Jump to content



Photo

The designer is in.


  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#41 Peacekeeper_b

Peacekeeper_b

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,485 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 10:28 AM

blkdymnd said:

rwwingate said:

 

I don't think it's about being fair or unfair to FFG.  I also don't think just because other companies don't do it is a valid arguement either.  There are plenty of companies that have rule sets where you can use models that they don't produce.

There are many voices here and on the DT site that want classic troops and walkers from the Dust Models website.  The justification from Christian, backed up by the feedback from Andy doesn't hold water for me (i.e. I don't believe including these will confuse retailers or cost sales).  If FFG can't figure out how to make that work even in some sort of unofficial "can't use this in organized play" way, then it tells me they don't want to listen to the community.

 

 

Not listening to the community, really?  So I guess that wasn't the CEO of the company that I saw on Boardgamegeek, taking his time to address multiple issues that Grand Inquisitor Kris was spouting off about.  It's not about listening or not listening to the community, it's about their vision for the game, and what they think is best for the company (not what we think is best).  I don't care either way, I've never been a straight historical guy, so the idea doesn't really push me either way. 

And give me one of any of the huge gaming companies that make rules for models they don't produce, and name me one game that FFG produces in their entire catalog that allows you to use something outside of what they produce.  It may be there, but I can't think of any.  Again, i don't care either way, I just don't want FFG to spend energy developing stuff they aren't going to make, and keep production of what they are making up.  If they make a halftrack, then more power to them, add it to the game and give me a card for it.  If not, then keep all energy in what is being developed and leave the other stuff for the fans to make.

Easily. As I saoid before. Games WOrkshop. Dark Eldar and Dark Elves. For years had troops in their books that had no official figures for. Necromunda. Warhammer Quest. All had stats for things that didnt have figures. Secrets of the Third Reich (not FFG of course) allows use of other minis. As do many other games (even back in the days of T$R, AD&D's Battlesystem let you use any mini you wanted).

And if you dont care, why are you so quick to tell others to stop caring? Honestly, people have voiced an opinion of what they want. So you dont want it. Lets say FFG decides to do it. Are you somehow put at a loss for it?

Early GW, before they had the full might of the TT world behind them, even had tutorials in White Dwarf on how to use other games, other figs in their game or how to make models out of ordinary products (such as the land speed made form a tube of deodorant).

Lets say FFG decided to make a bundle of 30 cards that detail 30 normal trool types and vehicles. Lets say they charge $20 for said bundle (probably closer to $30 or $40 since they dont make models for it) then they will make money from that product as just about 70% of the fans will buy it, whether they buy a model for any card or not. All FFG is out is the time to write the stats, the art for the stats, the time to design/make the cards and the cost of the cards. And in the past FFG has had no issue at having interns do similar things. And FFG is capable of not only allowing the Dust Models figures in their games, but also selling them through their site, at least to the North American market. Making even more profit themselves.

The sad fact is, that without some normalcy and regualr style new troops (who are interesting, be it from skills or different weapons) Dust will die because in 2 to 3 years it wont be about the best pleyer, but who can field the latest Gorilla in Vrill Armor 4 Power Armor with 10D mega-damage death-phaser laser steam gauntlets in walkers! And players will become bored and move on to the next WW2 Variant Sci-Fi Pulp Game.



#42 Peacekeeper_b

Peacekeeper_b

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,485 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 10:29 AM

Fenrir Kitsune said:

Any one got a date for when the book is actually coming out? The rules are, what, Beta testing now?

Does mean theres likely to be any major last minute changes, or it's just a fine tuning period?

I would say this would be an excellent Christmas Sell.



#43 Peacekeeper_b

Peacekeeper_b

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,485 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 10:32 AM

Dont get me wrong BLKDYMD I respect your opinion, but I think it is at times (much like my own) narrowed by your own wishes and experiences. We each have valid points and neither one have a slam dunk thought. The grand scheme of things can unfold in many thousands ways, which ever it goes.

But I do enjoy the debates.

As for Andy, I know what its like with the little game design Ive done. Its always good to listen to fans, but you have to go with what you know is good or what you think is good. Each rule is decided upon based on other rules to fit the system. You cant suddenly throw a D10 morale check into the game afterall, as that would repackage the game (poor example I know).

 



#44 zuggzugg

zuggzugg

    Member

  • Members
  • 185 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 12:09 PM

One could also argue that as long as FFG keeps out any vanilla ww2 units or normal military stuff that they ARE listening to players like me who have no desire to see anything truly historical in the game. I got into the game based on the weird war stuff.

