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.

I'm torn between these two systems for a fun 10 - 15 mm sci fi alternate.

Any thoughts on your preference or dislike, and why?

To be honest they are two very different game systems. DZC is about precision movement, targeted destruction, and has a wide array of mission objectives (from movable to static) while Planetfall plays a bit fast and loose with large dice pools, exploding sixes (to varying degrees), squadron damage mechanics, and typically has static objectives. Even the general aesthetic varies incredibly. DZC has low-profile utilitarian tanks with near-future weapons while Planetfall has larger tanks (up to three stories tall in some instances) and generally boasts more advanced technology.

As I tend to be a fan of games that emphasize movement and near-future tech I choose to play DZC. DZC has also been around longer and is far more fleshed out. In the end however, to each their own.

If you are on the fence I suggest checking out a few battle-reports or playing a few demo games of both. See what clicks with you.

Thank you Nightwolf. Helpful summary. I like Dropzone and
Trust the company a bit more.
Cheers.

As someone who's just had a game of Planetfall a few days ago, I'd say they're pretty different. Planetfall requires you to be a lot more conscious about your flanks/facing because of differing armor values while DZC doesn't. In DZC however, things die a lot faster in general because they have 1 HP for most things while in PF, they have multiple HP in general for anything above a light. In DZC, you kind of have to play 6 turns to be able to have a proper conclusion to the game. In PF, game length is determined by a set value; much like scenario scoring in Warmachine. Once you hit that set value; either by scoring objectives or wiping out enemy units, game ends. I've played a starter box game of PF in 40 minutes on the 2nd try because both me and my opponent knew the rules by then.

But yes, you roll a lot more dice in PF.

DZC, because Hawk will still be supporting it next year.

 Alex C wrote:
DZC, because Hawk will still be supporting it next year.

Something of a non-sequitur, as I have no doubt Spartan will be supporting PF next year as well.

For me, I was already invested in the Firestorm universe through Firestorm Armada, so PF was the natural choice. I am curious to see how Dropfleet turns out...if I find that game sufficiently intriguing, I might just jump into DZC down the road.

Perhaps its just me but I've found DZC to be something of a disappointment. The game description led me to belive there would be lots of fast based deployment and redeployment of troops but in reality once a unit has been deployed from it's ship there is no way it can achieve anything and then be picked up and redeployed to do something else within that game's time limit. It just feels like a far more slow and static game than it should.


I've only played a few games but despite beautiful miniatures and decent fluff the game itself just hasn't captured my imagination.

I'm seriously considering putting my stuff on eBay as I've just no desire to play it.

 LuciusAR wrote:
Perhaps its just me but I've found DZC to be something of a disappointment. The game description led me to belive there would be lots of fast based deployment and redeployment of troops but in reality once a unit has been deployed from it's ship there is no way it can achieve anything and then be picked up and redeployed to do something else within that game's time limit. It just feels like a far more slow and static game than it should.


I've only played a few games but despite beautiful miniatures and decent fluff the game itself just hasn't captured my imagination.

I'm seriously considering putting my stuff on eBay as I've just no desire to play it.

interesting. i know they have dedicated transports, which some people don't like, but I thought re-embarking and moving once a task is done would be a part of the system's foundation.

 Alex C wrote:
DZC, because Hawk will still be supporting it next year.

Shows how little you know. Not only will PF still be supported this time next year, it'll be on its third edition by then.

I have to agree with Lucius. I love the look and production value of the DZC miniatures, but I hate the feel of the game. The dropship focus is interesting and would work in a longer game, but in a six turn game losing a combat unit for two turns to reposition it is prohibitive. In each of the games I played (and in the several others I've watched) you end up with a big scrum in the middle of the board and the dropships tend to stop being a factor after the second turn.

Planetfall has it's own little quirks, but so far it's been far more enjoyable for me. Now there is the question about its long term support (especially with Spartan picking up the Halo license), but I'll simply have to deal with that problem when it comes up. In the meantime I've got a fast fun game which doesn't involve 2" per turn moves.

