Shooter

Members
  • Content count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Shooter

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, United States
  1. I don't think this will ever gonna happen: Kevin's not with FFG any longer, so they would need a different designer to do the expansion; additionally (and more importantly), the game was on sale during the last winter promotion, and this is generally a sign for games that didn't sell well. I may be mistaken, tho, but the signs are not encouraging I feel certain that you're right about that. I just bought the game brand new for $38 on Amazon, a sure indicator that it is not selling well. I think it is probably due to the fact that word is out on how one sided the game is in favor of the invasion armies. Just my theory.
  2. I played this new version of Fortress America for the first time today. Like the old version, this new Fortress America gives a serious advantage to the invasion armies. The reason for this advantage is quite simple and that reason is the way that the US Forces are required to setup. Placing two units in all 30 cities across the map spreads the US Forces so thin that by the end of the first turn the US has lost a third or more of its units. Even with the help of the partisan cards it is difficult to recover from such huge early losses. To compensate for this my friends and I are going to play with an alternate US setup method. Instead of placing two units in every city the US forces will be divided into five groups of twelve units. These five groups of 12 will be placed in each of the US territories, western, rocky mountains, plains, southern and eastern. Instead of forcing the US player to place these units in cities the US player can place each of the twelve units anywhere he chooses within their sector. This may of course mean that some cities will be entirely undefended early on in the game. The reality is that if America was invaded on three fronts as it is in this game, some cities would in fact be evacuated and left to the enemy rather than needlessly sacrifice military resources defending a city that can't be saved. Instead US Forces would gather in strategic locations and counter attack the enemy. We will use a method that divides the US pieces as evenly as possible. Ultimately it ends up meaning that each sector has at least one bomber and one sector will have two bombers. Similarly one sector will get a couple extra hover tanks. I can give the break down of how we divide up the forces if anyone is interested but the end result is much better for a number of reasons. First of all the Western Sector places four of the seven cities within immediate striking distance of an invasion zone and Seattle usually falls by round two or three. This leaves the Western Sector with maybe four to six units left to stop the western invader and the Rocky Mountains start the game with only four units to contribute. If both the Western and Rocky Mountain sector start the game with 12 units that places a much more balanced response to the attack. We play the game with the Invader cards which gives the invasion armies some serious punch. I feel that using the 12 units per sector approach during setup and not forcing the US forces to fort up in the cities gives the US player much better defensive options for both attack and counter attack and it is much more in keeping with how the US would actually be defended in a real life scenario. In closing I would just like to say that I think the game would be more enjoyable with fighter jets and artillery pieces added. I think FFG should release an expansion pack that includes these pieces as well as rules for their use in the game.
  3. No thanks. First off a video game does not have the same appeal as a board game. A video game is just pictures on a screen where as the board game has a much more tactile aspect to it. Board games are collectible precisely because of the pieces that are in them. Take Dust Tactics or Battles of Westeros for instance. Sure you could make a video game version of those. But in the video version you can't collect your own pieces. You can't paint them your preferred color scheme and ten years from now when X-Box is gone you can still play your board game version of Dust Tactics and BofW. Video games function on established software and that software is unchanging. As with all video games, sooner or later some uber video gamer figures out where the flaws or the sort of "loopholes" are in the game play and exploits them to his advantage. That's just a fact of video games. I'm not saying that board games don't also have aspects about them that gamers can try and exploit but the difference is you can have house rules with your board game and you can't with your video game. If you know that someone in your group has become so adept at a certain game that he is going to try and exploit a certain feature or shortcoming in the rules to his advantage, you simply change the rule. Finally board games require a higher level of thinking than do video games. Sitting around and pushing A and the trigger button doesn't require any real brain power and frankly I'd rather be challenged by my games. I'm not saying video games don't have their place. They are insanely succcesful so obvioulsy they have a certain appeal. I've certainly played my share of them. But I just think that taking a game like Runewars that has so many great pieces and making it digital is just not as good as the "real thing" as it were. The video version of Axis & Allies never did as well as the actual board game to my knowledge. There's just some things that are better off when played on a table where you can sit around with your friends and have a few beers while playing. It's not just the game for the games sake but more of a social gathering. Video games have never been good at that because the social gathering takes place via a headset instead of face to face. Have you ever put your headset on and listened to the converstaion while playing a game of Call of Duty for instance. The IQ level is somewhere around 40 or 50 if you're lucky and frankly I don't have any desire to listen to some nine year old kid try to curse out a grown man every thirty seconds. As you might imagine, I don't really like video games. I've had my fair share of them to be sure. I've been through five X-Box 360 systems. lol I finally got rid of my last one and haven't looked back and don't miss it a bit. It's gaming for people with no attention span and no real cognitive skill.
