Post your reviews of DZC 2.

The ground game set in the Commanderverse.
Egge
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:27 pm

Post your reviews of DZC 2.

Post by Egge »

I thought it would be nice to see people's opinions on the game. As soon as I get one I will post something but until then it would be really nice to know what people think. Are there any tidbits you like or dislike, changes that surpise you and so on.

I need to read something about it!

User avatar
Darios
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Post your reviews of DZC 2.

Post by Darios »

Egge wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:06 pm
I thought it would be nice to see people's opinions on the game. As soon as I get one I will post something but until then it would be really nice to know what people think. Are there any tidbits you like or dislike, changes that surpise you and so on.

I need to read something about it!
i disklike some small bits of it, like the passus on not blocking line of sight with units belonging to the enemysquad i shoot at (bad for UCM)
and i'm not entirely sure about the whole units stats only online thing...

oh and the elephant in the room is obviously the missing gate rules (they fixed some of it after i asked, but that just leads to more questions and riddles)

on a personal note: long time no see, Mr. Swede!
Still the ruling Hedgehog!

spacemonkeymafia
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:19 pm

Re: Post your reviews of DZC 2.

Post by spacemonkeymafia »

What did they fix on the gate rules? I thought they sort of addressed gates with the "Access" rules. I don't play Shaltari so I'm not sure what else was needed.

I haven't gone through the fluff yet and don't play Dropfleet but did have the chance to run through a first pass of the new rules. I agree that the "I can see through my units and your units" LOS change isn't as nice. I'm sure our UCM player will grind teeth on that.

On the whole, it feels incomplete. Like they streamlined things too far and left things out. I likely won't know exactly what is left out until I put units on a table and start trying to run things but rules seem glossed over, allowing for the possibility of a lot of open-ended edge cases. I know in the beginning they say to not dwell on it and just dice off to make a decision in the heat of the game but that won't work long term. Take shooting at aircraft... it talks about requiring AA and what to do when one is destroyed etc. but doesn't say how I target it it. Part of this is the fact that this is a 2nd edition and I'm bringing all my 1st edition baggage with me but it makes things unclear when they aren't specific. If I continue on with the aircraft example, I can check the LOS rules and they say I need the center of the model in my arc and I need to see any part of the main body. So now aircraft models matter and they are no longer "points in space"? I like that change because I want aircraft models to matter since all the other models do but I'm just unsure because of what is being left unsaid.

I really like the fact that my first read-through didn't uncover any obvious typos. TTC bring spellchecker to the table and that is a good thing. I don't dislike any of the new changes at first blush but I fear I'm going to be in the weeds trying to sort out all the things left unsaid during my game.

alpha1983
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:44 am

Re: Post your reviews of DZC 2.

Post by alpha1983 »

Darios wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:20 pm
Egge wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:06 pm
I thought it would be nice to see people's opinions on the game. As soon as I get one I will post something but until then it would be really nice to know what people think. Are there any tidbits you like or dislike, changes that surpise you and so on.

I need to read something about it!
i disklike some small bits of it, like the passus on not blocking line of sight with units belonging to the enemysquad i shoot at (bad for UCM)
and i'm not entirely sure about the whole units stats only online thing...

oh and the elephant in the room is obviously the missing gate rules (they fixed some of it after i asked, but that just leads to more questions and riddles)

on a personal note: long time no see, Mr. Swede!
I don't know why you state that UCM lost the possibility of hiding their units behind others. In fact the same rules are still applied. A +2 accuracy penalty is given when shooting at a unit which is not, at least, 50% visible. In other words, the same hull down rule we previously had.
UCM tanks can still hide behind a colleague and shoot using the articulated cannons

For my part, I still to fully read and digest the new ruleset, let alone play a single game. Still I miss the old Fast mover mechanics. To me the current Fast seems like a port from 40k that misses part of what was cool in previous editions.
Also, forcing fast aircrafts to enter the battlefield only through your side of the table, greatly reduces their usefulness.

User avatar
Feral
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:06 pm
Location: Newport, South Wales
Contact:

Re: Post your reviews of DZC 2.

Post by Feral »

alpha1983 wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:52 am

Also, forcing fast aircrafts to enter the battlefield only through your side of the table, greatly reduces their usefulness.
yeah, reaction fire is going to be much more of a pain that it was with one table edge entry- that said a fair few AA weapons don't have the number after to remove evasive counter measures, and the ones that do only have 1 or 2- with fast movers having E+4 in some cases that's a -6 modifier on reaction fire before the AA modifiers reduce it- even an AA-2 is going to only hit on 6's at that point.
"I don't trust anyone who lets a magic 8-ball run their civilisation"

Aladinn
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:24 am

Re: Post your reviews of DZC 2.

