Friday, 21 July 2017

Dropzone Commander: 2nd Edition

This is my new favourite piece of artwork. It is just bloody lovely

Official news, it's coming, this year too!!!

Here is Hawk's official statement:

"Hawk Wargames is excited to announce Dropzone Commander: 2nd Edition!

The current Dropzone Commander system is highly regarded and we are working on bringing you a new edition that retains its excellent core mechanics whilst improving many aspects to reflect warfare in the 27th Century.

We are in the stages of alpha testing the proposed changes and a closed beta will also take place with our Hawk Talon scheme. We expect a release in Q4 2017 with a release date announced closer to the time.

2nd Edition will bring balance to existing units and enhance a player's collection, not invalidate it. We want every unit to be playable. New units are in development which will be previewed over the next few months.

Beasts of War have interviewed Dave and they will have a video for you on Monday with more details including proposed changes and even more new artwork, including this incredible Archangel squadron!

Make sure to spread the news by sharing this post and let us know in the comments what you're looking forward to in the new edition."

Well, we are all giddy with excitement and really can't wait.

What do you want to see?


  1. Hell YEAH!
    What I want to see?
    Top 3 anticipated changes: Balanced Shaltari, Streamlined CQB, refined Fast Movers
    after that... different CommandCardSystem (or maybe just burn the cards and make Commanders cheaper in exchange), delete "walk on rule" from the rule book... force every unit to be dropped by ships and balance point cost around that fact to reduce heavy demo game (the name of the game is... DROPzoneCommander), keep communicating with community... communitycating... btw... thx OB Team... I appreciate your efforts for this game. Thank you!

    1. You are very welcome! All fair requests, although I haven't seen Shaltari win a tournament in a while...

      Also, what is it you don't like about the cards?

  2. Thanks for spreading the word!

    Wishlist changes. No more Drive on Commander being 'the way', Fastmovers reserve stuff fixed, streamlined CQB, cleaner and streamlined infantry embark, disembark and objective rules, and get those APC's back in the game. Also all 5 Factions in the same book, help those poor Resistance players out (but surely this has to happen)!

    I suspect the first three will make regular appearances. Basically the game system is overall healthy. Army re-balancing is where the game needs it and Im so pumped for that.


    1. Yeah, streamlined CQB, refined FM, no more drive on... I can agree with that top 3 list.

      Well the cards... I don´t particularly reject the cards, but I don´t think they add anything to the game but to mitigate the high point cost for commanders (a bit). A lot of miniature-war-games nowadays use some sort of "resource" that you can use to boost your army when needed/wanted. The cards seem to be Hawk´s attempt to implement this mechanic in their game...
      Generally... I welcome this developement, it adds tactical depth, it gives the players more control, it gives you epic moments, it can protect you from frustrating "cursed dice rolls of doom... from hell ... with a lot of medusa-like snake eyes turning you into stone" and so on.
      Malifaux´s Soul Stones do that in a very satisfying way, the Focus System in Warmachine also does a good job I think, the "resource cards" in Warzone Resurrection also seem to fulfill that role.

      The cards in Dropzone just don´t do that for me. They are way too random, the effects range from "hmpf" over "OMFG" to "yeahbutifthisandthatwiththishereandthatthereitwouldhavebeenablast" well... my 2 (thousand) cents ^^

    2. Can't really agree with you there. There is definitely some cards I prefer to see than others, but if that wasn't the case you would have a deck of either excellent or garbage cards which is no balance at all.

      I'm looking forward to seeing more unit type specific cards; i.e. walker specific cards for Scourge or Shaltari.

    3. Hoi! Sry… I didn´t manage to klick the proper reply button ^^ …anyway;
      To say something positive -> I like that the cards enforce the “command-bubble-mechanic”; but still I have the feeling that they take some control away from me, rather than giving it to me.
      First, they make me hope that I draw as much “espionage”-cards as early as possible… and just avoiding something to not have a disadvantage sounds a bit negative rather than epic.
      And second, they make me hope that I don´t draw any “situational cards”, but the solid “plus here and plus there” or “reroll” cards (which I like very much… limited rerolls are a mechanic I began to love since Blood Bowl).

