|
Do any of you folks magnetize your dropships and vehicles so that you can have stuff hanging from your dropships as they drive around? I'm trying to figure out how to do that for the UCM dropships that come in the starter set (Condors). I've got a few problems: First, if I'm slapping three smaller tanks (Rapiers or Sabres) in a Condor, it looks like I can only mount two tanks on each dropship without getting in the way of the airship stand mount. I suppose I can deal with that by just magnetizing the front and rear mounts, and leaving one of the tanks off the table when they're embarked? Second, where do you guys throw the magnets? I can see two options - I could mount them along the spine of each Condor. But if I do that, it looks like I'll need to mount the magnets somewhere on the top of my Sabres, Rapiers, and Bears. But I don't know if that'll work, because I won't be able to get the mounting points on the Sabres/Rapiers close enough to the magnets on the Condor for them to stick. Similarly, it looks like I'd need to drop the magnets somewhere in the Bear's turrets, which I think might end up pretty ugly. Alternatively, I could mount them in the grippy clamp things on the side. That seems like it'd work better, but for some reason it makes me a little nervous about getting the spacing just right. Is that the typical thing? Third, how do you guys position the turrets on the UCM tanks (Sabres, Rapiers)? I like the idea of having those turrets up a little bit, so they're more dynamic, or able to rotate as they drive around the table. But it looks like they really need to be tucked away as flat as possible to fit in the dropships. Am I missing something? Or is there a way I can have my cake and eat it too?
|
#
¿
May 17, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
Goddamn that looks awesome. Unfortunately I only have 3mm magnets on hand right now, meaning all my tanks are going to have some bizzarely huge magnets on each side. Oh well, at least the army will have a unified look? And there will be matching magnets on the clamps so that's something. Doing two per vehicle like you have would be nice to keep them aligned, though. Maybe I'll get some small magnets and do that next time. (Also I might have been dumb and used a drill instead of a dremel to do my 3mm holes because the bit wouldn't fit in my hand drill, and I might have slipped once or twice so that now I have some "battle damage" on some tank treads...) How did you do the custom flight stands? I figure that for now I won't worry about them and will just load two tanks into each condor to preserve access, but in the long term I'd like to do something like that. I was thinking of using some sort of bent metal wire, but I have no idea where to start.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
I've got a newbie rules question for you all. The rules on embarking and disembarking are confusing to me. You can embark and disembark in the same turn, but not embark, disembark, then embark again, yeah? I assume that's to stop you from shuttling APCs to pull infantry out of a building and then back onto the drop ship all at once? But how does that work when multiple units are doing stuff. Assume, for instance, that I have a drop ship with transport with infantry in the APC. I fly up to a building (half speed on the drop ship), disembark the APCs (do I need to land the drop ship?), then the APCs can move half their speed then disembark the troops? Can the troops then enter a building? Or can they only do that directly from the APC without extra movement?
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Ugleb, thanks! That helps a lot. And if a unit embarks or disembarks, it cannot shoot, regardless of whether it is the transporter or transportee, yeah?
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Ugleb posted:Correct, although the dropship itself can still shoot. Really? Huh. That is strange. I'll have to re-read that section. That said, I played my first game this morning. It was excellent, and the game's focus on objectives really stood out. My friend and I played the standard starter game (4'x2' board, UCM and Scourge starter armies, 3 objectives placed in middle buildings). I was able to annihilate all his AA with a lucky round of shooting from my three tanks. From there I was able to dominate the middle of the board, picking off all his tanks and losing only one. Unfortunately I couldn't kill off his APC's dropship and, when I concentrated my troops in the middle building to kill off one squad of his infantry, he snagged a side objective and snuck it off the table. I wasn't able to discover (seize?) either of the two remaining objectives with my squads, meaning I lost 2-0 even though I killed all his units except for a single APC with 3 infantry bases in a dropship with one DP left.