  4. Land mines of course were a commonly used weapon during WWII and remain in use even today. I'm wondering if FFG should release a unit that has a special ability to plant land mines. This would of course mean that the player would need to write down where the mine is located and reveal it when an enemy walker enters the square. I'm thinking it should be a limited use item like grenade launchers and panzerfaust. Also I don't think that a mine should take out a walker entirely. I'm thinking 1 or 2 hits at the most against it's allocation.
  5. I think it's safe to say that we all know what 40K is. The popular miniature based game is only one of the best known games around aside from D&D. Fantasy Flight Games offers Dark Heresy, Deathwatch, Rouge Trader and Fantasy Rolepaly, role playing games from the War Hammer universe. They also offer Chaos of the Old World and Horus Heresy, board games from the War Hammer universe. Maybe the last thing the world needs is another 40K game but here goes anyway. How about a 40K board game that deals with a conflict on a planetary scale? Imagine Axis & Allies meets 40K. Bascially the board would be the map of some planet in the 40K universe. It could be a hive world covered in vast cities or some far flung feral world. Anyone who has ever played Dark Heresy or read any of the 40K novels knows there are a myriad of world types to draw from. This also leaves open the expansion of the game by releasing new map boards with different worlds. I personally envision the game coming with a Space Marine army supported by Imperial Guard and possibly a Chaos army or Orc army as the opponent. Again this leaves open the possibility of expansions. Other armies could be released such as Necrons or Eldar and even expansions for the Marine and Guard armies. Obviously the scale of the miniatures used would need to be much smaller than standard 40K tabletop mini's. I'm thinking something along the size of A&A or Runewars. The board itself should also include orbital zones above the planet. This is where an attacking army would place their vessels full of assault troops before sending them to the planet below. Some scenarios could even feature both armies arriving by spacecraft to lay claim to some uninhabited world. Regardless of the scenario, the point is there would need to be orbital zones above the planet incorporated into the game. The primary object of the game, however, is to lay claim to the planet itself and that will of course mean an epic struggle on the ground. In my personal opinion the key here is to offer a game with a lot of miniatures to field both (or even more than 2) armies. A board game about a planetary wide epic struggle that only has 50 to 100 miniatures is a let down, at least to me. I would think something along the lines of 300 to 500 miniatures at a minimum would be better suited and with expansions the count could go up from there.
  6. I haven't worked out all of the details of the game I am about to propose but here is my general idea. The game is set modern day and is a combination of RPG and miniatures. FFG has done something similar to this with the Descent line that started out strictly as a miniatures based combat game but evolved into a sort of RPG campaign in one of the expansions. This particular game however would not be a swords and monsters fantasy genre, but rather a modern day game in which players would role play a character. Here is the scenario and overall theme of the game. A series of nuclear explosions in Earth's upper atmosphere has plunged the world into darkness by way of a massive EMP burst. The modern world that relies so heavily on electronics and computers has ceased to function. Not even cars would start after an EMP burst. The world population plummets into chaos and violence as people struggle to survive on rapidly diminishing food supplies. In this game, players do not necessarily have to role play some hero or larger than life character. Instead they can simply game out the role of an average person caught up in a disaster of epic proportions. That's not to say that a character couldn't be a former soldier or police officer who are now simply one of the masses trying to survive the cataclysmic events that have overcome humanity. But they could just as easily be a former truck driver or waitress. The possibilities are nearly limitless. Now I know what many would say. "Why not just make it a straight up RPG?" Role playing games are great. God knows I've spent my fair share of hours playing Dark Heresy and D&D. They have great depth and detail in the rules and offer players unlimited scenarios because they are not confined to a board. What they lack, however, is visual appeal and that is where miniatures come in. Combining an RPG with a miniature rich environment (like Descent) is the best of both worlds in my opinion. Again, I don't have all the details worked out obviously but suffice it to say the game should include an overall map or maps of the area that player characters would find themselves in during the aftermath of the EMP. Future expansions could include additions to this map to expand the gaming universe. In addition to maps there should be some sort of hex or grid system included that would allow the game to essentially zoom in on the action. The overall map allowing players to see their place in the larger world and the hex map used with the miniatures when they have an encounter. The game should include numerous miniatures to depict not only the characters but also any non player characters in their group and of course any enemies they would encounter. The hex map should also include numerous details such as placement of roads, trees, buildings, abandon cars and even floor plans that can be used when characters take the adventure indoors. This obviously leaves open great potential for selling additional gaming accessories for FFG. Players would need everything from additional miniatures to map accessories as they expanded their game play. Now the twist. Who set off the EMP's? No one knows. There has been no communication from the world governments. It seems that it's every man for himself. But in fact the EMP's have been set off by an alien race with designs on taking Earth. Their initial plan is to simply let the ensuing chaos claim as many victims as possible before their invasion force descends from orbit. When and how this will happen would be completely up to the game master. The ultimate fate of the world would be decided throughout the campaigns. Simply role playing a survival scenario would be enjoyable for awhile but ultimately the players will want a broader and more challenging environment for their characters in order to keep the game interesting. What better than to plunge them into a struggle for the survival of the human race? Anyway, that's the general idea. Obviously the actual application would be much more involved. I envision a game in which characters would struggle simply to survive at the beginning as they search for food, weapons, shelter and trustworthy allies. As the alien aspect is slowly introduced there could even been an alien race that allies itself with the humans in their struggle against the invaders. This could lead to modified characters with enhanced strength, endurance or intelligence thus leading to the more commonly known hero type characters we find in other RPG's. It also introduces the availability of new equipment, and stronger enemies. Anyway, that's my idea. What do you fellow gamers think?
