|
Pronunciation is otiose in a Tzeench
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Pronunciation is otiose in a Tzeench  
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
 It's really all a matter of repetition and memory to recognise the key visual differences. It's no different to picking a Rhino from a Twin-linked Heavy Bolters Razorback from a Lascannon Razorback from a Multi-Melta Razorback from a Predator Destructor from a Predator Annihilator. Same hulls, visual distinctions caused by the weapons and only known to the experienced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:
But the differences are on the bottom. That is a bad place to put the only identifying characteristics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:But the differences are on the bottom. That is a bad place to put the only identifying characteristics. Some of the differences are on the bottom, but not all of the difference are on the bottom. UCM cruisershave weapons and bays on the top, while UCM Frigates are different from the top and sides. Scourge cruisers have different amounts and angles of tail... things and head spikes from the top, and Scourge Frigates are different from the front and sides. NTRabbit fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:Some of the difference are on the bottom, but not all of the difference are on the bottom. UCM have weapons and bays on the top, Scourge have different amounts and angles of tail... things and head spikes. For a lot of the ships the only differences are on the bottom boom boom boom posted:You're right, it's way worse for the Scourge
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
The side profile isn't telling the whole story, go look at the angled overhead profiles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Recoome posted:but how can i tell those ships apart when the numbers are on the base and horizontally orientated. You'd have to be perpendicular to the table to tell, which is difficult because I can't bend my knees It's dicks all the way down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:The differences aren't just on the bottom, it's just that they're not anime. Not to hate or anything, but if you can't tell the difference between 10mm ships they just aren't for you. Gundams are bigger I guess. We're beating a dead horse at this point but those ships are 3D models and we're looking at the side view dude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:BFG ships are really good at looking retarded.   This Dropzone stuff looks like someone took Mass Effect's Normandy and slapped a lot of random parts on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
Elukka posted:BFG had a recognizable and effective aesthetic and models that worked great at their scale. (all the ribbed surfaces were excellent for easy highlighting to make them pop) You don't have to like it but it was pretty well designed I think. Ugh I can name all those ship classes visually. They are pretty neat it's a real shame the game is ded and ships are overpriced on ebay. I bet the Dropfleet KS is making the $120 BFG battleship nerds sweat bullets because unless you are some dedicated tru believer it's just not worth doing BFG anymore. e: I don't think the 2d profiles do the Dropfleet ships any justice, they are pretty neat looking ships for the setting type (not grimdark).
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Ugh I can name all those ship classes visually. I use to be able to name everything. I'll probably jump on the DFC and just pull my BFG fleet out of Also, I get the feeling that boom boom boom has never played a ship or dog fighting game of any kind ever if he thinks the minis will always face away from you. And apparently I forgot to say that a smart gamer would paint or model subtle clues to help identify individual ships, like color rings on the stem and poo poo like that. If you're not able to know it by visual glance of the model, the next best thing is something that will be obvious to you. IE: Blue rings are destroyers, Yellow rings are frigates, and Red rings are battleships/cruisers/whatever. Then, use a different number of rings to either designate a different class, or a specific named ship in your arsenal. I.E.: A ship with three blue rings is an SF-class. Or, the ship with three blue rings is the USS I'm Gay, and the ship with two blue rings is the USS George Takei. Look, boom boom boom, I love ya, I share your enthusiasm as a Gundam dork (the fact that I know what the Shaku Zaku is should be pretty telling... and damning). But don't fight on this hill; you'll only come to die a vain death. If you still don't get what I mean, look at these two Falchion class destroyers, and you'll see the differences which are subtle, but stand out for the person who painted them, so that they can quickly identify which is which:
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 10:30
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I dug DZC but the price seemed kinda of steep for 6mm figs. It's 10mm so 40% more jewel-like than you think
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
Having played lots of spaceship combat games I think what DFC has going for it is its orbital combat as opposed to deep space pew pew. I'm very excited for it. Also I saw a few of the models earlier this year at a convention and they looked amazing
Serotonin fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 10:46
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:Why do you think people put magnets in their minis? It's so they can lie underneath a glass table and use a magnet to move their minis on top. This is a legit cool idea. EDIT: I'm reminded of the game where someone was playing a submarine and put a periscope up through the table. spectralent fucked around with this message at 12:54 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