      I have to say that I enjoy deckbuilding cardgames and the command cards taste like “King of Tokyo” for me (which is a fun game, but not thaaaaat tactical ^^).

      If they now add “unit specific” cards I don´t think that this improves the overall card mechanic for me. Maybe I should try some houserules with some sort of “deck-modifying”… like… you can shrink your deck down to 30 cards. Every card has to have 2 copies in the deck (except espionage, which has 4), you can use only 5 pairs of “tier 2” (e.g.: rerolls, unit specific-cards, hell-yeah-cards, espionage, and the like) cards and 10 pairs of “tier 1” (situational cards, the weak ones) cards… maybe… I´m not sure, but that sounds fun.
      Sry about the wall of text;
      gl hf ^^

  3. From what I've seen of the Dropfleet cards, Hawk has gotten their shit together when it comes to making command cards work. I'm excited to see new Dropzone ones, especially for the historically abused UCM.

    I think drive on has a place, but it should be a small place of infinite range lasers and backline artillery rather than half of everyone's damned army. Demolition has always been a bit of a problem mechanic and I reckon we'll see a lot less drive on if it gets fixed, since things like Katanas and will be forced to shoot vehicles with active countermeasures rather than just bullying buildings. Add on the long overdue ability for dropships to pick up each others units and maybe something to rain on the Mv9" parade, and dropships should come to the forefront again organically rather than needing to be forced.

  4. Reiterating what most have said:
    ( no particular order)
    A reworking/ overhaul of fast movers.
    re-balancing of armour/DP/energy levels
    Demo needs a little fine tuning
    Maybe weapon type keywords.
    The dice splitting is the only thing that slows down CQB for me, so maybe that could be made faster/easier.
    Option of a single slimmed down rule book with all Army states and all rules.
    Electronic version of rulebook.
    Dinosaurs from Space.

  5. ah, I just got another idea/wish...
    Remove the energy vs armour table... just substract "4" from every energy-value. After the hit roll just roll a D6 and add the energy Level, if the sum is higher than the opponents armour value you inflict damage.
    It´s the same System but with... erm... more logic and less unnessecary thinking around corners

    1. Haha, i've been preaching that for a while except i'd increase the arnor so you dont get to negatives with infantry rifles. I'll pester Dave in person about it if it isn't in the beta rules :V

    2. uh, yeah... the infantry armor... forgot about that; so armor +4 sounds better ^^

  6. I really don't want any change to the walk on VS dropship dynamic. That is a choice you make as a commander. There are enough good scenarios out there now, many that favor dropships and others that don't, so you can really make that choice between weapons and transports difficult and meaningful.

    I'll agree that something could be done to make the double cost of dropships carrying APCs less painful to pay.

  7. I'm glad that they're doing this - and I hope it will give the game a bit of a boost. Apart from the things Dave covered in the BoW video there are four areas where I’d like to see some changes:

    1) I’d like to see some ‘ground’ lists. I definitely approve of making the game more dropship-focussed, but I’d like to see more ‘frontline’ or battleline type units. e.g. I’d like every now and again to see an army with say 10 Bear APCs carrying 30 stands of Legionnaires. Garrisoning a front line and not meant to be airmobile. Perhaps this kind of list would only be for scenario rather than tournament play, but not every battle in the background is a meeting engagement between two forces dropped from orbit.

    2) I’d like to see rules for infantry combat streamlined. I’m sure this will have been on the ‘principles of the redesign’ sheet from word go, as I know lots of new players see this as intimidating, but it’s going to be a tricky balance between making infantry combat interesting and making it easier to grasp.

    3) I’d like to see the rules for deplying and redeploying units from transports and/or into buildings clarified and standardised. They appear quite simple at the moment but there’s actually quite a lot to remember: landing zones, free moves, not being allowed to shoot, infantry disembarking from ground transports and infantry embarking into buildings… and then infantry disembarking from buildings into transports, moving, and then embarking into different buildings. Some fast infantry units have a big advantage in that they can skip some steps. I’d like to see this tidied up a bit.

