Jump to content

wrkrparasite

Members
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About wrkrparasite

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Saint Charles, Illinois, United States
  1. Shadow4ce said: Death clock doesn't change scenario objectives at all. It just provides a finite, yet known, maximum amount of time you can use to make your moves/attacks over the course of a full game. If scenario has a 5 round limit and neither player times out, then the winner is determined by scenario rules. Which should happen 95% of the time (unless you're running a high-pressure tournament, or have a very short timeframe to complete it in and are setting unrealistical times). death clock doesn't mean you play to the death (table your opponent), you still play the scenario as always. The reason it's called death clock is you lose if your clock runs out. I've only seen two types of players who allow it to happen… 1.) Players suffering from, "analysis paralysis" - Usually because they don't know the game or their units well enough, or occasionally, because their opponent really put them in a no-win situation. 2.) Players who have zero situational awareness and don't pay attention to their time. Other than adding an additional lose condition (running out of time) Death Clock has zero effect on scenario objectives or turn limits. The best way to win is to attain your scenario objectives as always, just make sure you don't lolly gag in doing so. Once typical average game lengths between experienced players are figured out, it's pretty rare to have someone clock out in a tournament who actually has a legitimate shot at winning it. Although, until the right time is found, there will definitely be growing pains. I'll run several, "For Fun" tournaments where all participants get equal awards before running a serious prize one, so I have a good handle on the right time to set the clocks at. Reactions are going to be mighty interesting if folks forget to switch the clock to the reacting player and back, so that'll be illuminating. Denied made a valid point, but I think the rules handle it well in it not being sporting to give your opponent time to react, it's equally cheesy to hem and haw over whether you will or not when asked. If it becomes an issue, I'll implement clock pausing so it's obvious who's really debating a reaction and who is just messing with their opponent's time. See, I told you that I needed some help. For some reason the Warmachine part of my brain made death clock and five rounds mutually exclusive. I am now onboard. As far as reactions go, the active player declares activation or executes activation and as soon as there is an enemy unit eligible to react, the active player asks the responding player if he/she wants to react. If the answer is yes, you flip the clock over. If the responding player hems and haws, you flip the clock over.
  2. Shadow4ce said: wrkrparasite said: After thinking about it for a few days, I realized that death clocks won't work for Dust Warfare because games are scored at the end, not as they go like in Warmachine. For example, in Key Positions and Assassination both players would have no way to score Superiority Points because the objectives are only revealed at the end. The fact that these objectives require a definitive end to the game means that the clock can't be gamed; the game needs to end before it can be scored. I think that timed turns with a single or flexible extension would keep things moving along at a nice clip. Also, I think that the battle builder and player placement of terrain are both important if you're going to do a single-list format. That gives players some agency to try to play to their lists' strengths. I disagree with your assessment of Deathclock not working. If anything, it works better, and forces folks to take risks to get to the objectives in those scenarios. How do you propose the games end if they keep going on timed turns only, and folks have a few turns where they don't get to activate half their army. With Deathclock, the person whose clock runs out loses, period. Superiority points are awarded by units destroyed, and the winner gets full points as if they achieved the scenario win. The game ends in a timely manner, and folks get to have one or two important turns where the time really matters. It more closely mirrors a casual game without taking off the pressure to be decisive. Battle-builder and terrain placement were included in my proposal, so I'm assuming that paragraph was in agreement with me. Totally in agreement on battle builder and terrain. Still not seeing death clock, though, so help me understand. Unless I'm missing something (and I might be, so please let me know if I am), there are two potential outcomes on death clock: Someone clocks out and loses, or Someone tables their opponent. Neither one of those outcomes take scenario objectives into consideration. There is zero incentive to pursue said objectives when the only way to win is to clock your opponent or kill everything on the board. All that being said, this entire discussion will be rendered moot when FFG inevitably releases rules for running tournaments.
