Jump to content



Photo

Dust Tactics 2nd Edition this year!!


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#41 Loophole Master

Loophole Master

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 06:17 AM

golem101 said:

We can always hope. sonreir

 

Let me tell you something, my friend. Hope is a dangerous thing. Hope can drive a man insane.



#42 xBeakeRx

xBeakeRx

    Member

  • Members
  • 200 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 06:55 AM

Loophole Master said:

 

golem101 said:

We can always hope. sonreir

 

Let me tell you something, my friend. Hope is a dangerous thing. Hope can drive a man insane.

 

 

That there's something inside…that they can't get to, that they can't touch.  That's yours.

What are you talking about?

Hope.



#43 Lska

Lska

    Member

  • Members
  • 487 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:07 PM

Hope died last week with my phaser units and cobra getting none kills…



#44 Loophole Master

Loophole Master

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:40 PM

Do not trust to hope, it has foresaken these lands.



#45 Reorder

Reorder

    Member

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:00 PM

Loophole Master said:

Do not trust to hope, it has foresaken these lands.

The Record of Lodoss War is awesome….I need to watch it again soon.



#46 xBeakeRx

xBeakeRx

    Member

  • Members
  • 200 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:26 PM

Reorder said:

Loophole Master said:

 

Do not trust to hope, it has foresaken these lands.

 

 

The Record of Lodoss War is awesome….I need to watch it again soon.

umm…think you have the wrong series, I believe that is Eomer speaking…



#47 Loophole Master

Loophole Master

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:52 PM

Bingo!                                         



#48 Algesan

Algesan

    Member

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 12:16 PM

Extra activations are an issue, but the biggest issue I have with the idea of "pass" activations on a turn by turn basis comes when you realize that it will penalize players who take advantage of their opponent's error(s) and gotten a couple of kills ahead. That is a valid tactical advantage.

I lean more towards having to buy "units" similar to what is apparently in DW, although that would take a lot more variety than DW seems to give. It would take more room that I want to take up laying it out here, but IMO it would provide a lot of flexibility while limiting the chances to pile on a bunch of cheap units. Another solution might be to give a bonus for kills, say 2-3 points, which wouldn't be a big deal for having a 40 point walker, but will be prohibitive for a bunch of 5 point observer squads.

The second option retains the advantage of extra activations while rewarding the lower unit count side with extra potential points at the end of the game. Hopefully if we do get some redoing of the units, hopefully it is just points costs adjustments.



#49 fhaugh

fhaugh

    Member

  • Members
  • 183 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 02:37 PM

Algesan said:

Extra activations are an issue, but the biggest issue I have with the idea of "pass" activations on a turn by turn basis comes when you realize that it will penalize players who take advantage of their opponent's error(s) and gotten a couple of kills ahead. That is a valid tactical advantage.

If the couple of units you've killed are more than activation fillers (i.e. spotters) then you already have a tactical advantage, you now have a larger and/or superior force than they do.  You shouldn't need to out-activate to finish them off.



#50 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,727 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 09:57 PM

Don't think a Pass Acivation is the way to go, I certainly wouldn't be pleased  if I were disadvantaged just because I was winning a game.  Also the balance would swing in favour to the guy with the high cost units.  Best bet is just not to play with a guy who cheeses out his army with spotters if you don't like it or agree to restrictions like 1 spotter be artillery piece and no artillery, no spotters.



#51 xBeakeRx

xBeakeRx

    Member

  • Members
  • 200 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:06 AM

Major Mishap said:

Don't think a Pass Acivation is the way to go, I certainly wouldn't be pleased  if I were disadvantaged just because I was winning a game.  Also the balance would swing in favour to the guy with the high cost units.  Best bet is just not to play with a guy who cheeses out his army with spotters if you don't like it or agree to restrictions like 1 spotter be artillery piece and no artillery, no spotters.

i was thinking the same thing about the 1 spotter per artillery, but was thinking 2 per artillery. 



#52 Kriegschatten

Kriegschatten

    Member

  • Members
  • 207 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:28 AM

Major Mishap said:

Don't think a Pass Acivation is the way to go, I certainly wouldn't be pleased  if I were disadvantaged just because I was winning a game.  Also the balance would swing in favour to the guy with the high cost units.  Best bet is just not to play with a guy who cheeses out his army with spotters if you don't like it or agree to restrictions like 1 spotter be artillery piece and no artillery, no spotters.

 

Unfortunately, choosing to not play against someone really isn't an option if you're in a tournament.

 

If FFG wants to have a viable tournament scene for Dust Tactics, they really need to ensure that certain army builds don't give you huge advantages.



#53 fhaugh

fhaugh

    Member

  • Members
  • 183 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:54 AM

Major Mishap said:

Don't think a Pass Acivation is the way to go, I certainly wouldn't be pleased  if I were disadvantaged just because I was winning a game.  Also the balance would swing in favour to the guy with the high cost units.  Best bet is just not to play with a guy who cheeses out his army with spotters if you don't like it or agree to restrictions like 1 spotter be artillery piece and no artillery, no spotters.