Tanks are boring to me. The theme of Dust Tactics is not. Just another opinion though.



#45 blkdymnd

blkdymnd

    Member

  • Members
  • 958 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 02:02 PM

Peacekeeper_b said:

Dont get me wrong BLKDYMD I respect your opinion, but I think it is at times (much like my own) narrowed by your own wishes and experiences. We each have valid points and neither one have a slam dunk thought. The grand scheme of things can unfold in many thousands ways, which ever it goes.

But I do enjoy the debates.

As for Andy, I know what its like with the little game design Ive done. Its always good to listen to fans, but you have to go with what you know is good or what you think is good. Each rule is decided upon based on other rules to fit the system. You cant suddenly throw a D10 morale check into the game afterall, as that would repackage the game (poor example I know).

 

 

I'm with you Peacekeeper, I enjoy a good debate, and if you and I were face to face I would definitely have a smile, no malice intended in anything I say.

And yes, most of any of our opinions are going to be colored at least somewhat by our own desires.  Mine is more colored with realism only in the sense in that I pretty much know what a large company like FFG will do.  They will only set forth with something if it returns something to them.  They won't even waste an intern on rules that won't bring revenue (and do you really want an intern developing historical rules?  :)  The days of large companies doing things like GW used to do back in the day are very much gone.  All the examples you gave were long long ago, and that kind of business in a large business just doesn't exist anymore.  I do await to see how FFG handles the issue, but with Warfare being released, we are in much more dire need of a third and fourth faction before anything else.



#46 Fenrir Kitsune

Fenrir Kitsune

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 08:56 PM

blkdymnd said:

  The days of large companies doing things like GW used to do back in the day are very much gone.  All the examples you gave were long long ago, and that kind of business in a large business just doesn't exist anymore. 

 

I dunno, that recent Tyranid book is lacking a lot of the models for the unit entries.



#47 Finn Mac Cool

Finn Mac Cool

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 01:06 AM

Does the initial release of DW include rules for aircraft?

Are there morale rules? Do any such rules apply to vehicles as well as infantry, or are vehicles effectively immune to morale (or flinching, or pinning, or whatever)?

Are there structured army lists with restrictions and requirements, or does DW follow DT's "grab bag" approach to army building?

Can units be customised in DW, or do they play as they are on the card?

Do units of multiple models have a "coherency" range? What happens if they break that coherency?

Can units be interleaved with other units? For example, could a unit of Recon Rangers be interspersed among a unit of BBQ Boys?

How is shooting handled? Is it like DT where you shoot one set of weapons at one single unit, or do you shoot at a zone, potentially targeting more than one unit?

Thanks!



#48 Peacekeeper_b

Peacekeeper_b

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,485 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:05 AM

The following questions are just asked for general feel and sense of how you would like the rules to work or not work. These are some of the issues I am trying to figure out for house rules as well in Dust Tactics.

Will units be able to fire every weapon line at once? Or one per action? For example, a squad with 4 rifles and a lmg while also carrying 3 grenade launchers. Will they be able to fire the rifles, LMG and Grenades all as one action?

Will close combat be a "locked" status, where you wont be able to move other then the flee, chase or cosolidate?

Will units that survive a battle gain awards/experience for the next battle in a campaign? Such as being awarded a toned down version of Medal of Honor skill, that is used once per game per medal?

Will the Axis get the Iron Cross to counter the Medal of Honor skill?

Will the W-Serum ever have a better description on how it works?

Aside from the Vrill and Sino Soviets, what are the other factions? Majestic 12? Other factions of the Axis (Nazi/Hitler/SS Loyalists)? Any secret societies?

Will we see more traditional pulp/sci-fi b-movie robots? Or just walkers?

How do you see the Army Books going? Obviously some sort of list of troops and history/fluff, but will they cancel out the cards? Will it allow for more kit-bashing our own figures (from 100% recycled Dust Tactics FFG bits of course)?



#49 Poyet

Poyet

    Member

  • Members
  • 176 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 06:59 AM

 Hey 

 

I think we should in our question focus right on overall shape of Dust:W. Details will come later.

 

Methinks :

IGUG-  Iam not supporter of this mechanic but....

