It is currently Wed May 23, 2018 1:05 pm


Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

Tell the world your Dropfleet related trials and tribulations!
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Scoundrel13

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:08 am
  • Location: Worcestershire, UK

Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostThu Feb 22, 2018 5:10 pm

Scanners Offline have designed a new tournament pack, as well as some errata which we think helps balance the game out a little. Updated with changes, 1.3.18.

The Tournament Pack is here :

https://www.dropbox.com/s/m7ael6ry86ibj ... 5.pdf?dl=0

The Experimental Errata is here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ko6yzniux5bxm ... 1.pdf?dl=0

Please test out and feedback to us here or on Facebook. Enjoy!
Last edited by Scoundrel13 on Sun Mar 04, 2018 10:48 am, edited 4 times in total.
Offline
User avatar

BlackLegion

  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 10:33 pm
  • Location: Leipzig, Germany

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostThu Feb 22, 2018 5:20 pm

Is this a fan-project or something official?
Offline

Scoundrel13

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:08 am
  • Location: Worcestershire, UK

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostThu Feb 22, 2018 10:26 pm

The tournament pack is pretty much ready to go for any tournament, and gets rid of the unused scenarios.

The errata is unofficial. We’re asking the community to test and try these changes out, and if they prove popular, perhaps TT will adopt some/all of them... A month from now, after some play testing, I’ll probably let everyone attending Maelstrom 2 (28th April) know which of the experimental rules are being used.

Most of the changes make common sense, or serve the purpose of weakening certain metas- bombers dying in dense debris more easily counters heavy Launch lists slightly, calibre (L) Corvettes counters Strike Carrier spam, reducing Scald slightly affects Djinn and Basilisks, etc.

In short they are unofficial but I am talking to TT about having them officiated.
Offline

juz

  • Posts: 127
  • Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 2:26 am

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostThu Feb 22, 2018 11:45 pm

very welcome and sensible changes...nicely done.

I hope the debris field damage change is enough to poke Emeralds out of debris field hiding (now SOP) now that bombers have a harder time reaching them...
Offline

Lorn

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 2413
  • Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:48 pm

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostFri Feb 23, 2018 1:57 pm

General Changes:
1. Debris nice idea personally I went even further but this is a step in the right direction and far more logical.
2&3. I assume on a 2 the torpedo is delayed? If so this sound fairly good.
4. Meh usually does not that much.
5. Why do we need to nerf Bombers? They had issues in the Beta I won´t go into detail but for multiple reasons they where far stronger then then they are now. Circumstances have changed and I personally don´t think they require nerfs (in particular not across all factions).


Shaltari
1. As long as this becomes the general Vectored rule it makes the rule less insignificant I doubt that alone would be enough for the Light Cruisers to be attractive but it is an improvement.
2. I have to test them out certainly the current version of the coils is too weak and makes all ships with them a liability. Don´t know how strong it is if with that change.
3. Alternatively make them 37P but if you don´t want to do that Fusilade is better then the current state of utter uselessness.
4. I would rather make all Lances 2+ and increase points if necessary the effect is rather easy to calculate with lances as it is a straight +25% in fire-power against all targets. Linking both lances removes most of the limitations of the narrow arc (up to 2 possible turns with orders) at little cost in particular for Shalatri. Essentially the ship becomes a bit to easy to handle and makes the Obsidian redundant as it mostly will field the same fire-power.


UCM
1. Like the idea for my house rules I use it and I find it sad that it did not make it to the last errata.
2. This does very little and it is certainly nothing that makes the Mass Driver ships relevant. The only ships there this is even relevant for most cases are the San Fransisco and the Madrid.
3. As 2 I doubt anyone would take a UCM Troopship for that. But it is a minor buff for a sup par ship so why not. I would rather see the UCM and Scourge Troopships get the PHR treatment with additional hull points.
4. Like this idea as well (forgot who came up with it) another option would be to decrease all Corvettes lock values to 5+ but give them Calibre (L) and a points break. This might work as well though.