Is the other player being able to pass an activation really such the disadvantage?  I don't see it.  Especially if they can't use it at the start of the turn, or twice in a row.



#54 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,727 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:57 AM

xBeakeRx said:

Major Mishap said:

 

Don't think a Pass Acivation is the way to go, I certainly wouldn't be pleased  if I were disadvantaged just because I was winning a game.  Also the balance would swing in favour to the guy with the high cost units.  Best bet is just not to play with a guy who cheeses out his army with spotters if you don't like it or agree to restrictions like 1 spotter be artillery piece and no artillery, no spotters.

 

 

i was thinking the same thing about the 1 spotter per artillery, but was thinking 2 per artillery. 

xBeakeRx said:

Major Mishap said:

 

Don't think a Pass Acivation is the way to go, I certainly wouldn't be pleased  if I were disadvantaged just because I was winning a game.  Also the balance would swing in favour to the guy with the high cost units.  Best bet is just not to play with a guy who cheeses out his army with spotters if you don't like it or agree to restrictions like 1 spotter be artillery piece and no artillery, no spotters.

 

 

i was thinking the same thing about the 1 spotter per artillery, but was thinking 2 per artillery. 

Sorry, mean't to type 2 spotters per art :)



#55 moffmalthus

moffmalthus

    Member

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:58 AM

Thats exactly true. If you go to a tourney and see your opponent has loaded up on spotters you can't just say "no I'll pass on this fight".  Kriegschatten I 100% agree with you about the tourney system. If they want it to grow better they will need to fix certain things. Or every tourney winner will be heavy on spotters and cheap infantry.



#56 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,727 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:02 AM

fhaugh said:

Major Mishap said:

 

Don't think a Pass Acivation is the way to go, I certainly wouldn't be pleased  if I were disadvantaged just because I was winning a game.  Also the balance would swing in favour to the guy with the high cost units.  Best bet is just not to play with a guy who cheeses out his army with spotters if you don't like it or agree to restrictions like 1 spotter be artillery piece and no artillery, no spotters.

 

 

Is the other player being able to pass an activation really such the disadvantage?  I don't see it.  Especially if they can't use it at the start of the turn, or twice in a row.

fhaugh said:

Major Mishap said:

 

Don't think a Pass Acivation is the way to go, I certainly wouldn't be pleased  if I were disadvantaged just because I was winning a game.  Also the balance would swing in favour to the guy with the high cost units.  Best bet is just not to play with a guy who cheeses out his army with spotters if you don't like it or agree to restrictions like 1 spotter be artillery piece and no artillery, no spotters.

 

 

Is the other player being able to pass an activation really such the disadvantage?  I don't see it.  Especially if they can't use it at the start of the turn, or twice in a row.

Yes, its a big disadvantage.  Instead of forcing a unit to activate, maybe it has to move out into the open or range to shoot.  If it passes then it can sit there and force the opponant to move, the other player could sustain fire in cover instead of moving to shoot or doing nothing.  If you can pass, then you might go last meaning that the unit won't get shot at that turn - very important if walkers are facing each other.



#57 fhaugh

fhaugh

    Member

  • Members
  • 183 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 06:47 AM

If they are getting pass cards it means you outnumber them.  If they pass when you were hoping they would have to move a unit into your walkers range, activate a different unit than the walker.  You have more than that one unit availible.  I believe that pass cards would create a more "simultanous combat" enviroment.  Also, if you are losing units, you are already at a disadvantage.  Eliminating the activation difference would help keep the game balanced until the final turn.  As it is now, if your opponent gets one lucky turn, you will be unlikely to recover.  Out-gunned AND out-activated means you had better get real lucky, or hope your opponent does something real stupid.

I originally said you would get pass cards to keep the activation even, but that was mostly to keep things simple.  I do understand some of the objections people have brought up.  Personally I would play it as "Pass cards equals the difference in units minus one."  So if you have 5 and they have 7, you would only get one pass card.  It would prevent the "hordes of cheap units" armies, but not "punish" whoever is winning.



#58 SeismicShock

SeismicShock

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 04:47 PM

In my limited (no tournaments yet), out activating the opponent means being able to avoid dealing with reactions when you have an unfavorable LoS or move to make. Activate a half dozen observers, and boom, his Rattler can't do anything about the Hammers landing next to it.

 

If I could instead declare, no, my Rattler is going to spend its two actions to "Overwatch" and then just wait for an opportunity to react, that wouldn't be such an issue.

 

And yes fhaugh, I read your idea, I think your solution might be more layers than the game needs.



#59 fhaugh

fhaugh

    Member

  • Members
  • 183 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:02 AM

I originally liked the idea of overwatch, but it seemed to get shot down so quick, I tried to think of something else to solve this problem.  I'd be happy if they  used either idea, but I think both would be too much.



#60 xBeakeRx

xBeakeRx

    Member

  • Members
  • 200 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:40 AM

I think limiting the number of spotters you can take at a ratio of 2:1 to artillery units is a simple way to fix the problem.  Until they fix the points cost of Recon Grenadiers they will continue to be a problem, but at least this would fix the spotter spam.






© 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