 Duskland wrote:
I have to agree with Lucius. I love the look and production value of the DZC miniatures, but I hate the feel of the game. The dropship focus is interesting and would work in a longer game, but in a six turn game losing a combat unit for two turns to reposition it is prohibitive. In each of the games I played (and in the several others I've watched) you end up with a big scrum in the middle of the board and the dropships tend to stop being a factor after the second turn.

Planetfall has it's own little quirks, but so far it's been far more enjoyable for me. Now there is the question about its long term support (especially with Spartan picking up the Halo license), but I'll simply have to deal with that problem when it comes up. In the meantime I've got a fast fun game which doesn't involve 2" per turn moves.

I thought so too on the re-deployment front when I first started playing the game, but that is not entirely true. Even the slowest aerial transport in the game can (with good positioning) move a unit 12" across the board with a quick touch and go. Not including half of that units own movement. Doing so only takes a single turn away from firing and completely shifts the ebb and flow of a battle-line.

One of the interesting things about the game is actually the difference between a veteran player and a new player. New players are more likely to dig into shoot-outs longer than they should. They see a turn or two without shooting as a waste and hesitate to re-position even when the need presents itself or they are taking part in a losing action. This leads to dropships lingering "uselessly" behind a battle-line and cluttering up while main line units grind into one another for a couple turns. I like to call it "40k Syndrome".

Veteran players on the other hand will not hesitate to use their transports more often and for longer. They will take a number of turns to organize a flanking maneuver, stagger their deployment, or withdraw to a more favorable front. You always have to think ahead a couple turns. A veteran may not always score the most kills, but they will score the mission objectives. They also tend to treat their transports as precious assets and guard them jealously. Strand an enemy unit, then shift the battle-line away from them, and you suddenly gain a huge advantage in a fight.

Which is why I am such an ardent fan of it. The game feels like a clash of wills.

 Duskland wrote:

Planetfall has it's own little quirks, but so far it's been far more enjoyable for me. Now there is the question about its long term support (especially with Spartan picking up the Halo license), but I'll simply have to deal with that problem when it comes up. In the meantime I've got a fast fun game which doesn't involve 2" per turn moves.

I wouldn't worry too much about long-term support for PF...Spartan Neil has said in interviews that the production of the Halo games is somewhat insulated from the rest of the company's lines, so it shouldn't impact things too much. Putting that aside, Spartan has an excellent track record of supporting its various games IMO; the only one they have stopped making new stuff for is Uncharted Seas, but even then all the models for that game are still available from their website (and no doubt you can find some old stock in stores) and the rules can be had for free. Looking through my inbox at the last couple of years of Spartan new release emails, it seems pretty clear to me that they have been steadily ramping up both the quantity and quality of their monthly releases, a trend I expect to continue .

 Ruckdog wrote:

 Duskland wrote:

Planetfall has it's own little quirks, but so far it's been far more enjoyable for me. Now there is the question about its long term support (especially with Spartan picking up the Halo license), but I'll simply have to deal with that problem when it comes up. In the meantime I've got a fast fun game which doesn't involve 2" per turn moves.

I wouldn't worry too much about long-term support for PF...Spartan Neil has said in interviews that the production of the Halo games is somewhat insulated from the rest of the company's lines, so it shouldn't impact things too much. Putting that aside, Spartan has an excellent track record of supporting its various games IMO; the only one they have stopped making new stuff for is Uncharted Seas, but even then all the models for that game are still available from their website (and no doubt you can find some old stock in stores) and the rules can be had for free. Looking through my inbox at the last couple of years of Spartan new release emails, it seems pretty clear to me that they have been steadily ramping up both the quantity and quality of their monthly releases, a trend I expect to continue .

Would you really expect a company head or employee tobsay otherwise? "Sure, we plan on pretty much switching gears completely to the new game every year while the previous ones languish untill its their time in the new game/edition queue to get our attention again."

The company has that reputation whether deserved or not. Announcing a really big licensed property so soon after this launched just fits snugly into that stereotype.