    4) I’d like to see the Resistance re-balanced from a ‘realism’ point of view. I’m not talking about points or battlefield effectiveness. I’m not a good enough player to be able to make useful contributions on this front. What I would like to see though is Resistance units behaving more realistically. e.g. Some of their units have very high move values compared to what ought to be fast units in other armies. Their (huge!) hovercraft get ‘dodge’ bonuses which make them harder to hit which seems odd given that many units in other armies which look more mobile do not. If it was really possible to drive a motorbike through a battle and be as effective a unit as the rules suggest then everyone would be doing it in the 21st Century and everyone would be doing it in the 27th. Bikes as scouts seems fine to me. Bikes as combat-effective units feels to me like they are playing a much more ‘Hollywood’ version of reality than the rest of the factions. To repeat: I’m not saying that the way the current Resistance army works is unfair from a rules perspective. I’m saying that they feel very over the top compared to the other factions.

  8. Wait, there's going to be a Second Edition?...

    ...But I just got used to the v1.1 rules...



  9. Are you guys OK out there in South Londontown? It's been over two weeks, and dead air... I know we can't talk about Second Edition at this stage, but... :?

    1. We're all in Alpha, so it's difficult to talk about anything at the moment.

  10. Fair enough. Suspected as much. Taking up all your hobby time? It is mine...

    1. Not really, for various reasons I can't go into here.

  11. Dear OB,

    RE: “Your “Country” Needs YOU”

    You may be aware of a “post war” currently being waged on the Hawk forum:-

    Being debated is the “brokenness”, or otherwise, of the new “Drop ‘n’ Shoot” rule proposed for 2nd edition. I appreciate you chaps are in “Alpha” but is there anything you can say in this blog or on Hawk’s forum which may allay fears?

    (For context, it disturbs me when seasoned veterans like Egge and Stompzilla start raising serious concerns about the proposed change)

    Yours in hope


    1. Over in OB Tower we're split between some thinking it is a very bad addition, and some quite liking it. In both cases however we agree it will change DzC to be a completely different game.

      I sit firmly in the same camp as Egge and Stomp, in that Drop n Shoot (DnS) is detrimental to the game and will not only remove a large amount of tactics, but could turn the game into an alpha striking nightmare. I also think it's being introduced for the wrong reasons and that it will not promote redeployment in the nature that Hawk want it. My opinion is of course longer than that, but that's the summary in a nutshell.

      Mike on the other hand likes the changes, and I think the others sit somewhere in the middle.

  12. Cheers Dan,
    The problem I have is that, on the whole, I love the game the way it is.

    “Tabling” someone at 40k is far easier than Dropzone, and I like that about DZC. For example, even in bad match-ups you can still find a way to stay out of trouble, play the mission and snatch a result against all the odds. I find those games to be the most enjoyable. I worry the new rules will prevent this, because in the “bad match-ups” you’ll be “rhino rushed” and stomped all over before you can enact any plans.

    That said, I am glad Hawk are looking to make transports more useful and maybe the way ahead is for them to increase the Drop ‘n’ Shoot accuracy modifier to +3; or force units to spend a whole turn in the transport- thereby, prevent Drop ‘n’ Shoot being used by those units “bunny hopping” around the table. Whatever, I hope playtesting will knock the proposed changes into shape!

    Lastly, I am excited for 2nd, but I really wish Hawk had put their resources into producing a 6th faction and not a 2nd edition. Perhaps that’s just me though!

    1. I share your sentiment, DzC V1 is so, so good (clearly I think that, otherwise there would be no blog!) and I really feel these changes are damaging it. The game is likely to become one of alpha strikes and multiple shot heavy units; enjoy playing against two Medussa with DnS! The new Occ & Agg rules haven't really been covered in the forum, and they have also changed for the worse (again, in my opinion).

      I was excited about V2 but I'm not anymore. I'm very worried that they are changing the game entirely, and in its current Beta form to one that I won't be playing.

  13. Most people would enjoy playing against 2 Medusa's DNS'ing in 2nd edition. It would be a spectacularly unsuccessful combo, both in terms of effectiveness and ease of being taken out (PHR players could already do this now, as the Medusa is so fast - theres a reason they mostly don't).