  7. If I had to guess I would say they didn't email the card to you because it's copyright material. Once they create a digitial version of it and put it on the net who knows where it could end up or how many copies of it could be made. I'm not saying you would do that, I'm just saying FFG has to cover themselves from a legal perspective.
  8. GrandInquisitorKris said: i notice no one has yet shown my statements wrong , infact many of your points support what i have said regarding the path a table top minis game goes as opposed to just continueing on as a board game . dust will either follow in the foot steps of WH40k with HUGE swathes of people getting burned and dropping it , or in the footsteps of at-43 which is .........dead . either way , the board game will be the first to go/get shafted . Actually we have done nothing but shown your statements to be wrong you just refuse to accept it. LOL For someone who so despises War Hammer 40K you certainly have a strange choice of screen names GrandInquisitorKris. LMAO You have no idea how the future of this game will play out, just your own speculation based on what you want to believe. In fact no one knows how this game will do over time as it evolves and expansions are released. It will either be a success or it won't. It's not going to turn out "just like 40K" as you espouse because it's not 40K and this is not games workshop. Dust Tactics thus far is a great game and I enjoy it. I fully intend to buy every expansion and alll of the interim units that are released. If they release a tabletop version of the rules I'll give it a try and see how I like it. If it's a good set of rules I'll play both sets of rules. Just because a miniatures game adopts a set of rules that takes it off the board and puts it on a tabletop does not in any way mean its just following the footsteps of 40K or that its going to fail like 40K. That summation would be "wrong".
  9. I tend to agree with McFonz and Hamomag. Kris if you want to get all on your soap box about how awful GW is and how they just ruined your life or something, go ahead buddy. There are still a lot of guys playing the game and will continue to play it for years to come. And frankly if you think it's cheap to buy new sets of books everytime they released a new version of D&D you must never have played the game. lol I bet I spent an easy 600 to 800 bucks on that stuff everytime they changed to a new edition. We all understand that you are adamantly opposed to Dust Tactics being converted in any way to a tabletop miniatures game like WH40K. All I can tell you is get set for disappointment because it's going to happen at some point and like McFonz said, it just means there will be two versions of the game. One on the board and one on the tabletop. Frankly I think that is just cool and it will give Dust Tactics a unique aspect that WH40K doesn't have. Some guys will prefer the grid system and some will prefer the open tabletop but McFonz is right, take away the squares and it's already just a miniatures game. So we can back and forth until the cows come home about the pros and cons of what will happen when Dust Tactics finally gets a set of tabletop rules. But one thing is certain, it will get those rules. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if someone figures out a way to put it on a hex system as well. Heck it could be the first miniatures game that uses three sets of playing surface. Grid, hex and free style. Who else can say that?