  3. After thinking about it for a few days, I realized that death clocks won't work for Dust Warfare because games are scored at the end, not as they go like in Warmachine. For example, in Key Positions and Assassination both players would have no way to score Superiority Points because the objectives are only revealed at the end. The fact that these objectives require a definitive end to the game means that the clock can't be gamed; the game needs to end before it can be scored. I think that timed turns with a single or flexible extension would keep things moving along at a nice clip. Also, I think that the battle builder and player placement of terrain are both important if you're going to do a single-list format. That gives players some agency to try to play to their lists' strengths.
  4. On the Upcoming page it's listed at the bottom as being in development with no ETA. I have no idea what the turnaround on their books is, but I'd imagine we're looking at the second half of summer.
  5. I also play WM/H, and while I don't think the DW minis are quite as nice as those, I still think that they're really nice overall. Durable, good detail, pre-assembled and pre-primed. You can literally open a box and immediately start painting (or playing, if painting isn't your thing), which is amazing. I personally think they're a great value.
  6. Unless you've already reserved tables at Games Plus on Saturday, I wouldn't count on there being space. There is a 20-man Warmachine/Hordes tourney that day. I'd definitely call ahead if you haven't.
  7. I agree about the lack of a hard ruling for close combat versus vertical distance being lame. It's one thing when you're playing friendly games in your basement with your regular gaming group. It's another when you're playing at your FLGS against someone you don't know or in a tournament and you want the rules to work one way and your opponent wants them to work another.
  8. I don't know if this is the case, but I've purchased PDF guides for video games, and those can take a while to generate if they're watermarked. Hopefully not hours or anything like that, but they're not necessarily available instantaneously. Of course, that could be just wishful thinking. Maybe it is just straight up broken.
  9. zuggzugg said: How late are those places open to play? Coming from the north side, weekdays would be out for me unless its open late enough to warrant the drive. Otherwise, weekends are my option. Probably not late enough to make it worth your while. Maybe a weekend day would be better.
  10. Sorry, I should have been more specific. I play WM/H at Fair Game on Thursdays. Any night that isn't that (along with weekend days) should be fine with a bit of notice.
  11. I'm in the far western burbs. I'd be down to play.
  12. I think the list looks good, but I'd consider splitting it up into two smaller platoons. Other than the Sturmpionieres, everything else in your list is available in the other platoons, and I kind of feel that if you're putting that many points into a single Blutkreuz platoon, you should at least be taking the things that make them unique: zombies and apes. Plus, you admit to basically taking two units for the points and sections. You might be better off finding a way to cut back on those units and grab a small Sturmgrenadiere or Schwer platoon as well. This gives you the added bonus of having an extra unique order, plus the option of taking an actual command squad with a medic, radioman and mechanic. I also agree with Felkor on the hero.
  13. Oops! No idea how I double quoted. Sorry!
  14. Gimp said: DoomOnYou72 said: Page 42 First paragraph last sentence under the Miniatures in the Way section "a miniature never obscures other miniatures in its own unit" Clarified in the next paragraph on the same subject: 'Soldier models do not obscure or block line of sight from a friendly attacking unit. Enemy soldiers obscure line of sight to other Sodiers out to the edge of their base and up to the figures height as if they were an area of terrain.' Soldiers don't obscure their side's line of sight, and never obscure their unit, but do obscure the enemy Soldier's line of sight. Gimp said: DoomOnYou72 said: Page 42 First paragraph last sentence under the Miniatures in the Way section "a miniature never obscures other miniatures in its own unit" Clarified in the next paragraph on the same subject: 'Soldier models do not obscure or block line of sight from a friendly attacking unit. Enemy soldiers obscure line of sight to other Sodiers out to the edge of their base and up to the figures height as if they were an area of terrain.' Soldiers don't obscure their side's line of sight, and never obscure their unit, but do obscure the enemy Soldier's line of sight. I'm not looking to get into the mess that this thread has devolved into, because some good points have been raised by everyone. I just wanted to point out that, according to the rules as written, a miniature never obscures other miniatures in its own unit. Done. Full stop. The following paragraph explains that friendly units can draw LOS through each other, and that a unit can screen for a friendly unit that's behind it. There is nothing in it that contradicts the statement "a miniature never obscures other miniatures in its own unit." I think that the rules are a bit loose in places (and occasionally missing entirely, in the case of minefield armor values — oops!). If FFG wants Dust Warfare to be taken seriously as a tournament game, the language definitely needs to be tightened up in places. I'm just hoping that they get a rules forum and actively participate in answering questions.
×
×
  • Create New...