1.This how WAR is presented in Tv documentaries an books

 (for example - El Alamein - Montgomery Pushes - Rommel sets defence - Montgomery attacks - Rommel holds - etc )

2.Moves focus into whole army , pushes for more strategy than tactics work better for bigger scale (you feel more like General setting great battle strategy) and finally imitates very important element of battlefield Taking Over and Maintaining Initiative.

Dust Tactics - frenetic bloody battlefield and You play Captain on battlefield.

Dust Warfare - You deal with command communication and big strategy plan from position of general in central command

3. I get Mr Andy rationalization -.

4. Best new Skirmish game Infinity is IGUG with reaction and that works very well for modern and extremely dynamic battlefield.

5. Industry leader has similar mechanics , which would make crossing over into Dust:W easier.

 

Iam full in support of one card two games idea.

1.Crossing will be easier.

2.I dont believe that there is some kind crucial difference between British and German soldiers. Difference that would push for some kind different stats... I dont like rpg like stats in wargames.

Epic A (one of the best GW games ever) for example uses only weapon lines and that works well giving different feel to Eldars and Tyranids.

3. after 10 years of war i dont expect fresh conscripts on battlefield.

 

Infantry 1 

1. Axis Germany in year 47 cannot afford unprotected troops on battlefield

2. Infantry rating its not only armour but also grittiness morale etc.

3.There are already WWW2 games which deals with regular troops vs weird- if you really feel like you can use DUST:figures in this games (i do already with AE-ww2) . SOTR have extensive rules letting you to build your own mecha. 

Problem comes with point cost. Tanks comes extremely expensive compared to regular infantry.So you dont get more than one per regular game.Elite troops balance game out so you can field more Walkers without Hords of infantry.

Dust:W should be game of Panzer Walkers Fighting on fields of WWW2-"second round"  with support of Elite Armoured infantry and super science monster

 

s.

.

 

cheers



#50 Peacekeeper_b

Peacekeeper_b

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,485 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 07:35 AM

Poyet said:

 

IGUG-  Iam not supporter of this mechanic but....

1.This how WAR is presented in Tv documentaries an books

 (for example - El Alamein - Montgomery Pushes - Rommel sets defence - Montgomery attacks - Rommel holds - etc )

2.Moves focus into whole army , pushes for more strategy than tactics work better for bigger scale (you feel more like General setting great battle strategy) and finally imitates very important element of battlefield Taking Over and Maintaining Initiative.

Dust Tactics - frenetic bloody battlefield and You play Captain on battlefield.

Dust Warfare - You deal with command communication and big strategy plan from position of general in central command

3. I get Mr Andy rationalization -.

4. Best new Skirmish game Infinity is IGUG with reaction and that works very well for modern and extremely dynamic battlefield.

5. Industry leader has similar mechanics , which would make crossing over into Dust:W easier.

 

 

I do agree, to a certain extent. The notion of how it is shown on tv and how it is a comparison of Captain of a company over General of a army. But that can be mimicked in other ways as well, such as initial deployment (if troops can start on board instead of "entering"), But with the Command Phase it seems you may get to move a few units at once before reactions get in the way. My biggest concern is that you may lose too much by trying to use a reaction and then failing cause you dont roll a hit to "activate" the unit. I think you should only lose 1 action on a failed reaction activation roll, not both.

Poyet said:


 

 

Iam full in support of one card two games idea.

1.Crossing will be easier.

2.I dont believe that there is some kind crucial difference between British and German soldiers. Difference that would push for some kind different stats... I dont like rpg like stats in wargames.

Epic A (one of the best GW games ever) for example uses only weapon lines and that works well giving different feel to Eldars and Tyranids.

3. after 10 years of war i dont expect fresh conscripts on battlefield.

 

 

We disagree here. I prefer a little more stats, especially in skirmish games. Epic was huge battles, skirmish battles is the individual making a difference. The moment you decide to put heroes in the game you decide to make a difference between normal and exceptional, and all that really is in this game is health and if you can use cover (?). Ideally a rifle in Manfred's hands should function the same as if it were in the hands of Fritz Grenadier number One. But Manfred would be a better shot. But thats moot, as with the core game system being in tact in DW from DT there is not chance of new stats added. You can simulate it some with special skills. Create a dozen or so more and so forth.