Post by Aladinn »

I think the speed by which objectives can be found and extracted from garrisons is a problem.
With the new rules it is possible to retrieve an objective from a building in the middle of the table on the first activation of turn 2 virtually unopposed. You can do this by flying a couple of transports up the field on turn 1, Then in turn 2 disembarking into the building (free move), search in the building (first action) (on a 3+ if you also drop (free disembark) 2 ground transports next to it), move out of the building directly into a second transport (second action) and then fly away. You can even do this twice with just one battlegroup (and just 1 activation), or with 2 squads search (and the first one dropping the objective if he finds it so the second one can pick it up and directly move away).

Egge
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:27 pm

Re: Post your reviews of DZC 2.

Post by Egge »

So I have read through it a couple of times and of course some things will be found/changed when playtesting.

Dropzone commander V1 was for me an amazing game that needed some improvements in lowering the amount of battlegroups, double tap, walk on and more variation in terrain. In short, several of these are handled but the new ed also creates some issues as well that wasn't needed and will hamper the growth of the game in our area.

This is a opinion about the rules not the BFE book in itself but I will say that I wouldn't mind a DZC rulebook. The book is way to thick if you just need the rules and the missions. So I hope for a future release.

I will basically go through the changes I find noteworthy and my opinion on them. Hopefully someone spots something I missed or find they missed something as well:

*You now ignore units in the friendly squad as well as the enemy squad. This is a change that wasn't needed as it worked well before. I think that ignoring enemy units would have bee a good rule for the "Articulated" special rule though.

*Aircrafts are now seen if the hull is seen. As well as not having a dedicated height. I am mixed but think it will matter little in the end. It is strange that we measure range in 3D though. It hampers the game while adding little. Measuring from a ground point to a point in the air is a bit awkward.

*Infantry has a unit coherency of 1". This just causes problem. Why not just go Base to base as the earlier? It feels lika change for change's sake. Pointless.

*Famous commanders are now, as I understand it, part of the tournament scene. Yeah... I don't care for that. It wasn't fun in 40k as they are very hard to balance and I have never seen someone having a "fun" army with a special commander. People will just try to find a special rule they like and abuse it. It is a great addition to have the non special models as normal models. But the famous commanders should never be part of the tournament scene.

*Command cards are yet to be checked. I do miss that the repetition of cards are gone. They made it simpler to remember what the cards did. In an effort to make each card unique you also risk just making them slightly different, making sure it is easier to use them wrong.

*Sphere if influence is not longer full influence from scout. Just 8" which I think is good. Then you need to work with your scouts a bit more.

*I had really hoped there would be a rule stopping the double tap. Your last activation should not be possible to be next turn's first activation. With jumping out of transports and shooting it now is a much meaner double tap, making the game less fun and the first turn can be more important.

*Transports are now not part of the battlegroup. Here is a big change. It wasn't a good rule with Shaltari in the first ed but it worked as it was only one army. But mistakes was made fairly often. This will slow the game down and it will be mistakes. Remember that people made mistakes with which unit belongs to which battlegroup or which battlegroud had been activated? Yeah - it will be more frequent now. For my part I would have loved a command card with three cards in a deck where you could change the battlegroup of a transport instead. This is a bad change though I know I am a minority.

* You always hit on a 6 now. That is fine for me. Makes it faster.

*Skimmer bonus and evasive are now a single thing. Works well. Good. AA weapons now have a value of decreasing this bonus. I didn't see many AA weapons having a -2 to the evasive so we will see if it used a lot. Else the -2 to evasive could just been part of the AA weapon rule.

*Passive saves are taken after damage and against each single point of damage: so even a double damage will then roll 2 saves for. Good. It averages out a little better.

*Close quarter weapons are the new CQB rules. Kinda... If you have something in base to base with your models you can only use your own CQ weapons. This is just bad. I understand they wanted the weapon stats for the CQB into the main weapon stats instead of a special section as before. But the lack of shooting just because you are touching the rear of something is bad. The models are not static and are driving, running and jumping all over the place. But suddenly you stop moving because something is holding a hand at the side of your tank?

*Fortitude is now used after being shot at. That is ok bu I feel that the fortitude is underused. They had much more ideas in the Beta versions that could have been used.