  10. GrandInquisitorKris said: acually it does , if FFG told you this then it means the after developemnet guys are looking for a short term cash cow to bet the bank on . as some one who started in the hobby over 20 years ago playing battle tech , and quickly was drawn into 40k first edition , i have watched as numerous companies have come and gone . i spent alot of money on my WH40K armies . first ed was great , i had a couple sizable armies , second ed came out , and i had to let go of alot of my stuff , and buy new items and units to stay competative . at my high point i had 60,000 points of painted chaos , which to explain it to some one like you who has never been in the game , its A LOT . third ed came out and 20,000 points of my army dissappeared over night , and thats when i got out . the GMW idea is to make things bigger and stronger so that in order to stay in a game , you HAVE to buy new units . it is the ultimate game for rules lawyers and broken armies . i watched a game a while back just after the newest space wolf codex was released where a guy dumped a unit of 20 troopers out of a tank into close combat and rolled 80 dice to attack a unit of 5 troopers , and every codex released has to have just a rediculously over powered units and rules to beat the last broken one . thats what the game has become . there is a ver TINY core of hard core 40k players that have suck with it , but each week i have gone to the game store , the faces have changed . i dont think i have seen more than 5 or 6 people stay with it more than a year , and most dissappear after about 6 months . a number of the people i have talked to about the game , and several of the demos , were to people who started out against the idea , because of their experiences with games like WH40k . if you think i am the only gamer who doesnt like GMW , go to BGG and and ask around , they are generaly seen as the nazi's of the game world , and there are endless stories of people like me that got out because they got tired of all the crud GMW does . GMW's model isnt based on keeping gamers , their key demographic is younger new gamers . they believe that it doesnt matter that they lost X # of gamers this week , they will get new gamers to replace them . they dont care about laoyalty my FLGS is a remnant of what was once the largest retailer of games west of the missippi (wargames west ) . so they have had plenty of games pass through their doors . and you are KINDA right , when enough people dont buy , the prices do go down , cause the game line is killed or sold to another company to remake and people are dumping their stock . you said you have worked in a game store , so name any other minis game that has lasted as long as WH40k , and name an example of a game that got cheaper because people didnt buy it and didnt die as a result . What version of rules is Dungeons and Dragons on now? I had a set that was in a red book labled "basic rules" and a blue book labeled "expert rules" somewhere around 1981. That's gotta be about seven or eight generations of D&D ago. People are still playing. I played all the way until 2003, buying new rules and books all along, because I wanted to. I didn't get upset becaue they evolved the game and it was no longer the same thing I bought five years ago. Many are even using "miniatures" just like we did back in 1981. How many variants of Axis & Allies have there been over the years? 7? 8? People are still playing. I have like four different A&A games here. Still playing. To be accurate the first edition of WH40K was really a game called "Space Marine" and it was a much smaller scale. It came complete with orcs and eldar. I know because I had the game and the rule book even laid out the whole history of Horus. Five man squads were mounted on 1 inch squares and a land raider was about half the size of a matchbox car. So yes, I know what a 60,000 point army is. 28mm miniature WH40K actually grew out of a game called Space Hulk, a variant of the Space Marine universe. Space Marine was circa 1989 / 1990. People are still playing, it's just 40K now. People play a game and then move on to other things. It's not because of some failure on the part of the company or the product but more often because they just move on to other things. We sold a lot of RC cars and trucks and guess what, most of the guys that got into it didn't stay with it for more than six months to a year. It's just the way it is. Games evolve over time. If they don't, people get bored with it and they'll find something else to entertain themselves. There's a number of reasons why guys don't stick with WH40k for a long time and they certainly aren't all just because GW changed the rules or the armies or the prices. Some guys quit because they find a game they like better. Some quit because they get married, have kids and need their expendable cash for other things. Some quit because they couldn't find enough guys to game with often enough and didn't want to play just once a month or once every six weeks. There's probably a thousand different reasons why guys move on to other things, it's not all GW's fault. In fact most to the time it's not GW's fault. I think the same will be true for Dust Tactics.
  11. McFonz said: I think this argument is going to different ways - one is way off target in saying that if they go down the route of a table top game option they will flop which really is an assumption and not really what the thread is about. I didn't want to argue whether they should or shouldn't, rather that it has been mentioned that they 'will' and wanted to shed more light on it. As for the having to have a totally new set of rules - I reckon you could fit a conversion set of rules on 1 or 2 A4 sheets. Like I said, there is an argument here that shouldn't be. Several areas have been gone over several times with people ignoring parts of them. I don't really want to get into that because it will end up getting nasty! It's just gone seriously off topic. Maybe so. The general rule of forums regardless of subject matter is that the topic of a thread is pretty much resolved in the first 2 or 3 posts and everything after that is just banter and differing points of view. It's just the nature of conversation. People do the same thing when conversing face to face in a group, they'll do it on a forum too.
  12. McFonz said: The one thing that I may have missed though is that a turret should give you a 360 degree fire arc - arm mounted weapons can obviously only fire to the front or at least a more limited fire arc. Actually you do get a 360 arc from the German mechs because the whole turret rotates. I know that on the actual model they don't because of the way they are posed but that is the understanding.
