DW 3.0 Open Beta Discussion

[erloas]

I really haven't had a chance to really dig into it, and honestly I've pretty much given up on Warcradle after their heavy handed moderating/editing on FB.  (mostly because it comes across as not actually willing to listen to players unless they tell you what you want to hear)
I've still been following it to see what happens and see if that was not actually the case.

It seems to be a common theme with table top gaming, to "simplify and streamline."  Which is what they are doing here, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that is pretty much the opposite of what I'm looking for in tabletop war-gaming.  Sure there is a point where complexity gets too deep and things that are needlessly complex, but I think they've went too far the other way.  If I wanted something quick and easy with simple mechanics there are hundreds of boardgames to get that from now.  Or even a truly light miniature game like Gaslands.  But to me, by taking away the importance of really lining up a shot, or of being precise in movement and planning... well it seems like Gaslands has them beat hands down.  Tactical depth is why I play table top games, especially over electronic games, and they seem to be actively working to remove the tactical aspects to speed up the gameplay, but even then I'm not seeing the game be fast, just a little less slow.  It also doesn't seem to be simplified enough that I could play it with non-table top gamers, which I could also see the desire to do.  I'm sort of just left wondering what the game is going to do to give me a reason to play it over all of the other choices.

[RuleBritannia]

My concern has gradually developed out of playing and thinking about the game is that Warcradle have put the wrong emphasis on 3.0.  The main complaint about Spartan's version was an excess of token spam and book keeping, while the naval warfare element was popular.  That suggests to me that what needed tidying was the book keeping element that dustracted from the blowing people up.  So while the linking dice prewritten and the removal of boarding book keeping helps, by removing the complexities of moving templates, firing arcs on weapons and different patterns of warships reduces the naval character, and risks making the game indistinguishable from gaslands, gorkkamorkka or even Firestorm.  At the same time the critical table has added multiple tokens per effect and the complex armour vs. Critical no longer related has also complicated the book keeping phase as has the now integral cards.  I would go back to the 2.0 dr/cr relationship, keep the d6 and have each critical either have an immediate effect and a hazard or a token effect, restore turrets and obscured and maybe look at giving larges and massives three stages of damage.  But that is just my feeling as someone more interested in the naval events.

[Covertwalrus]

 Have to agree with RuleBritannia and Erloas here, and lately the carrier rules are being talked about. Seems liek consensus is that the new fighter rules are too simplified, limit the SRS to defensive and escort roles in the main, and make any carrier without weapons pretty much only a large escort.

 Now, to me, carriers in miniatures games usually fall into three camps - Long-range weapons platforms, sending out units that make small but repeatable strikes on targets at longer engaement ranges than standard weapons and ships; Assault ships that carry small wesapons suties as well as the above, so can skirmish with other craft directly while maintaining the long-range attack as above; And escort carriers that supply fighter groups to defend other ships from arttacks by opposing fighters and/or assist ships in defense against other ships. ( In the real world, only the first and third actually exist in most navies, though you *could* argue a modern LCS has some assualt carrier features ).
 In 2.5, the ability of carriers to do the first and third jobs was curtailed by the Carrier Points rules, which somewaht limited the number of Tiny Fliers were able to operate at any given time; This did not really affect the thrird escort job so much as the operations for close-in work were still applicable, but it di prevent long-range strikes of any greta number. The second option, of course still existed as weapons on carriers were unaffected. ( A suggested house rule we use locally is to allow carrier points to represent the ability to launch/ maintain a fighter group, and to allow them to be reapired, to symbolise decks and hanagers being put otut of action then repaired, a compromise between 2.0 and 2.5 in some ways. )
 So far, the carrier rules as seen in the Beta do almost nothing to make carriers perform in the first role as detailed before - Which in some ways limits the game given the lack of long-range raech weapons like missiles ( Sure, there are rockets, but rockets are by definition unguided and thereby limited, unlike manned fighters, and which restriction is well-modlled in all versiosn of the game so far ). I'm hoping then to see these rules expanded on this point myself. But it seems taht somethign has been lost in the drive for simplification and lowered token work, and it's to the detriment of the game to my mind.