Rock and a hard place here. I wouldn't touch a new Spartan game, but then I find DzC crushingly dull to play, for some good reasons posted above, and others.

If Spartan have truly cleaned up their act, then maybe their game is worth checking out, but I don't trust them anymore.

Hawk are well-meaning, but somewhat limited in ability. I hope their forthcoming partnership with Andy Chambers leads to a rewrite of their first game to give the models the rules they deserve!

My own two cents on the whole DZC transport issue. Other than Shaltari, very very few factions have great mobility in the game but that's mostly because transports in DZC are dedicated, much like the older versions of Wh40k. If your troop transport gets shot down, they can't get into another transport.

Another thing about the transports that is an issue for me is that when your transport gets shot down, there's a pretty huge chance of your troops just dying from the crash. That means you lose everything in it. Which just makes you want to deploy your troops out of the dropship even faster.

warboss wrote:Would you really expect a company head or employee tobsay otherwise? "Sure, we plan on pretty much switching gears completely to the new game every year while the previous ones languish untill its their time in the new game/edition queue to get our attention again."

The company has that reputation whether deserved or not. Announcing a really big licensed property so soon after this launched just fits snugly into that stereotype.

Perhaps...the only major lags I have noticed was around the 2010-2011 timeframe when new releases for Firestorm Armada and Uncharted Seas were being held up by the unexpected success of Dystopian Wars, and during 2013 when there was a lull in the Dystopian Legions releases. I suppose you can also roll the shifting of Uncharted Seas to direct only into that category as well, though the company was upfront about what that would mean for the game regarding new releases.

Riquende wrote:Rock and a hard place here. I wouldn't touch a new Spartan game, but then I find DzC crushingly dull to play, for some good reasons posted above, and others.

If Spartan have truly cleaned up their act, then maybe their game is worth checking out, but I don't trust them anymore.

I'm not really sure what part of their act needs "cleaning up." Spartan has always provided me with great models with fun, playable rules (with some flaws, of course), all at what I consider a fantastic value. YMMV, but it is a shame that your frustration with their release schedule has turned you off. At least you can get the rules for free now to try them out without having to buy into the systems!

Are Spartan's models really considered great? I have bought about a dozen blisters for US and FSA, and my experience has been pretty unfavorable for them. There are some minis I just gave up on and some I had to just give up my hopes on to settle for assembling them "as is" after too many hours of clean up. In my experience their resin castings are worse than Forge World's; their minis were a major contributor to my hatred of resin.

DZC has plastic minis, and they are actually fun to assemble.

They're okay. I like the design but sometimes I find that I'm missing little bits on my models that I can't tell if it's miscast or part of the design.

But then again, I have issues with DZC resin too.

 Ruckdog wrote:


I'm not really sure what part of their act needs "cleaning up." Spartan has always provided me with great models with fun, playable rules (with some flaws, of course), all at what I consider a fantastic value. YMMV, but it is a shame that your frustration with their release schedule has turned you off. At least you can get the rules for free now to try them out without having to buy into the systems!

Meh. When there are some new releases for Uncharted Seas we'll talk.

Sining wrote:
They're okay. I like the design but sometimes I find that I'm missing little bits on my models that I can't tell if it's miscast or part of the design.

But then again, I have issues with DZC resin too.

It's probably miscast. There's a lot of that. Anyway, I don't own any DZC resin and won't be counting on it for quality. Plastic is my crack.

Yeah, but you only have the starter set in plastic. Which only has the very basic options. That'd be like playing a space marine army with just tactical marines

By the time I actually get to play, either there will be more plastic options or I will be able to program my synthsenses to overlay a visuotactile neural mapping of resins or virtual sprites to plastic.

PS: In all three of the Warhammer 40K games I ever played, I pretty much only used tactical marines or units that could be converted from the 4th edition plastics.

I would prefer to convert plastics than settle for resins if I ever feel the need to expand.

I don't understand anyone having any issues with DZC resin. My Resistance had zero flaws across a huge wad of models. They're infinity level quality control, which is pretty amazing.

