McFonz

Members
  • Content count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About McFonz

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    norwich, norfolk, United Kingdom
  1. Splitting them sounds like the most logical thing to do. I am contemplating investing in the game, just waiting to see how it goes over the next couple of months before I commit. First round of public job cuts here in the uk sliced so close I felt the breeze of the blade swooping inches from my derrier. Anyway, I would be more likely to go for a sort of 'half' set or army box as one guy at our club has the boxed set and whilst more tiles could be good we also have someone at the club who has access to a printing company and could easily photo-shop some more from scratch. With most games I like to collect one faction rather than several. Developing it over time. Still deciding on what to go for, am liking the Germans at the moment.
  2. Have you got a link the boardgame geek thingy. It answers one of the questions that came up for us last night.
  3. Hmm, I would say that even under normal circumstances you cannot run in and then out anyway. I am pretty sure it states that each character can only perform one move and one action per turn. Running in and out would require two moves. In addition the 'Run' arcane card stipulates that it is added to the characters 'move' and would suggest that it is played when they move and cannot be used as an additional movement say after they have performed another action.
  4. Thought it was one ducat for opening a chest?!! Ratnic - you the ratnic that produces miniatures and based in Russia? Otherwise we play it exactly the same. If you have ducats you pay, if not you don't and just run off the same as usual. One thing we discussed in our game last night is the possibility of militia men forcing you to a treasure if beaten. It could be placed in the nearest empty building perhaps?
  5. And still tons of fun eh Niv?!! Thanks for slamming my chick into a corner continuously, she had no chance of a Swayze style rescue! Yeah two players is fun, perhaps even a bit more emphasis on movement as it would seem with an additional two gangs it will become quite packed and the 'pushing' back would become more dictated to empty spaces to move them to. Still plenty of what I call 'whacking' seeing that no one gets hurt as such. Beat me by 4 ducats which at one point looked as if it was going to be considerably more!
  6. As Niv says - it makes it more tactical. Think about what the characters are, they are thieves and mercinaries creeping around a city district. Two or more in one room is going to draw a bit more attention than just one shadow. Especially with those peskey militia men snooping about. The fleeing thing is more representative of the fact that they are running away and are not really looking to see who else is in the area and are not in it long enough for them to really be classed as 'occupying' it. In addition it stops you from being able to 'prevent' a friendly character from being pushed away which I think is more important in games terms. As Niv says, he had great fun in continuously beating one of my characters into a portculassed dead end last night, she escaped in the end but only with a single gem and one ducat!
  7. 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 . But Dust isn't really your traditional board game is it? And there are even fewer successful long term stories involving board games. As has been pointed out on this thread. The reason why this is so clever is that it is a tabletop wargame on a board. The background is far greater than most other board games - and again reflects that of a wargame. The intelligent thing would be to have this as a 'basic' version and as it is doing now, build up a large enough customer base. The next few releases will decide its success I would guess. And then it will dictate where and how they go on from there. But to say that it would better survive as a boardgame rather than a tabletop game isn't accurate.
  8. I have to say this GMW thing really shocked me. I mean I have worked for Games Workshop in the past and part of their training was the history of the company. From its birth it has been known as Games Workshop. In further support of this Games Workshop is so named because it started off making classic boardgames like backgammon. It then started Whit Dwarf in '77 and again, if you look up the front cover on the net it isnt GMW that is on the front. They then developed on to create miniatures and supporting material for d&d. And then to distribute American rpg's etc. It is possible that you are confusing Games Workshop with 'Game Designers Workshop' - but one thing is for sure, they have not been known as GMW for at least 25 years. And I think you would be hard pressed to tell a lot of people that Bloodbowl, Space Hulk, Talisman, Space Crusade, Necromunda, Mordheim amongst just some as being poor games and they were all Games Workshop creations. I still don't see how turning out a tabletop wargame means it will fail. One of the single biggest reasons that companies have failed and fallen by the wayside is that they are not patient. GW took the best part of ten years to establish itself as a company and more to develop its own identity. Some companies see GW and want to 'compete' with them. The problem with this is two fold. Firstly making miniatures is a risky buisiness - especially if you are pushing hard to grow as fast as possible. I say that because there has to be an initial investment in making the miniatures and everything it entails. Those miniatures then have to make enough money to repay the investment (loans in some cases) and make enough money to fund another batch of miniatures and to pay wages etc. Eventually over time their popularity and customer base increases and they are able to invest in more miniatures knowing that the custom is there to sell them to. Many companies have failed because they have invested too much too soon and their popularity not grown as quickly as they predicted. The other factor is the rules. Some sets of rules that have been released have just been too complicated or less appealing although the miniatures are good. GW hit the scene at the right time in the '80's when many companies were folding and when there really wasn't a wargaming culture in the terms of what we have now. It's always hard for games companies to establish now because there are so many people trying to do it and that they have to compete with an industry giant. And to be honest this doesn't matter whether it is a board game or a table top game. What a board game does do is allow a company to grow slowly and to establish a customer base. But the interesting thing is that the miniatures are wargaming miniatures, they compare with miniatures from tabletop wargames, the only thing that makes it a board game is literally the squares on the board. Take those away and all the board is is a gaming mat.