spectralent posted:This is a legit cool idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 12:52
|
|
|
Thirsty Dog posted:It's 10mm so 40% more jewel-like than you think 66%
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 13:04
|
|
|
My friend put magnets on the bottom of his X-Wangs so that he could stick them to a whiteboard wall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
demota posted:How exactly does this work? I'm curious. You use the medium (e.g., Liquitex Matte medium, Citadel Lahmian Medium, etc.) to thin the paint's opacity while maintaining consistency. So basically you can use water to get the consistency you want, and then medium to drop the opacity. This makes it easy to apply multiple layers. If you're not A Good Painter, you can use more medium and work through more layers to get nice transitions. Mango Polo fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
FrostyPox posted:Oh my god Does.....Does that mean I should be giving GW money?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Got to laugh at the spergs hating on the DFC models. Of all the things you could find to pick holes in? Really? The models look gorgeous. Can't wait to see what the PHR fleet looks like. Tempted to get on the KS but there's going to be an uphill struggle with local interest between the few regulars I play against.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:For a lot of the ships the only differences are on the bottom I said it in the other thread, but you do know that a lot of the bottom parts stick out the sides, right? So they have difference noses that you can tell from above.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
Also unless you play from the ceiling directly above the table like a spider or something, you should still be able to see the sides of the ships and thus the different bits on the bottoms. EDIT: Deptfordx posted:Does.....Does that mean I should be giving GW money?  DO NOT GIVE GW MONEY!
FrostyPox fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Install a little rotating camera in the command ship and only view the table through it. A referee implements your orders and reports the locations of your other ships.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
enri posted:Got to laugh at the spergs hating on the AoS models. Of all the things you could find to pick holes in? Really?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:
It's p easy to tell BBs from CVs, CAs and CLs though. The only difficult outlines tend to be between CL, CA and the 50 diff kinds of cruisers that were made to get around treaty limitations. Not only that but like I said before, there's a clear theme of designating names. Of course this doesn't matter when you're looking at alien or foreign names (like lol as if a typical American sailor knows the diff between Phoenix and fortunate Phoenix) but it should have a clear convention when they plan to make more than one ship a CL or BB equivalent. Hell, that's a good place to insert the background of alien thoughts and priorities. It's also really funny that you use this pic cuz the pagoda style was in vogue for IJN BBs at the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Make your frigates look exactly like your battleships so nobody know how far away anything is. Assuming you're knife fighting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:It's p easy to tell BBs from CVs, CAs and CLs though. The only difficult outlines tend to be between CL, CA and the 50 diff kinds of cruisers that were made to get around treaty limitations. Not only that but like I said before, there's a clear theme of designating names. Of course this doesn't matter when you're looking at alien or foreign names (like lol as if a typical American sailor knows the diff between Phoenix and fortunate Phoenix) but it should have a clear convention when they plan to make more than one ship a CL or BB equivalent. Hell, that's a good place to insert the background of alien thoughts and priorities. You've missed my point, it wasn't about differentiating battleships from cruisers, it was about differentiating the Kongo, Fuso and Nagato from each other, or the Mogami, Tone, Atago and Nachi, which is what we're talking about when picking the difference between different cruisers in DFC. The same can be said for picking the difference between late war American cruisers, as they all have similar profiles, and are split by weapon layout. They're easy to pick once you know them, just takes a bit of practise, and it's fundamentally the same as picking the different guns and turrets stuck on top of a Rhino chassis. Aside from the tooling and multikit bonuses, ships within a broad class sharing most of a basic hull is the most believable thing about them. Warships aren't small ground vehicles produced in large numbers with frequent changes in parameters prompting entirely new designs, they're built in small numbers based on upgrades and iteration. NTRabbit fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:...look at these two Falchion class destroyers...   Gods, it pains me that I know that immediately. