DZC was interesting, but I never did quite get a feel for the game and how I should be playing it.

Only the core units will be plastic, the rest resin.

 Duncan_Idaho wrote:
Only thing I don´t like is the taming of Shaltaris. They are beatable as they are it just takes some more brains than usual.

This is a pretty strong indication that something is wrong with balance when it requires a higher level of play to beat one faction over others

Besides, the nerf's don't look huge, 4pts on Gaia's, 5pts on Eden's, 3pts on Spirits, and 15pts supposedly on the Caiman. For most lists, this may amount to like 25-30pts? If one were running like 4 Caiman's before, it might hurt a whole lot, but most lists probably won't see more than a 25-50pt change or so at 1500pts.

What's a good army to start with, that's not UCM?
I don't like the UCM aesthetic that much.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What's a good army to start with, that's not UCM?
I don't like the UCM aesthetic that much.

Scourge, PHR, Shaltari or Resistance

Seriously, the game is so well balanced they're all fair game.

There really isn't a bad Army. Just different play styles. In 40k terms.

UCM - Plays like the IG
Scourge - a mix of Tyranids/Dark Eldar
PHR- Generally elite units so more like Marines
Shaltari- Eldar with high movement shenanigans with teleporting.
Resistance - I haven't had a chance to play vs yet so I can't offer any opinions

 Alex C wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What's a good army to start with, that's not UCM?
I don't like the UCM aesthetic that much.

Scourge, PHR, Shaltari or Resistance

Seriously, the game is so well balanced they're all fair game.

So they are all noob friendly? That's interesting.
Do the PHR really rely on transports? I heard they are the slowest faction.

Shaltari work differently, but not really any more complex, with their Gates.

PHR can use transports as much as anyone can. The "slow" reputation comes from the Mechs I think.

I would not classify PHR as "noob friendly", Cthulhu - locally, it was one of the harder factions for people to get the hang of because of how slow they are (and thus not very forgiving of positioning mistakes). They also have done poorly at the official tournies... for myself, I found Shaltari easy to play, and Scourge is scary and has a very unique style. You might also consider the Resistance if you want to play humans

The way releases are going seem to indicate that every army will have options to play in every style. Fast, swarm, elite, etc. Just all in different ways.

Scourge, for example, can definitely play in elite and tough styles, not with every unit slot or type yet, but give it time.

I know I plan to play PHR but with their fast stuff only, with only a few of the heavy walkers as backup. This is due to the release of the newer jet skimmers.

UCM had their light tanks released pretty quickly.

The army building and objectives do force some level of balanced building though.

 RiTides wrote:
I would not classify PHR as "noob friendly", Cthulhu - locally, it was one of the harder factions for people to get the hang of because of how slow they are (and thus not very forgiving of positioning mistakes). They also have done poorly at the official tournies... for myself, I found Shaltari easy to play, and Scourge is scary and has a very unique style. You might also consider the Resistance if you want to play humans

Can't speak to your local meta, but PHR tends to do as well as UCM and Scourge (if not a little better). They just happen to be the most populous faction so it skews the optics. The outliers tend to be Shaltari (which win and place in the top 3 a lot), and Resistance (who are really rare).

I'd give you UCM, but as far as top finishes I think Scourge have shown to have much more potential. Here are the Invasion 2015 results, for reference:


I was just speaking from personal experience that local players found them slow and unforgiving... but I do think the speed of Shaltari and Scourge give them an edge (and if I wanted a human faction, I'd personally go with Resistance).

If just depends on what style you like to play - Shaltari are obviously extremely solid, Scourge are glass cannons and very dynamic, whereas PHR are extremely "tanky" and hard to kill. I like the differing styles and I think the new releases will likely level the playing field a bit, along with the tweak to Shaltari (which hurts, since they're my faction but is probably needed).