Scourge
1. Is this replacing the rule or in addition to it? If the latter I would stress that I find the rule already to convoluted for to little in game effect. Streamlining this rule or changing scourge torpedoes to 6 D and leaving it out would be my clear preference.
2. Hard to pinpoint I find that Scourge deal enough damage already and this is ok, others think they are the weakest faction.
3. Why? The Scourge BTL is slightly weaker then the UCM Cobra or the double PHR one but this would most likely put it ahead of those. I fail to understand why this is necessary I would only give them a minor buff for internal balance. Or limit it for the Battleships.
4. As with the UCM.


Stuff I miss, changes to the Centurion, Help for Mass Drivers and for Broadsides.

German space magic for PHR would you like to know more?
http://www.hawkforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7017

German space magic for all and this time it is in Space!
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=10506
Offline

Stompzilla

  • Posts: 1076
  • Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:34 pm
  • Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostSat Feb 24, 2018 1:58 pm

Trouble is that no one is going to pay 100pts for a Granite with a 2+ lock lance. I can pretty reliably get 2 DP from an Emerald on standard orders, why would I want to waste the points on the Granite, when I can just get another mother ship.

Linked Lance Granites will need to cost more than 100pts though.

The way to deal with the bigger lances would be to scale them up to a 2+ lock from Heavy Cruiser and up but leave the Granite at 3+.
Offline

Stompzilla

  • Posts: 1076
  • Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:34 pm
  • Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostSat Feb 24, 2018 2:07 pm

If we're going down the Calibre route for fixing Corvettes, I definitely think that the Glass Cloudflier could use some love too.

6+ lock Calibre (L) and make them not CA once again is the first thing that springs to mind.
Offline
User avatar

WizardLizard

  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:15 pm

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostSat Feb 24, 2018 5:11 pm

Lorn wrote:4. Like this idea as well (forgot who came up with it) another option would be to decrease all Corvettes lock values to 5+ but give them Calibre (L) and a points break. This might work as well though.


I did, it is quite an obvious change though so I'm sure that there is a definite case for convergent evolution here :)

One of the principles behind these changes was to not alter points values as they are something that would require quite extensive playtesting and can have quite a few knock on effects with fleet design. It was felt that slightly altering rules and adding special rules was a simpler route at this stage and that Hawk/TT would be in a better position to change points values.
Offline

Lorn

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 2413
  • Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:48 pm

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostMon Feb 26, 2018 11:46 am

Stompzilla wrote:Trouble is that no one is going to pay 100pts for a Granite with a 2+ lock lance. I can pretty reliably get 2 DP from an Emerald on standard orders, why would I want to waste the points on the Granite, when I can just get another mother ship.

Linked Lance Granites will need to cost more than 100pts though.

The way to deal with the bigger lances would be to scale them up to a 2+ lock from Heavy Cruiser and up but leave the Granite at 3+.


By the same argument you must be against the Amber, as the Amber is on a comparable level of damage as the Emerald. Apparently Emeralds don´t need any Voidgates to function. ;)
Also by your logic why take an Amber if I can get 3,32 DP of Damage against any form of protection (instead of the 2 against 4+ armour you like) why take a Turquoise if you can dish out more damage at bigger ranges? :lol:

The argument that 2+ lances should be limited to bigger ships is rather odd if we look at the Jade I know we rarely do as it is too expensive but it exist.

German space magic for PHR would you like to know more?
http://www.hawkforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7017

German space magic for all and this time it is in Space!
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=10506
Offline

Stompzilla

  • Posts: 1076
  • Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:34 pm
  • Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostMon Feb 26, 2018 6:17 pm

I don't follow.

Emeralds tend to average around 2 damage. I run 3 every game and I generally expect and get 2 damage most of the time. Sometimes less, sometimes more but pretty much 2 damage most of the time with the potential for 6.

You don't even need to take VGs, if you're only buying them for the damage output (Like you would be for 2+ Lance Granites) and you get spare drop capacity.

Ambers are a WF ship, so don't be disingenious. For 10 more pts than your 2+ lock Granite, the Amber provides a lot more bang for buck. Average damage is higher AND potential damage is 4 times as much the vast majority of the time.

220pts worth of Ambers can drop a heavy Cruiser in one go, with decent luck.

200pts of Granite can do 4Dp at best. 8 if someone is stupid enough to fly something right into your narrow arc and you get a WF.

The Jade can be an exception. Some fluff blurb about redirecting power towards precision (Their Lances only do 1DP remember). Just spitballing some solutions to the Lance issues.
Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests