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.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Are infantry useful on a non-city board? Do you use similar rules for "forests" or "rocky outcrops" as you do for buildings so that CQB becomes a thing again?

In DZC CQB specifically refers to close combat occurring in a building. You can't have it anywhere else with RAW. Also, RAW forests and rocky outcrops are just both "tough" terrain with body cover.

However a number of units have CC attacks, which is completely separate from CQB and requires one model to be in close contact with another. In any non-building situation per the rules, infantry would just shoot at each. I personally think its a slight flaw in the ruleset, but they game was really designed around combat in cities and it shows.

Bear in mind that a lot of the new infantry units don't seem to be designed for occupying buildings and CQB.

It's the nature of things that some units are more useful than others in different situations. If you find that infantry aren't so useful in non-urban areas, that's not a flaw as such.

Agree with the above, and it makes realisim sense. In a city board, infantry are very key as you need bodies to go in buildings for the Intel. Tanks/Ships cant go in and find it.

On the reverse side, in a non urban board for instance, the tanks/skimmers/what have you would have an easier time as infantry running around not in a building gets murdered instantly. Chances are in that type of board, your doing focal points or small bunkers with intel where infantry are less important.

 FeindusMaximus wrote:

 argonak wrote:
Looking good!

Hey, is anyone else having problems getting approved forum access to the hawk forums? I registered over a week ago and never heard back other than the "your account must be approved" email.

It takes a while, took me a month. Then I emailed info@hawkwargames.com. Was a member w/in 2 weeks after that.

You have to realize it is a 6-7 man operation, takes a while.

I had the same problem when I registered. I was told by another player to give them some time as GenCon was going on. I eventually had to email then and find out what was going on.
If it really is that small an operation then now I understand why one guy couldn't hit a few buttons during that time.

Yeah I just emailed them today.

Hey, does anyone know if you can use the scourge commander "eden's dinosaur" in clash sized battles? Or is he too much?

 argonak wrote:
Yeah I just emailed them today.

Hey, does anyone know if you can use the scourge commander "eden's dinosaur" in clash sized battles? Or is he too much?

If your clash sized battle is 1000 points, then yes, he is too much i.e. he breaks the "no more than 1/3 points allocated to each battle group" rule.

If your clash size battle is 1100 points, then you would be ok.

 Flashman wrote:

 argonak wrote:
Yeah I just emailed them today.

Hey, does anyone know if you can use the scourge commander "eden's dinosaur" in clash sized battles? Or is he too much?

If your clash sized battle is 1000 points, then yes, he is too much i.e. he breaks the "no more than 1/3 points allocated to each battle group" rule.

If your clash size battle is 1100 points, then you would be ok.

Ok, great. I'd like to run him instead of a desolater in our first 1500 point match.

My wife and I just started our first games as well, and let me say that for first games, I would really suggest not using the Famous Commanders. They are so powerful, and frankly, "different" that they seem to cock up the feel of the game a fair bit.

For the moment we've proxied the Dinosaur as a Desolator, and the Luciana M. Cato as a regular old Kodiak... and the games seem much more noob friendly.

Yeah, that's one of my major, major dislikes about the game that I wished people were less complacent about.

Making these character commanders not pointed or balanced for the normal game, basically making them semi-optional is a silly way to do things. People shouldn't have to proxy with their own official models. You don't want to make it any harder for people to play with models thay've purchased, especially considering how much competition for time that miniature games are facing, let alone DZC specifically.

That just seems like the sort of leftover GW mindset, and we're all seeing where that mindset leads with Age of Sigmar. DZC does not own the market like GW, they can't just handwave things away.

Which just makes that decision even more striking considering they've been making a good effort at keeping everything else pretty balanced and updated, and openly discuss with the community about such issues.

It's also why I think that they should have included a small set of command cards, or at least a card table to roll on in the 2 player starter set, just to make that mechanic more up front and familiar.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
My wife and I just started our first games as well, and let me say that for first games, I would really suggest not using the Famous Commanders. They are so powerful, and frankly, "different" that they seem to cock up the feel of the game a fair bit.

For the moment we've proxied the Dinosaur as a Desolator, and the Luciana M. Cato as a regular old Kodiak... and the games seem much more noob friendly.

Well we've been playing a while, but that's a good point. I just really like the dinosaur's alternate weapons as the desolator doesn't really fit my playstyle so far.

I agree Ventrucio, I don't like how the famous commanders have alternate models. But so far I haven't seen people acting like these are the "special characters" of warhammer, instead folks just seem to consider these an alternate unit.

I also think that not including the command cards in some form in the basic set was a mistake, I haven't used them yet in any of our games (as they've all been starter set sized) so its going to be a bit of a "wake up" when I do.

I bought the Cato`s Ferrum to use it as a normal Ferrum, since no one here has special commanders.

I got a friend who use to say: "no one will play Dropzone Commander" in our whatsapp group conversations. Now after a demo he wants to play the game.

FYI

If you guys are looking for cards with stats to print go this post and download them thanks to user Abrusio:
http://www.hawkforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7119&hilit=unit+stats&start=30

If you have Photoshop or a pdf editor you can put the Notes missing in some cards and the photo of the mini.

 Capt. Camping wrote:
I bought the Cato`s Ferrum to use it as a normal Ferrum, since no one here has special commanders.

And this is why I think it's wrong to do make character commanders something separate.

You really shouldn't be limited to using a vanilla rules for a character model, one that's likely more expensive, and using a character model as something else adds to new player confusion.