 

Poyet said:


 

 

Infantry 1 

1. Axis Germany in year 47 cannot afford unprotected troops on battlefield

2. Infantry rating its not only armour but also grittiness morale etc.

 

 

Yes, I do agree. But if you have no Armor 1 in the game, there is no reason to have Armor 1 on the cards. Or in the game. It becomes a waste. Armor 2 effectively becomes Armor 1 and it is just a waste of ink in the books and on the cards. There doesnt have to be Infantry Armor 1 as guys on the field, but in the game somewhere that stat has to be used.

 

Poyet said:


 

 

3.There are already WWW2 games which deals with regular troops vs weird- if you really feel like you can use DUST:figures in this games (i do already with AE-ww2) . SOTR have extensive rules letting you to build your own mecha. 

 

 

FFGs solution should not be "go play someone elses game and give them the money you wish you could give us" and as players of FFG games we shouldnt want or suggest that. And all those tanks and jeeps and halftracks used by everyone until about 1943 didnt suddenly vanish. And not everything had to be a mecha. They could have cool tanks based on traditional designs.

 

Poyet said:


Problem comes with point cost. Tanks comes extremely expensive compared to regular infantry.So you dont get more than one per regular game.Elite troops balance game out so you can field more Walkers without Hords of infantry.

 

 

 

Thats a problem for another game right? Cause tanks would be about the same point as walkers in Dust Tactics or Dust Warfare, 30 to 50 or so points? So whats the issue? And if they did have armor 1 infantry they would be what, 10-15 points per squad of 5? And they fall in the same category as everything else in Dust games, if you dont want them, dont field them.

Poyet said:


Dust:W should be game of Panzer Walkers Fighting on fields of WWW2-"second round"  with support of Elite Armoured infantry and super science monster

 

 

 

Yes and no. Without the normal the abnormal becomes the normal. All it becomes is another sci-fi game with different rules where everyone looks like they are based on 1940s earth but more science-ier.

But with all of this talk about secrets of the third reich, I might just go buy that and dump dust completely.

In the end, I will concede that in alternate 1947 your basic troops may be armor 2 (give them some flak jackets and 8 years of a world at war) but I refuse to accept that tanks, trucks, jeeps, half tracks and what not have gone out of style for chicken walkers.



#51 rwwingate

rwwingate

    Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 07:51 AM

Peacekeeper_b said:

FFGs solution should not be "go play someone elses game and give them the money you wish you could give us" and as players of FFG games we shouldnt want or suggest that. And all those tanks and jeeps and halftracks used by everyone until about 1943 didnt suddenly vanish. And not everything had to be a mecha. They could have cool tanks based on traditional designs.

 

 

This.  FFG saying DW is for FFG models and FFG models only is such a narrow and self limiting attitude.  After years at this hobby I'm not a loyal gamer.  I go where the fun is.  FFG should be looking to pack more fun in the book, not limit it.  I can buy the arguement to keep DT pure, but I believe that DW should loosen up the reins a bit.



#52 Peacekeeper_b

Peacekeeper_b

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,485 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 07:54 AM

rwwingate said:

Peacekeeper_b said:

 

FFGs solution should not be "go play someone elses game and give them the money you wish you could give us" and as players of FFG games we shouldnt want or suggest that. And all those tanks and jeeps and halftracks used by everyone until about 1943 didnt suddenly vanish. And not everything had to be a mecha. They could have cool tanks based on traditional designs.

 

 

 

This.  FFG saying DW is for FFG models and FFG models only is such a narrow and self limiting attitude.  After years at this hobby I'm not a loyal gamer.  I go where the fun is.  FFG should be looking to pack more fun in the book, not limit it.  I can buy the arguement to keep DT pure, but I believe that DW should loosen up the reins a bit.

Agreed.



#53 Poyet

Poyet

    Member

  • Members
  • 176 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 08:45 AM

  Hey 

Peacekeeper_b

Dont get me wrong I wont set of basic stats for regular vehicles and classic tanks. They are present in Dust comics  (sdkfz) .

Its probably something that whole community agrees!

 

I ll already have my Kommand groupe in shwimwagens and new Armored Transporters are in mail 

(i use a rule that sdkfz replace mg in recon grenadiers).

Half of ppl that will be interested in Dust are already interested in WWW2 and WW2.

I think that Mr Parente understand this , charm of world of dust comes from historical roots. If ffg will abandon it it will be great mistake.