[CDR-G]

"Also, the impact of a successful boarding in 3.0 seems to be a bit less than it was in previous editions."
Bit of an understatement.
In 2.5 it was a major aspect of the game. An attack that can turn the tide, but fraught with danger and with limited uses. This Firestorm Armada import is not welcome. I don't need another ranged attack. I prefer the 2.0or 2.5 version. And I don't find the 3.0 assault "simpler" to implement. So Why?

 

[Ruckdog]

"Also, the impact of a successful boarding in 3.0 seems to be a bit less than it was in previous editions."
Bit of an understatement.
In 2.5 it was a major aspect of the game. An attack that can turn the tide, but fraught with danger and with limited uses. This Firestorm Armada import is not welcome. I don't need another ranged attack. I prefer the 2.0or 2.5 version. And I don't find the 3.0 assault "simpler" to implement. So Why?

Well, the most recent revisions to the beta do make boarding a bit deadlier, so WC is buffing it a bit. And, while there are some similarities to the current beta version of DW boarding and the mechanics in FSA 2.0, there are some important differences as well; the biggest one is that in FSA ships were limited to launching one assault per game!

Just having read the rules, the boarding in the 3.0 beta seems simpler to me...no AP to track and not worrying about trying to keep straight which model shot at which model seem like it would streamline the process considerably. Maybe it will feel different on the table when being played, but on paper the new rules do seem a lot less involved than the old ones.

[Ruckdog]

Finally got a game of 3.0 in! Here is a brief battle report and what my  opponent and I thought about the rules:

http://www.manbattlestations.com/blog/2018/09/30/dw-3-0-gameplay-first-impressions/

[Covertwalrus]

 I've yet to play any form of 3.0, and I'm not sure the group I'm playing with will ever adopt it. 

 I'm pretty sure I'll have to play it if I want to reamin in the loop of course, as it will become the standard. That will be independent of my feelings about the game; To be honest, I'm not impressed by some of the ideas involved in 3.0 ( Single turn template for all size of ships, and tiddlywink-level rules simplification of things like firing arcs) but I'm definetely in the minority by the sound of things.

 Well, at least I'll have 2.5.

[Easy E]

I dislike the deck and the custom dice. 

The game is still not scaled right in my mind and you still have to roll too many dice to get a resolution.  Still too much fiddliness in my mind to get results.  I also am disappointed they did not re-jig the turn sequence/activation process. 

However, I know that is just MY taste in games and many other people feel very different. 

[Covertwalrus]

Here's the latest - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIsj4VaaOc8&fbclid=IwAR3RdqaCgw0VK6zBf-cJzvTEHXdo-u-K2NvMKvuDEFpEVYSt2aDZn79PcO0

 Now, this may be semantics on my part, but I have a problem with the idea that you can call people with no miniatures or rules "players", since they haven't the wherewithal to play.

[RuleBritannia]

I was disappointed that the weaponry would have identical stats across fleets, eg a turret is the same between KoB and RC.  On the forums there was a discussion of this and the point was made that there would be a diversity of weapons and ship designs outside of the beta.  I don't what this means for the early discussions of modular design and the outfitting card system.

[Ruckdog]

Got another game of the Beta in yesterday. Here is my write-up!

http://www.manbattlestations.com/blog/2019/04/07/further-adventures-with-the-dw-3-0-beta/

[Covertwalrus]

 Just read through your 3.0 game, reflects a number comments made by others on forums ( Especially the comment about frigates and large ships ), and certainly recalls a comment made by the authors about their dislike for frigates as a concept.

 I do admit, the Obscured rule makes some sense, but as you say a Generator that causes that effect on a surface ship should be an expensive item.

 The destroyers being powerful units . . . Well, I suppose that makes some real world sense with ceratin weapons loadaouts and swarm tactics, however it seems more of a civilian misunderstanding of the term ( Cide "Babylon 5" Earth Force ships, which anyone in the gaming and /or navy world would classify as at least battlecruisers ). Given the way that large units have been so "nerfed' in these rules - Ask anyone who has been playtesting with a Zhanmadao lately - it seems rather odd and a reflection again of what caould be percieved of teh influence of skirmish gamers in the command seat, as it were.