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Hey thread, I'd appreciate some advice on how to expand the UCM starter. I've got that - 3x Sabres, 3x Rapiers, 2x Bears, 6x infantry, 3x dropships - and I have a few Epic 40k Marauder bombers that I think would proxy nicely for some UCM fast movers. So where do I go from here? I was thinking: Kodiak, then some Wolverines + Ravens, then some filler tanks & AA (Sabres & Rapiers, plus more Condors for em). I'd love to have some of the shinier toys (falcons, the Ferrum drone thingies, howitzers, maybe some exotics) but I feel like I should fill out a basic core before I grab shinies. So I'd appreciate a few pieces of advice. First, am I missing anything in terms of the basic stuff that UCM armies want all the time? Second, how should I prioritize expanding? Does Kodiak -> Wolverines -> basic tanks sound about right? I'm trying to avoid the temptation of getting ALL THE THINGS ALL THE TIME. Third, which fast movers have you had more success with? Should I prosy the Marauders as Archangels or as Seraphim? Arcturas fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Jul 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Kodiak is a good starting choice, and you can never go wrong with wolverines and scouts. - As a UCM player I'd also suggest a Ferrium - while not an auto-include it gets you scouts, AA and AT aircraft which fill all roles in the army - for a starting army, the doomfridge is a great way of filling gaps. Thanks Grey, Ugleb. I'm glad I'm on the right track. It sounds like Kodiak, Wolverines, Ferrum are the next three things I should grab. Between Falcons and the Eagle, how do you each of them? It feels like the Eagle would be a stand-off AT that's most useful if you can drop a building or two to open up lines of fire, while the Falcons can get farther up the board and be more flexible, particularly with their new dodge rules. Is that about right? On the Wolverines, which configuration do you folks find works better? I liked the idea of the machineguns for more AA firepower, which would mean my AA is: 1 squad of 3 Rapiers, 1 squad of 4 Wolverines, and a Ferrum. It's a little light but I think at 1250 that's probably okay? The army'd be a touch over - 1255 pts - but I only play casually and can probably persuade my friend to spot me the 5 points. (Kodiak + Captain, Ferrum + Albatross, 3 Sabres, 3 Rapiers, 2 3-base Legionnaire squads, 2x Falcons, 4x Wolverines, 1x Seraphim)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Bistro, what size magnets do you use for the random UCM turrets? I'm looking to magnetize some Sabres, Rapiers, and Wolverines over the next week or two.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Man, an app with unit stats that supports army lists would be fantastic! That makes me unreasonably happy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
The flak teams are really interesting. 75% of the cost of a rapier for 3 E6 shots at 12" instead of 3 E7 shots at 18". Normally, I'd think that UCM players would drive the flak teams on along with a Ferrum and/or Kodiak to provide some cheap AA out of a rear building. (Notice that they can't take a Raven-A, so it's Condor or drive-on only) But I think some UCM players might get mileage out of throwing them in a Bear to give an AA bubble in the middle of the field from a building. The ability to choose whether or not they're manning the walls & shooting means they've got a little more LoS flexibility than rapiers, at the cost of being vulnerable to flame/anti-personnel machineguns/close combats.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
That looks like a nice lot. I'll send you a pm momentarily with what I'm looking for. (Unfortunately I already have two UCM starters) I have a friend who I think also PM'd you, so hopefully we can coordinate shipping so you only have to ship one package to both of us.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
When is the kickstarter going up? I'm at work so phone posting doesn't permit video watching.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Quick rules question: I know you cannot shoot if you have disembarked earlier in the turn. And that bars reaction fire as well. But can you embark after having shot? Either normally or reaction fire? The rules seem ambiguous. I would doubt it, and my friend and I played as if you cannot, but it's not clear.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Went in for Captain with a friend. Unfortunately we both kinda want to play UCM so instead of each of us getting double starter fleets we'll probably just be splitting it. Still, it seems a better deal than 2x single starter bids. Plus maybe I'll be inspired and play Scourge instead.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Yeah, the Kodiak is definitely the first UCM tool you want after the starter. You may want something that can scout next - Wolverines are good and the Ferrus is almost an auto-include in UCM lists, but the Ferrus model is a bit more expensive. Gladiuses look excellent, and I really need to get some myself. Eagles are pretty swell, and the model is great plus easy to assemble. After that, you'll want a little more infantry (either a second starter or a pack of praetorians are good), probably some Ravens for the infantry, andsee hat you want after that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
If you want, you can use the third Bear that came with the UCM starter army. But yeah, the Kodiak bodies are a bit of a mess. I spent a fair bit of time trimming down the internal edges of each half and that made a difference.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
My guess is it's on there to future proof generally, not for a specific thing (or because all missiles get it so this one does even if it's silly). That way if there's some stupid high armor thing out there, or some cover that benefits vehicles in a weird way (possible a scenario/special/unique bunker, say) then the rule covers it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:Seraphim Turn 1: Miss Building Do you have a Kodiak or other indirect fire units? They're pretty good for spotting, contesting objectives late in the game, and shooting light dropships.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:I was running 2x Longbows and 1x Kodiak too. They can target light dropships? No, no, I meant that the Wolverines shoot the light dropships while the Kodiak and Longbows use the Wolverines as spotters for indirect fire at other stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Anyone have advice for a UCM dropfleet paint scheme? I don't want to do the studio scheme because the all gunmetal all the time seems a little drab and I want more color/pop.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