Also, having played Uncharted Seas, Dystopian wArs, firestorm 1.0, Firestorm 2.0, and read the rules for the other spartan games... they're seriously flawed.

Uncharted was fun, but simple. It was good that way.
Firestorm 1.0 was written without anyone who knew a shred about game design. It was atrociously stupid after the first few games.
Dystopian was an unbalanced wreck. Dystopian 1.5 was fun though, but only in naval vs naval combat, with a bit of air. Ground combat was balls out awful.
Firestorm 2.0 is a very solid space game, that finally works.

I meanwhile, do like DZC. It's not beer and pretzels, but is much deeper than it's damage/hit resolution mechanics makes it appear.

---

Honestly, I'm not for Firestorm Invasion. Spartan lost their original insanely good price point advantage they had in Dystopian Wars starters (the old starters were astounding in value), and now the rulesets have become a mess of colored dice that in the end, offer little actual complexity over the older systems.

Dystopian 2.0 looks like a freaking wreck as they hammer in the wrong lessons.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Are Spartan's models really considered great? I have bought about a dozen blisters for US and FSA, and my experience has been pretty unfavorable for them. There are some minis I just gave up on and some I had to just give up my hopes on to settle for assembling them "as is" after too many hours of clean up. In my experience their resin castings are worse than Forge World's; their minis were a major contributor to my hatred of resin.

Odd. I've never had an issue with *any* of my Spartan minis, and I have a pretty broad array of Rising Sun stuff for Dystopian Wars - sea, air, and land.

I also have the Planetfall starter, and it strikes me as a good game. And again, there were zero issues with the resin figures provided. I haven't seen DZC played, so I can't provide a comparison, which is why I've remained silent up until now.

I play UCM. It's usually just lots and lots of flash at times.

Sining wrote:
I play UCM. It's usually just lots and lots of flash at times.

I had absolutely no issues with my UCM, I don't even remember seeing any flash (except perhaps on the Ferrum).

The first run Dindrenzi starter was absolutely the most atrocious modelling experience of my life.

Bending, ridiculous flash (basically you could not assemble the minis unless you owned a belt sander) and shrinkage to the point that you could put two halves of the same ship together and have one side be 5 mm longer than the other.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The first run Dindrenzi starter was absolutely the most atrocious modelling experience of my life.

Bending, ridiculous flash (basically you could not assemble the minis unless you owned a belt sander) and shrinkage to the point that you could put two halves of the same ship together and have one side be 5 mm longer than the other.

That was exactly my experience. I also had a dindrezi ship. I had problems with some other ships, too, but I will never forget the gimp ship.

Those first run FSA 1.0 Dindrenzi Ships were literally some of the worst gaming models in existance, yes. With issues like 'Left half is smaller than right half by an INCH'. But the quality has gone up substantially since the Dystopian models however.

Their quality is still lower (you can see the 'stepped' print layering pretty easily) but it's in general 'good enough'. The pewter bits are awful though.

I have a large force the Federated States in all three theaters for DW, as well as smaller Russian, Danish, Italian, and Blazing sun naval fleets.

I have a fairly small Relthoza fleet for FSA.

Then I have a ton of DL models, large Federated States, Prussian, and Blazing Suns platoons and then small forces for Britanians and the French.

Of all these models the only noticable miscasts that I've seen have been one of the Federated States turrets looks like it's missing a round. I did have a broken tail wing on my big flying aircraft carrier but that was almost definitely an incident with the distributer.

The first round or so of the DL models did have excessively large tabs for the slotta bases making for a lot more work to set up the starter boxes than was necessary, but I haven't seen that issue since the original starter boxes. More damning was the first sets of DL models sometimes had very thin angular faces and sometimes had bad mold lines straight up and down them. That IS a horrible mistake with infantry models but it looks to me like the model designers quickly realized this as the heads have drastically improved since the original starter boxes.

I have no idea what went on with Spartans models before DW was released, but from what I see of the older UCS models they really seem to have gotten a lot better with design and mold making.