  13. GrandInquisitorKris said: Shooter said: Actually if you watch the video at the link above the very guys that created this game encourage we players to make it into an off the board miniatures game, like WH 40K. actually ..........thats not parente , thats the head of FFG , and thus its a slippery slope , which game will they favor , and which figs will suck in which version as their rules and abilities favor one version over the other . and how does FFG intend to last in the minis market , since only GMW has managed to really make it profitable , and had earned alot of disgrunteled EX-players in the process . this is probably gonna be a money pit like WH40k , and will eventually leave just a bad a taste in the players mouthes as either both versions end due to poor development and sales kill what started as a great game (which is what happened to how many hundreds of other great minis games ? ) , or one version or the other is cast aside and FFG earns just as many enemies as GMW has for persuing just a vile of a "scew the player , there are plenty more where he came from " sales model . It doesn't really matter which one of them said it to me. As for the game being a money pit, I don't know what your estimation of value is but probably most of us that have bought this game just paid a hundred bucks for 4 mechs, 30 guys, 2 heros and some cardboard pieces. I mean the cost to make the game I suspect was nowhere near the price we paid for it. But I'll put it like this, and I have believed this to be true ever since I worked in a hobby store that sold a great deal of 40K stuff. We even hosted tournaments. It's a toy. You don't have to have it. It's a luxury. It's something that occupies your time when you aren't working to put a roof over your head and food on the table. If they charged 600 bucks to buy it and there were enough guys that figured their free time was worth the 600 dollar investment, they'd get 600 bucks for it. These items will bring the price that the market will bear. If someone feels it's not worth the price, don't buy it. Personally I thought the price was just fine. When they release these first expansions it's basically going to be 20 bucks for what? Five miniatures and a data card? That's alright with me though and I'll pay that price. I never met a "disgruntled" 40K player at my old shop. All of them shared the same attitude about it that I have. It's just a game and the cost is either worth it to you or not. For them it was more about the fun of playing the game with their friends and how do you put a price tag on that? You can't. Sure some guys came in and took a look at how much money it cost to get a 40K army up and running and said no thanks. I personally never played 40K for that very reason, I didn't want to spend the money and I didn't think it was worth it. But that was because I had other hobbies that I did spend a lot of money on. I get that it makes guys upset that GW raises the prices on their stuff quite often. If it gets too expensive and you feel it's not worth it, don't buy it. When enough guys don't buy it, guess what, the prices will come down. This notion that you might end up "disgruntled" or an "enemy" of FFG over a game is just silly to me. It's a game, its not that deep. Either you feel the price is worth it or you don't.
  14. Frankly I think a squad should be allowed to occupy two squares, 3 guys in one square and 2 in the other and they must be adjacent. This opens up more lines of sight and could enable the squad to survive longer in combat. Obviously both squares would not be allowed to fire on a target unless both squares can draw a line of sight to that target, but the same would be true when be fired on. If the square with 2 men loses 1 of them then the surviving soldier must rejoin the 3 man group immediately. It is a free move. The same is true if the 3 man squad loses two men, the surviving man must immediately join up with the two man square. If both parts of the squad are being fired on at the same time and the end result leaves 1 man in each squad then the controlling player must pick one square of the other for the two survivors to rally in. See also total confusion or WTF in dictionary. LMAO.
  15. Ok, as the original poster I guess I'll chime in here. Frankly I have to come down on the side of Vontickraut. Kris you are just trying to apply way too much of your own perception of reality to a fantasy game. It's an alternate time line game, so who says they are having trouble getting materials for bullets and bombs or fuel for vehicles? Maybe in the alternate universe they had all that capability nailed down with huge supplies stockpiled years before the war even started. It's not based on Earth exactly as we know it, but an alternate version, right? This gives a lot of leeway to what is or isn't possible. Mostly it comes down to this. If you want it to be possible in the game, it can be. Trying to apply your understanding of physics and how twin 88's would affect a two legged robot in an alternate universe is like speculating what the price of sugar will be in the year 2598. Obviously in order to make a bipedal tank move around without falling over you have to have a pretty sophisticated gyroscope. They can't even make that happen now in 2010. It's not that hard to imagine that the gyro can easily compensate for the recoil of the two cannons. Hanomag is also correct, it's all just about having fun. That's why it's ok to incorporate in house rules and even kit bash units to make up your own Mechs if you want to. Again, this is the greatest advantage that a game like Dust Tactics has over video games. You can change it and make it whatever you want to. You aren't restricted by the limitations of the software, or in this case the core rules. Even the game designers encourage being creative with the parameters of the game. PS, massive cleavage is always good.