The advantage of bombardment, I think,is just that using normal guns against ground targets only hits on a 5+ or something like that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
While I am pretty hyped about getting my pile of stuff, I am ok waiting a bit because I know I won't have time to paint anytime soon. Also my friend and I were splitting two orders and the little one got here first, so I have plenty of frigates to assemble in the mean time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Do we know if Hawk is planning a FFoR style app for Dropfleet? Because that would be awesome. I vaguely recall rumors of an iPhone app, but I assume that's been held up by dropfleet trouble?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:After the amount of salt I've seen on display on Facebook this weekend, I don't think I'm ever going to complain again about how long Dropfleet is taking. One guy posted how he's going to refuse delivery and issue a chargeback on his bank account. Wish I could've gotten a screenshot, but away from my computer this weekend. Tell him to just send his order my way.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
I just used a fair bit of glue and held it in place, bending the top bit to fit right, until the glue set.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Sadly I am still waiting for my shipping notification...I must have missed the magic special combination of bits that are right next to each other in the warehouse.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
I was taking a look at the UCM battleships, and I'm a little confused. The New York brings something that you can't get anywhere else (a torpedo), but I don't know how good the other two are. First, the Beijing. It's got a burnthrough laser & rack of guns - pretty straightforward. But let's compare it to a pair of cruisers (a Berlin and a Rio), smashed together. They have the same light railgun firepower (UF-4200 Mass Drivers, 4+). The battleship has the edge in heavy railgun firepower (6 UF-6400 shots vs. 4 UF-6400 shots, 3+). They have the same burnthrough firepower. The cruisers have a slight edge in close-action firepower (2d6+2 missile shots vs. 1d6+4 missile shots, 4+). They have the same armor save. The cruisers have more hull (20 combined, vs. 18 on the Beijing). They have the same PD. The cruisers are faster (8" vs. 6" thrust). The battleship has more scan (8" vs. 6"). The battleship has a much bigger sig (12" vs. 6"). So, action-wise, they're pretty similar. The Beijing has a slight edge in firepower & range where the cruisers are faster and harder to hit. I'm not sure how to compare the toughness - 2 extra hull on the cruisers, but the cruisers can be taken out piecemeal. However, the Beijing is more expensive - 252 pts, vs. 220 pts for both cruisers. I'd rather have 2 cruisers and one of the smaller frigates. Am I wrong? Second, the Tokyo. This is a little better. It has almost the same bombardment value as two Madrids, and it adds a burnthrough laser. We've got the same back and forth about armor/close action/scan/sig/speed/hull points. Again, though, the Tokyo is significantly more expensive (220, vs. 158 for both cruisers). The price difference is almost enough for a New Cairo light cruiser, which would swing the firepower difference back to the cruisers by adding a burnthrough laser and give a significant durability advantage to the cruisers (30 vs. 18). Obviously battleships are awesome as the centerpiece for a fleet, and give you a solid base of fire that's pretty durable. Plus they do well as a home base for your admiral. But I'll have to play a few games and see how busy the tabletop gets before I am convinced they're worth the points premium over multiple smaller ships that can cover more of the table and are more flexible in the orders phase.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Thanks, I completely forgot how PD works, and I haven't really looked into scenarios yet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Yeah, that's a nice scheme. I'm going for blue with white accent panels for most of mine, maybe try a few in Green Bay packers colors to appease the wife and break up the table a bit. But some red like yours would be swell too. (If I had my poo poo together on the army list front I would just do each battle group a separate scheme so I have squadrons but that would require knowing the rules.) Also still no shipping notification on my order. Boo-urns!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Do you want to go warmer or cooler? A green would be neat, but definitely a cooler color. A red would also be interesting, but you're getting close to 'MURICA the spaceship if you're not careful.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm really on the fence about Madrids for lower point games. On the one hand, hell yes bombardment. On the other hand...a San Francisco is only ~50% more expensive...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