If they really want to make the rules wild, make an extreme version of their rules usable only in scenarios and beyond friendly games.

Years ago Mechwarrior v1.0 had a problem similar to this. Some pilots were attached to the mechs permanently. Then in v2.0 they made the mechs generic and then you attach a pilot card to that mech. That`s when Wizkids killed the game.

 Capt. Camping wrote:
I bought the Cato`s Ferrum to use it as a normal Ferrum, since no one here has special commanders.

I got a friend who use to say: "no one will play Dropzone Commander" in our whatsapp group conversations. Now after a demo he wants to play the game.

FYI

If you guys are looking for cards with stats to print go this post and download them thanks to user Abrusio:
http://www.hawkforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7119&hilit=unit+stats&start=30

If you have Photoshop or a pdf editor you can put the Notes missing in some cards and the photo of the mini.

That's slick, thanks.

Will we be seeing more plastic models, or will we always be looking at resin?

The resin is nice, but I'd rather pay less for more. DZC makes me want to have a *big* army. I already enjoyed finishing up my starter box.

They aren't selling enough to do plastic everything, but clearly want to.

After working in resin for my game, I can say I understand the resin costs and margin on that. That's why they made the plastic starters.

How much cheaper is plastic, exactly, to produce? I'm assuming it's a lot easier to get a smaller print run with resin.

Steel injection molds cost many tens of thousands to make, but cost pennies in materials, and the molds last a very, very long time.

Silicon molds for resin are relatively cheap, however they don't last very long, are very labor intensive, and the resin itself can be costly.

Metal is simlar, but is more suited to larger runs due to spincasting. However, the material cost has skyrocketed over the last decade.

 Vertrucio wrote:
...Metal is simlar, but is more suited to larger runs due to spincasting. However, the material cost has skyrocketed over the last decade.

And before somebody mentions the hard drop in the price of Tin*, it's still much higher than 10 years ago.



*Tin is the primary metal used in "pewter" or "non lead" miniatures.

Edit: While I'm thinking about it the old Lead miniatures used...lead...mostly...which is much much cheaper than tin.

Yup, some dumb arse let his kid chew on his lead army men and "Tipper Gore" went to town on forcing the industry to change.

They can do them in plastic, but some details may be lost.

Well wasnt her former husband Al Gore who discovered the ManBearPig? Hahaha!

 FeindusMaximus wrote:
Yup, some dumb arse let his kid chew on his lead army men and "Tipper Gore" went to town on forcing the industry to change.

Sounds like a prequel to Idiocracy.

 WarAngel wrote:

 FeindusMaximus wrote:
Yup, some dumb arse let his kid chew on his lead army men and "Tipper Gore" went to town on forcing the industry to change.

Sounds like a prequel to Idiocracy.

Yup, latest Female wants to sue Gun manufacturers for their guns killing people.

So when the drunk driver kills someone;
You get to sue the bar, car, alcohol manufacturer, distributor, etc....

The Off-Topic forum is down there, folks. Gun control has nothing to do with DZC. And the NY Public Health law restricting the use of lead doesn't cover minis.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The Off-Topic forum is down there, folks. Gun control has nothing to do with DZC. And the NY Public Health law restricting the use of lead doesn't cover minis.

Yay

I'm still really enjoying DZC. Haven't got a game for a couple weeks (my regular opponent has been out of the country) though.

I'm thinking about picking up a second force now, to give me a different force to play. Since I've got scourge right now, I'm think the most radically different force would be PHR or Resistance. My regular opponent has both PHR and UCM.

I have PHR and Shaltari as communal armies for my group. However, Shaltari have been a miss with my group and I'm not that enamored with them yet. It's likely I'll stop filling out my Shaltari army and just get into UCM or scourge.

One thing about DZC is that you absolutely need activation markers. Doesn't matter how good you think your memory is. If you play at 1500 or higher, you'll need a way to indicate what's been activated. It's something that I don't think Hawk warns players about in the rules. You'll also want other tokens as new units start getting new abilities that need tracking.

I'm also still disappointed by how simplistic and mediocre the card based command system is. It really just seems like an excuse to sell cards, which would be okay if it worked more elegantly in the rules.. And already they've had to print a new set of cards due to balance changes.

Best way we found for marking guys is many tokens( I use FFGs little round flat ones) or printing out your army and just marking off when it went with a mark.

As for cards, we don't really use them. If we do its every once and awhile. They really slow the game down for such a small effect. We also feel it throws off the balance of the game when one player draws their "power" cards and the other has crap cards.

 Vertrucio wrote:
I have PHR and Shaltari as communal armies for my group. However, Shaltari have been a miss with my group and I'm not that enamored with them yet. It's likely I'll stop filling out my Shaltari army and just get into UCM or scourge.

One thing about DZC is that you absolutely need activation markers. Doesn't matter how good you think your memory is. If you play at 1500 or higher, you'll need a way to indicate what's been activated. It's something that I don't think Hawk warns players about in the rules. You'll also want other tokens as new units start getting new abilities that need tracking.

I'm also still disappointed by how simplistic and mediocre the card based command system is. It really just seems like an excuse to sell cards, which would be okay if it worked more elegantly in the rules.. And already they've had to print a new set of cards due to balance changes.

I just check them off on my army list sheet that I print out from Hawk's free FFOR program. Works fine for me. But I can see how it could get difficult with more troops and the one shot weapons. I don't have any of those yet, except my destroyers.

It's not forgetting to activate a unit I have problems with; it's remembering which units are grouped into each battlegroup.