I think that there is this though about SF selling better than History... but on another hand we already have one giant on market with cheaper bastard brother on way (warpath) there is no reason to try to push between them

We need revised units background based on ww2 units, we wont to relive all battles of WW2 from el alamein to battle of bulge (with zombie and panzer walker this time)

I would love to see and play  heroic struggle of Crommwels and Shermans trying to stop Panzer Walkers advance on Glasgow. Or Stalingrad with sturm zombies

Iam not really into Army Books model but Campaign model would be cool  . You buy set of historical background + weird war fluff , available units (old school as well)etc.

 


 

Also i said couple times that iam not fan of Heavy Armoured Troops (to space marine in design no enough disel)

 

on side note-There are only few company's making models

 

 (and not every one is eagre to build them as they are harder than wargames standard to build) 

 

in 1/48 and price is quite high in comparison so not really concurrence for FFG there .

 

Maybe just as reference in Dust:W book .

 


 

Cost problem with tanks. For Infantry 1 you need at least 8 soldiers per squad probably more for 10 points.

 

Basically scale between Infantry 1 and infantry 2 sets distance between Infantry and Walkers as well.

 

Infantry 1 for me right now - civilians , old ppl ,6 year old kids . 

 


 

About Sotr there is no reason why you cannot play both... i dont like their mini designs, and art. 




#54 Poyet

Poyet

    Member

  • Members
  • 176 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 08:46 AM

  Hey 

Peacekeeper_b

Dont get me wrong I wont set of basic stats for regular vehicles and classic tanks. They are present in Dust comics  (sdkfz) .

Its probably something that whole community agrees!

 

I ll already have my Kommand groupe in shwimwagens and new Armored Transporters are in mail 

(i use a rule that sdkfz replace mg in recon grenadiers).

Half of ppl that will be interested in Dust are already interested in WWW2 and WW2.

I think that Mr Parente understand this , charm of world of dust comes from historical roots. If ffg will abandon it it will be great mistake.

I think that there is this though about SF selling better than History... but on another hand we already have one giant on market with cheaper bastard brother on way (warpath) there is no reason to try to push between them

We need revised units background based on ww2 units, we wont to relive all battles of WW2 from el alamein to battle of bulge (with zombie and panzer walker this time)

I would love to see and play  heroic struggle of Crommwels and Sherman trying to stop Panzer Walkers advance on Glasgow. Or Stalingrad with sturm zombies

Iam not really into Army Books model but Campaign model would be cool  . You buy set of historical background weird war fluff , available units (old school as well)etc.

 

Also i said couple times that iam not fan of Heavy Armoured Troops (to space marine in design no enough disel)

on side note-There are only few company's making models

 (and not every one is eagre to build them as they are harder than wargames standard to build) 

in 1/48 and price is quite high in comparison so not really concurrence for FFG there .

Maybe just as reference in Dust:W book .

 

Cost problem with tanks. For Infantry 1 you need at least 8 soldiers per squad probably more for 10 points.

Basically scale between Infantry 1 and infantry 2 sets distance between Infantry and Walkers as well.

Infantry 1 for me right now - civilians , old ppl ,6 year old kids . 

 

About Sotr there is no reason why you cannot play both... i dont like their mini designs, and art. 


 



#55 Poyet

Poyet

    Member

  • Members
  • 176 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 08:47 AM

  Hey 

Peacekeeper_b

Dont get me wrong I wont set of basic stats for regular vehicles and classic tanks. They are present in Dust comics  (sdkfz) .

Its probably something that whole community agrees!

 

I ll already have my Kommand groupe in shwimwagens and new Armored Transporters are in mail 

(i use a rule that sdkfz replace mg in recon grenadiers).

Half of ppl that will be interested in Dust are already interested in WWW2 and WW2.

I think that Mr Parente understand this , charm of world of dust comes from historical roots. If ffg will abandon it it will be great mistake.

I think that there is this though about SF selling better than History... but on another hand we already have one giant on market with cheaper bastard brother on way (warpath) there is no reason to try to push between them

We need revised units background based on ww2 units, we wont to relive all battles of WW2 from el alamein to battle of bulge (with zombie and panzer walker this time)

I would love to see and play  heroic struggle of Crommwels and Sherman trying to stop Panzer Walkers advance on Glasgow. Or Stalingrad with sturm zombies

Iam not really into Army Books model but Campaign model would be cool  . You buy set of historical background weird war fluff , available units (old school as well)etc.

 

Also i said couple times that iam not fan of Heavy Armoured Troops (to space marine in design no enough disel)

on side note-There are only few company's making models

 (and not every one is eagre to build them as they are harder than wargames standard to build) 

in 1/48 and price is quite high in comparison so not really concurrence for FFG there .