*You can only disembark 2" now from a transport. And ground units may move full movement.
*You can disembark directly into a building, search and disembark the same turn into the said aicraft.

The above is kind of strange. I don't really like it. Scourge Maurauder with Invaders and infantry can thus reach: 12" move for the maruder, 2" disembark, 6" move Invader, 2" disembark directly into a building 2" away. That is a turn 1 24" disembark move. While the infantry can't search and disembark they can search and find the objective turn 1. I can not see how this is a good thing. But I do see games being over turn 2. I am hoping I get this wrong but with the new Target's of opportunities being as it is a scourge player can enter 2 buildings as the last activation turn 1 with two maruders and 4 infantry in total, search 2 buildings and a 6 2 times in each building and then turn 2 search again with 4 trials finding them on a 5 and then leaving the table. Just the theoretical idea is really really bad and I hope I have missed something.

*Jump out and shoot. Not being able to Rhino-rush in V1 was the main selling point besides a very pretty game. It is now gone. And in my area people started playing the other games where you can also rhino rush but there are tons of more players. I know many likes it but I hate it.

*Destroyed transport is much simpler handled now. Just roll a D3 for the tranported units and elite infantry are hurt more and the way I think that is good. "Destroyed in air"-result was before very hurtful or didn't do squat. Now the best result will not destroy a full infantry squad straight off.

*The height limit is now 8" for aircrafts. That means a lot more of the paper buildings can now be moved over. I am neutral. I'm not sure of why the change happened but it did. Fine.

*Destroyed aircraft is also much easier handled. Good.

But... there is no more the Hot Lz rule. It was in version 1 a interesting mechanic which we initially liked but then it was pointless as it was never a real issue. I think they should have kept it but made it harsher. With then the Hot LZ card being more powerful. Sad.

*Behemoths are behemoths. I will test and see but I am note sure they ill actually find a place in DZC normal tournament scene.

*Scenery rules are a much improvement overall. With damage tokens, more variation and I think easier to handle once I'm used to it. V1 had a problem of not having smart Forest rules so they could been used instead of buildings. Now that is fixed.

This was part one. There will be more.

User avatar
TimeWizard
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:06 pm
Location: East Coast US

Re: Post your reviews of DZC 2.

Post by TimeWizard »

Egge wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 11:21 am
*Destroyed transport is much simpler handled now. Just roll a D3 for the tranported units and elite infantry are hurt more and the way I think that is good. "Destroyed in air"-result was before very hurtful or didn't do squat. Now the best result will not destroy a full infantry squad straight off.
I don't like that there are confusing and conflictin rules for Aerial Transports.

Page 263 gives the rules for transports that are destroyed and according to that rule there is a 1 in 3 chance that the embarked units will be okay.

But the page 264 says that "If an Aerial Transport has embarked units, they follow these rules instead of the rules for destroyed transports." But "these rules" do not specify what happens to the embarked units. Are they destroyed? If you roll a 1 on a D3 it says there is no effect, does this mean that roll the embarked units can now disembark? On a roll of 2-3 scenery and units within that many inches suffer E10 automatic hits, so do embarked units disembark when the aircraft crashes and then suffer those hits (since they would obviously be within the 2-3" range)? It is way too unclear.

There are a few other unclear parts, but overall I like your first impressions Egge.

Egge
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:27 pm

Re: Post your reviews of DZC 2.

Post by Egge »

TimeWizard wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:23 pm

Page 263 gives the rules for transports that are destroyed and according to that rule there is a 1 in 3 chance that the embarked units will be okay.

But the page 264 says that "If an Aerial Transport has embarked units, they follow these rules instead of the rules for destroyed transports." But "these rules" do not specify what happens to the embarked units. Are they destroyed? If you roll a 1 on a D3 it says there is no effect, does this mean that roll the embarked units can now disembark? On a roll of 2-3 scenery and units within that many inches suffer E10 automatic hits, so do embarked units disembark when the aircraft crashes and then suffer those hits (since they would obviously be within the 2-3" range)? It is way too unclear.

There are a few other unclear parts, but overall I like your first impressions Egge.
Thanks. I agree it is rather vague. It would help if it was just a single roll for the transport in itself and then a separate roll for the units inside. I e a combination of p 264 and o263. Though I would say aircraft transport should be a bit more dangerous than ground transport.

User avatar
TimeWizard
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:06 pm
Location: East Coast US

Re: Post your reviews of DZC 2.

Post by TimeWizard »

I agree, there are many more survivors from car crashes than airplane accidents!

Post Reply