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Yeah I looked at the original picture again and the confusion lies within the "cruiser tonnage" designation. It's prob cuz of my limited working knowledge from WW1/2 era ships but AKVs and such were a lot heavier than cruisers and the name "fleet carrier" sounds like either a transport or CV, both of which have vastly different outlines from a typical medium weight warship. So to me it's still being incredibly dumb to not only give them all cruiser tonnage but to give them similar naming conventions and outlines. Of course you could hand wave it away and say "well yeah in the treaty of 3000 AD they folded carriers into cruisers etc etc" but people playing the game expect there to be ww2-style conventions when you're using that era of navies. Otherwise it would probably be all carriers and destroyers or whatever near-future oddities will shape the typical fleet compositions. Chill la Chill fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Yeah I looked at the original picture again and the confusion lies within the "cruiser tonnage" designation. It's prob cuz of my limited working knowledge from WW1/2 era ships but AKVs and such were a lot heavier than cruisers and the name "fleet carrier" sounds like either a transport or CV, both of which have vastly different outlines from a typical medium weight warship. Light and Heavy cruisers were categories created by the Second London Naval Treaty and were defined in both tonnage and in terms of guns - 8" and 10,000t for heavy, 6.1" and for 8000t light. The previous Washington Naval Treaty only defined Cruisers as being less than 10,000t, with no other specifics. Because of that, and because practically nobody signed or obeyed the Second London Treaty, a number of ships later defined as "light cruisers" built before 1936 weighed well over that, let alone all the ones built after. The Heavy/Light 8"/6" designation stuck though. A Fleet Carrier was typically the largest carrier fielded by a navy, but how they were built and how big they were changed rapidly, for obvious reasons. The UCM cruiser also being used as a carrier does match history, as during the lull between the starts of the war, and the arrival of the war defining Essex class fleet carriers, as a stopgap measure to cover the loss of almost all of the pre-war fleet carriers the USN started pumping out escort carriers, mostly built on cargo ships, and light carriers - most famously the Independence class, which were built on the hulls of Cleveland class cruisers, themselves a part of the nearly ubiquitous cruiser hull family that was the basis for every war time American cruiser design, heavy or light. I mean, aside from World War 2 ships not carrying gigantic axial laser guns, the UCM cruiser situation does a pretty decent job of mimicking the variety in the US fleet - (Light) Brooklyn-class, St Louis-class, Cleveland-class, Fargo-class, Worcester-class, (Heavy) Baltimore-class, Oregon City-class and Des Moines-class. So yeah, only change I'd make is calling the Fleet Carrier a Carrier or Light Carrier, and save the Fleet Carrier term for one based on the Battleship hull - unless they don't ever plan on making one, that is. NTRabbit fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
A friend claims to have flicked through the rules for the new Heresy boxed game. The Contemptor had hit locations and weapons only had three stats, sounds like the same mechanics as in that Tau minigame WD published. Second test run of the AGE OF EMPEROR rules?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
TTerrible posted:A friend claims to have flicked through the rules for the new Heresy boxed game. The Contemptor had hit locations and weapons only had three stats, sounds like the same mechanics as in that Tau minigame WD published. I guess with the assassins game they had the excuse of moving some unsold chaos marine inventory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
They've released 3 "games" this year (Assassins, Horus Heresy, and Age of Sigmar, though it's hard to call AoS a game). That seems like an awful lot of games for a "not-a-games" company.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Are there any good previews or descriptions of DFC gameplay? I don't really understand why being an orbital game makes any practical difference as compared to a deep space game unless gravity is coming into play. I would like to play a big-ships space game that isn't star wars based, so I'm really interested in whether or not DFC will be a good game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
drgnvale posted:Are there any good previews or descriptions of DFC gameplay? I don't really understand why being an orbital game makes any practical difference as compared to a deep space game unless gravity is coming into play. I would like to play a big-ships space game that isn't star wars based, so I'm really interested in whether or not DFC will be a good game. The objective is to get dropships down onto the planet. Like the blowing each others ships up is part of it, but you win the game by landing stuff on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
demota posted:How exactly does this work? I'm curious. My scientific guess is that it's just a pure form of whatever the pigments are, so it dilutes the paint making it translucent enough that it aids in the appearance of blending.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
drgnvale posted:Are there any good previews or descriptions of DFC gameplay? I don't really understand why being an orbital game makes any practical difference as compared to a deep space game unless gravity is coming into play. I would like to play a big-ships space game that isn't star wars based, so I'm really interested in whether or not DFC will be a good game. I haven't seen a whole lot, but it's got poo poo to do with like sensor strength and stuff for ship vs ship shooting. Also like fighting over the ability to deploy ground forces from orbutt
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
beastsofwar.com used to be staffed by kind-of-annoying people and their videos were really rambly, but the two videos they've put out so far for Dropfleet Commander with the actual dude from Hawk Wargames explain the game reasonably well it seems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
Having a bunch of your units all look nearly identical except for subtle differences that require training and familiarity to recognize is extremely realistic. It's also a terrible idea for a game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 01:48
|
|