Maybe just as reference in Dust:W book .

 

Cost problem with tanks. For Infantry 1 you need at least 8 soldiers per squad probably more for 10 points.

Basically scale between Infantry 1 and infantry 2 sets distance between Infantry and Walkers as well.

Infantry 1 for me right now - civilians , old ppl ,6 year old kids . 

 

About Sotr there is no reason why you cannot play both... i dont like their mini designs, and art. 




#56 Poyet

Poyet

    Member

  • Members
  • 176 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 08:48 AM

 Peacekeeper_b

Dont get me wrong I wont set of basic stats for regular vehicles and classic tanks. They are present in Dust comics  (sdkfz) .

Its probably something that whole community agrees!

 

I ll already have my Kommand groupe in shwimwagens and new Armored Transporters are in mail 

(i use a rule that sdkfz replace mg in recon grenadiers).

Half of ppl that will be interested in Dust are already interested in WWW2 and WW2.

I think that Mr Parente understand this , charm of world of dust comes from historical roots. If ffg will abandon it it will be great mistake.

I think that there is this though about SF selling better than History... but on another hand we already have one giant on market with cheaper bastard brother on way (warpath) there is no reason to try to push between them

We need revised units background based on ww2 units, we wont to relive all battles of WW2 from el alamein to battle of bulge (with zombie and panzer walker this time)

I would love to see and play  heroic struggle of Crommwels and Sherman trying to stop Panzer Walkers advance on Glasgow. Or Stalingrad with sturm zombies

Iam not really into Army Books model but Campaign model would be cool  . You buy set of historical background weird war fluff , available units (old school as well)etc.

 

Also i said couple times that iam not fan of Heavy Armoured Troops (to space marine in design no enough disel)



#57 Poyet

Poyet

    Member

  • Members
  • 176 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 09:18 AM

 IGUG

i dont have Starship Troopers but i own Battlefield Evolution - this is how reaction works there .

 

Whenever an enemy unit completes an action within
10” of any model in one of your units, that unit may
immediately make a free Shoot or Move action. This is
called a Reaction. You may move in any direction but
any shooting must be aimed at the unit that triggered the
Reaction.
You may also react when you get shot at! Whenever an
enemy unit completes a Shoot action against one of your
units, that unit may make an immediate Move or Shoot
action. If a Shoot action is taken, the Fire Zone must
include models from the enemy unit that triggered the
Reaction.
A unit may only make one Reaction in every turn, no matter
how many times an enemy moves close by or shoots it.
 
 
If thats how it would work in Dust W (maybe with easy ledership test , using up 1 action or use of command points) i would be very happy.
 
 

 



#58 Zyllos

Zyllos

    Member

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 09:48 AM

I am new to the forums, to Fantasy Flight Games, and to Dust. Please bear with me if I say anything idiotic. I saw the game (actually the Dust:Tactics version) there at Gen Con last week and wished I knew about it but this was my first Gen Con appearance.

In response to seeing if they want to add real world units to the game, is there any hints of there possibly being some tanks in the game in other forms?



#59 Hanomag

Hanomag

    Member

  • Members
  • 172 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 10:33 AM

Hi Andy, thanks for spending some time with us. 

Do you think we might see (Or will have rules for) units other than Troops, Walkers, and Aircraft?  Thinks such as Jeeps with mounted Phasers and the like.  While I understand that FFG would not want to make a normal vehicle model...what about weird WWII versions of them?

 

Take care,

 

-Jeff



#60 Pooflinger76

Pooflinger76

    Member

  • Members
  • 27 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 12:41 PM

I am very happy about getting TT rules and that its a book with possible ongoing expansions.  My input for Andy, for what its worth, is that the walkers are the stars of the game.  They are what sells it for me and most others.  More detailed rules for them just makes sense to me and would add some flavor to the rules.  I'm not saying they should be undisputed kings of the battlefield and make infantry irrelevant but I wouldnt mind at all if they got tougher to kill and more detailed ways of damaging them were introduced. 

That being said I like my infantry guys too though and would expect the points cost for walker to go up along with any upgrades the new rules give them.  As far as historical units goes I dont expect it.  A burned out sherman tank on the battlefield for atmosphere maybe.  I do like the idea of historical units though because it adds a huge amount of awesome units to the playlist and hope Mr. Chambers is involved in that as well down the road.

 

Poo

 

 






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS