Post your reviews of DZC 2.

The ground game set in the Commanderverse.
User avatar
Lord Sick
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:07 am

Re: Post your reviews of DZC 2.

Post by Lord Sick »

great reviews, love reading them

They do outline some troubling issues with the new rules that sound like they where unnecessary

Lorn
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Post your reviews of DZC 2.

Post by Lorn »

I think the objectives that are not "mobile" offer more interesting gameplay in V2 then the mobile ones to be honest. There it is a lot less easy to cheese and some of the tactical positioning remains as it is less of a rush to grab them and carry them off table.

At least it was in the one game of V2 I had so far, I fear the sceptical outlook at the "classical" meaning the "mobile" objetives is quite valid.

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

Re: Post your reviews of DZC 2.

Post by alpha1983 »

So let's see if I understand correctly the complaints with V2 deep stricking Marauders.

V1:
When reading V1 I find that it was possible for a Marauder to start the game with a pair of intruders loaded within it. It could move up to 24" and landing took 2" from it, so it could drop the intruders 22" from the edge. Then the intruders got deployed, within 3" of the Marauder. The intruders could then move half their move (6/2=3) and disembark their troops into a building 1".
Overall it was possible to get a first turn ocupation of building within 22 + 3 + 3 + 1 = 29". Most likely a little less, since all of the unit had to be in coherence, so, to be fair let's say that it would have been able to get to a building 28" from the table limit. That's over half othe table.
Then, on turn 2, it was possible for the infantry to look for an objective within the building. This did not take any of the actions as was clarified in Note 2 page 52 of the V1.1 rulebook. Also, it happened regardless of the presence of enemy units within the building. That squad could afterwards move, shoot... and of course, it could also use that move to embark back into the intruders. Then the intruders would move back to the still landed Marauder, who would in turn, get back to extract the objective.
With this I understand that V1 allowed a scourge player to extract a mobile objective 29" from its table edge by the first activation of turn 2.

V2:
The rules state that "Units cannot embark into or disembark from an Aerial Transport if it moves further than half of its MV value (rounding up) at any point during the round". In other words, the aforementioned Marauder would be able to move 12", drop the intruders within coherency 2", move fully the intruders (6"), then disembark the squad into a building 2". Overall 12 + 2 + 6 + 2 = 20", a 9" drop from V1!

Searching for objectives V1:
Then regarding searching for an objective within a building. In V1, you had a table that depending on the size of the building and the numbers of turns you had been the occupier of the building, you had to roll more or less. A tiny building, for instance, was +3 to find an objective from the first turn of ocupation (potentially turn 2). A large one would take a 6+ on the first turn of ocupation, then decrease as the turns went by. Take into account that this search was unmodified by the presence of enemy squads in the same building or nearby.

Searching for objectives V2:
In V2 its somewhat different. You take the turn number, roll a dice and if it's 7 or more, the objective is found. You can search using infantry or vehicles as long as those are within 2" of the objective or the building, and objectives can be claimed 2" away from them. Searching is an action, and you only get 2 of those. Also, if there are enemy units (any number) within 2" or in the same garrison, you get a -1 to that roll.
Gotta admit is a little bit crappy (let's be honest, is quite crappy), but avoids the messy bookeeping of checking how many turns you had been the occupier of an specific building and remembering which was the specific size of it. And, as the turns go by, it becomes easier and easier to find the objective, so pressure is added to both players.

Proposals to improve V2:
If I would need to house rule this and make it more challenging and realistic, I would state that per each enemy unit (not squad) within 2" or within the garrison, you get a -1 to the search roll. That way, you get a rather strong incentive to engage with the enemy forces and the adversary gets a way to block turn 1 in depth deployent of infantry within an objective building.
Fluffwise, it also makes a lot of sense. Is much harder to search for whichever HQ sent you for while foes are either aiming or shooting at you. And doing the same thing while the enemy is a couple of kilometers away would be a breeze.

Also, I would block all turn 1 searches. To do so, I would propose that squad is only allowed to search a building if it started its activation within 2" or within the building itself. This way you avoid the situation where a player would rush multiple squads into a building and roll a dice for each squad of infantry and another for each squad of transports. You also give the other player the chance to react to your moves.

User avatar
Gauntlet
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:02 pm

Re: Post your reviews of DZC 2.

Post by Gauntlet »

Marauders and other dropships in V1 could only disembark if they moved half their movement. So that 24" became 12".

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 »

alpha1983 wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:09 pm
You can search using infantry or vehicles as long as those are within 2" of the objective or the building, and objectives can be claimed 2" away from them.
Hidden objectives that are in buildings (Garrisons) can only be searched for by squads that are in the same Garrison.

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

Re: Post your reviews of DZC 2.

Post by Egge »

As people already wrote. V1 Only shaltari could make a turn 1 enter of a building. And then not search that turn. And next turn on a 6.

V1 A Marauder could get the infantry 12"+3"+3"+3"+1". I e 22". If you did that you could search on a six next turn. But it was also very risky as demo was more effective.

User avatar
Lord Sick
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:07 am

Re: Post your reviews of DZC 2.

Post by Lord Sick »

I came across this blog, maybe it helps with some rules?

http://orbitalbombardmentgamers.blogspo ... .html#more

User avatar
Stevefamine
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:59 pm

Re: Post your reviews of DZC 2.

Post by Stevefamine »

Orbital Bombardment used to be my go-to for reports/meta talk honestly

My Scourge seem terrible in 2.0 and UCM actually became a bit better. I've jumped to PHR but havent played that much after building the army to make a solid review with them in 2.0
Instagram: @stevefamine

User avatar
Bushman101
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:16 am
Location: Columbus,Ohio-USA

Re: Post your reviews of DZC 2.

Post by Bushman101 »

I got a 1000 pts game on sunday. Gonna try some other things out.

It seems/feels the game has moved to favor arms over armor. My UCM tanks seem to die a bit easier now.

Lorn
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Post your reviews of DZC 2.

Post by Lorn »

How on earth are Scourge terrible in V2 aside the fluff? They are the only faction with only viable HQ choices and overall benefit a lot from full movement after disembarking.

Post Reply