  9. I don't see how changing this game from being board based to 'open' based would change any of that? The expansions are designed to be 'must haves' as well. Who knows, in the future new tough units may well come out for the various forces that people will 'have to have'. The only difference at the moment is that there is no need for an army book. This doesn't stop any sort of points creep etc - it just means that rather than have to release new editions of the game they can just go on releasing new units and miniatures - surely the best plan for success? A good sound basic rule system and from that point on additional boxed sets that have everything you need to include them in a game from now until whenever. As for marketing stratergy - GW hasn't always got it right (and it is GW by the way, unless someone can please tell me why an M keeps cropping up into it) but the main reason it has been successful is the network of stores in the UK. It is pretty much impossible now due to cost of production etc for smaller companies to pass on much of a retail discount for metal miniatures so it means independant stores are trying to cut a living from small profit margins. The reason this game is so clever is that it strikes a perfect ballance between wargame and boardgame to the point that many shops that specialise or carry boardgames will carry it. However this was also a GW tactic back in the day. But I don't really see why this argument is coming into play. Simply put it is 'I don't want Dust to become a tabletop wargame because then it will go all GW and epic fail!' We have just had the first boxed set, why not give it a while first and if they decide to release a open version then just play the one you prefer . . . .
  10. 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.
  11. All of the arguments are just as valid as each other here. You could throw in more factors - reload speed, accuracy, training . . . . and the most important - game ballance. It doesn't really matter which line you want to take on it, the model looks cool and when used effectively in games it is also pretty awesome. 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.
  12. GrandInquisitorKris said: how does the grid limit the number of squads that can be on the board ? in the standard #x# , i guess you would be limited to 18 squad/wakers in some missions , a great deal more in others , but that would require you to buy4 starters to have enough units to fill the area , at which point you would have 45 board sections so i'm just not sure how you are coming to that conclusion . If this is being solely marketed as a board game (which it is only if you consider the FFG part of the franchise - don't forget Parente's site with alternative stuff) then you have to also consider that it was mainly designed to be played on something like a dining room table. I am lucky in that I have a board 6'x4' although its in segments so I play 4'x4' normally. If you are restricted in the size of area you can place the boards in you will be limited in how many units it is ideal to use. By that I mean sure you could go all apoc on it and set up with say only one square between you but that's not tactical nor much of a challenge, its an initiative fest. As for having to re-market it - why? If they make the rules free to download or relatively cheap then I think you will find the only people that will buy them will be people that have a collection already anyway. The nature of the beast is that they will make more money out of the individual units than the starter sets and considering that all of the rules for the said units come on their cards linking to the main rules its not like people could avoid getting the same sets that are out. I just think that there will be a lot of table top gamers out there that will have already bought this set and will be toying with converting it over anyway. By releasing a set of conversion rules and charging say - $5-$10 for a pdf I think it would make sound buisiness sense.
  13. Lets also remember that the gaming table is also part and parcel of the hobby. I only asked to confirm a rumour in fairness. However my pennies worth: I think it would be great to have a free-form and the current version of the game. The main problem people will face with squares is that the squares limit the amount of units you can have on the board at any one time. It has its strengths in that tournaments for it are going to be dead easy, there don't appear to be any loopholes or issues, the game as it is is nice and fast paced. But going by the starter set it can already get quite congested with the units in there on the grid available. A free-form game would allow more space for units in larger games - and I would see it as a sort of 'advanced' expansion/add on. At this point I would agree that it is too early to inject this idea into things as they have a lot of other units etc to release. However I do think there is probably a unit limitation in relation to the size of a board which could be quite limiting. I have no problem with the game as it is at the moment. It's great. Its a miniature wargame on a preset board system. Nice, simple and yet very tactical, like a game of chess.
  14. The only difference is you miss out on the extra fig in some boxes that allows you to change the unit's role.
  15. Out of the extra rules you mention line of sight would perhaps be the most challenging but only slightly. I say that because the rules make it quite clear that terrain is treated as representational so if your troops occupy a square with cover in it they are considered to be in cover whether the miniature is in front of the cover or not. Roughly translated that would be any unit with at least half of its number within 1" of cover are classed as being in cover. As for elevation - it doesn't have to be complicated.