By turquoise, you mean the base coat? Because the color scheme there looks pretty good and would pop on the table, but I could see going a little lighter on the broad swathes of the hill to make the stripes stand out more. You could also get away with red stripes if the hill has that blue or turquoise tint to it, without getting into the flag color problem we discussed before. Also, if you wanted to get fancy you could do one of the stripes in green or red (possibly to delineate squadrons or battle groups, possibly by ship class, possibly for admirals, or just randomly for fun).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
How are you masking? I tried to use masking tape to do some on my UCM cruisers but doubt it difficult to cut the tape without cutting the model. But I've never done any masking before, so would appreciate advice.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
It's too bad you're in Australia, because if you were US I would gladly take the spare UCM and Scourge off your hands. Also I am really sad my pledge hasn't shipped yet. Apparently adding stuff in the pledge manager was a terrible idea? I only did it once, but I can't think of any other reason my commodore pledge would be so delayed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Yeah, the drama is remarkably silly. Obviously I am frustrated a little, but it's not that big of a deal. And honestly I would rather have Hawk shipping to brick and mortar and shipping battleships asap! That would help grow the game and keep it healthier over a longer timeframe, which is way more important to me than getting my plastic space boats a few months earlier. (It helps that I have a few from splitting a different order with a friend.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
That sounds awesome! Let us know how it goes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Played a starter dropfleet game of UCM vs. Scourge this afternoon. One or two pics once I figure out how to upload pictures from my phone to the forum. (Painted UCM, Scourge are a mix of assembled but unpainted models and PHR dropzone dropships standing in for Scourge cruisers.) It was fun! There's a lot to figure out as far as planning for ship movement, watching out for debris fields, and managing orders, but I was happy with how smoothly things went once we started to get rules figured out. Ground combat seems like it might be more fiddly than it ought to be, but that's alright. I'll post thoughts on the game itself when we post pictures (though we forgot to do turn-by-turn pictures so it'll basically just be random story-time). But when evaluating light cruisers, we realized just how important the armor value difference is. It makes the 2 HP difference between light cruisers and cruisers, or the 4 HP difference for heavy cruisers, much bigger than it looks. A New Cairo has about half the EHP of a Berlin (16 vs. 30), and a little less than half the EHP of a Moscow or St. Petersburg (16 vs. 36). Also, for those of you playing 1500 pt games on a 4x4 board, do things get really crowded really quickly? We felt a touch congested at ~500 points on a 4x4 board when we got into a fight over the objectives. Maybe that opens up when you have more objectives that are off the center line?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
I'm really happy to hear that the bulk of my stuff will be shipped soon. That's great news. I'm sad that Hawks morale has been so low; these are great products and they should be proud of what they've done. More importantly, pictures! Featuring settlers tiles as light debris fields (water) and heavy debris fields (other stuff), Memoir 44 tiles as objectives, and dropzone dropships as proxies where needed. Please excuse the atrocious paint scheme on the New Orleans ships. It sucks but I am not redoing them.  UCM ships advance up the middle of the table to shoot the scourge invaders! My New Cairo was acting as a Berlin. It definitely gets MVP for me, killing the Ifrit in the first round of shooting to secure the center of the map, and finishing off a Wyvern in the mid-game to allow my strike carriers to secure the side objective that gave me the win. Burn through lasers are awesome, though I almost never wanted to go weapons free with my Berlin. I feel like standard or course change will almost always be better. (This also means I think New Cairos will usually be a better bet, survivability notwithstanding.)  You can see the whole fleet, with Star Wars miniature game ships standing in for launch assets. The wyvern there is a turn away from completely savaging my poor Moscow. The Wyvern, and Scourge close action weapons in general, definitely proved their worth for us. It's a brutal amount of shooting, and I nearly lost a heavy cruiser to a single round of Wyvern fire. I also was terribly ineffective with my fighters all game, and probably just should have bombed things all the time.  The battle line before everything blows up. Most ships were effective, but the Moscow was awful at shooting through debris fields and I didn't really leverage it at all.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Dflist is really good. I hope Hawk steals it or starts officially supporting it, though I suppose they might get fussed over its use of full stat lines. (I really, really hope they don't let that stop them.) Also, what are folks using for ground assets? Models from other games? Drop zone stuff?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
That looks really nice, and would stand out well against a space/planet background. I tend to want a touch more color/contrast on my minis, but if you're going for a quasi-digital-camo-scheme that's solid. You could also wash the metallic components a little more depending on how it looks from table-height.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 02:32
|
|