 Still, it sounds like it was an enjoyable game . . . I am obligated to say that's proabably all that really matters. 

[Covertwalrus]

 So latest scuttlebutt from Stuart is that they are looking to close the Open Beta by the end of June and that the greater part of the current rules are locked down - including the removal of all fliers except token-style fighters, gyros and airships, which was a controversial move but apparently a vital one from a system point of view. Certain people are runnign a sweepsatke on whne the 3.0 rule sand new models might be released, arbnging from Secodn Quarter 2020 to May 2025, however, I'm thinking ( And feel free to hold me to this if I'm wrong ) sometiem around December this year, under three assumptions -

 1. Nothing major is found in the beta rules that needs to be fixed, and that it truly is at a completion point by the end of the month;

 2. That theri marketing philosophy follows the mainstream approach, i.e. drop large releases during holiday periods, and release a full system ( Forces, rules and accessories ) in one single burst.

 3. The company doesn't get distracted by some other project, like, say a tie-in to a computer game, or even a game based on some 30 year old cult movie series . . .

 So, good news then. Oh, wait, almost forgot this - https://blog.warcradle.com/blog/2019/5/bill-and-ted-riff-in-time-board-game

[Ruckdog]

I think December this year is a reasonable goal. A few months ago, I was really pulling for Gencon 2019 to be, at the very least, a soft release for the game (perhaps just the new starter set, with other fleets and expansions by the end of the year). However, the fact that we have not yet seen a finalized set of new ships for the main fleets (not renders, but actual physical models) and the fact that the Beta is not finalized (meaning that a final rulebook is probably a ways away) makes me think that it will indeed be later this year.

I was a bit surprised (puzzled really) by the announcement of the Bill & Ted boardgame! That came out of left field, though it is in line with the veiled comments that were made during the last WC Q&A video about new projects coming down the line. As others have said it does lead one to make worrying parallels between WC and Spartan regarding project ADHD. On the other hand, WC does seem to me to be perfectly willing to delay new product launches until existing products are established, so perhaps there is hope.

[RuleBritannia]

I am rather puzzled by limiting fliers.  You'd want everything on the table from Doom Frisbees to true heavy fixed wing craft that allow you to go wild as a designer, and very very importantly, don't make people's air fleets redundant.  Some statements recently from Warcradle have skated a thin line between understanding that things won't be an exact port and throwing out the sense of continuity that can help smooth over the awkward moment of crossing between two different rules sets, something Ruckdog and Landlubber have described in some detail in your excellent podcasts. 

Timing is everything with a release.  I'd not mind a staggered release with a ravening hordes style play like this for now booklet as we factional boxed sets with their own booklets/online rules released.  The time scale currently is starting to drag down even the most enthusiastic.  But it is what it is, and its vital to get the vision right.  Maybe they will surprise us, as with this new game, with something totally radical at Gencon.

The Bill and Ted thing worries me not because, or not just because, of the fear of late Spartan Sprawl.  Certainly there is a perception problem.  They have announced two new games with renders and an actual model while progress on Dystopian Wars has stalled.  Sometimes that is just how projects work out.  However, it looks like the Spartan games are being shelved after an early burst of enthusiasm for something short term.  If this Bill and Ted game is done in one boxed set that might get an expansion later that is less problematic, but as it stands I make it now part of eight rule systems that Warcrdale has created or inherited and I think Warcradle needs a certain level of honesty and say that Dystopian Wars is this imminent, and this means Firestorm is likely this further, whilst Uncharted Seas, Armoured Clash, and Planetfall must by necessity be left on a shelf until the rest are sorted.  Instead the uncertainty and radio silence is having an unintentional effect of causing resentment and alienation. 

But as always my comments come from my own perspective and that perspective doesn't have a background in the business of wargaming.