Jump to content

player774644

Members
  • Content Count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About player774644

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://WTactics.org
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Malmö, SkÃ¥ne, Sweden
  1. 1. How long have you been playing tabletop-war games? I'm 33 and have been playing them since I was a teenager. 2. Why did you start playing tabletop-war games? Fun, challenging, skillbased. Chess is a good example of such a game, often omitted for some reason, although the war theme is evident enough. 3. What do you love about tabletop-war games? Same as in #2 + that you can develop your skills and do an analysis of your game. In many cases it's also customization and replayability that contributes to the fun-factor. 4. What advice would you have for someone who wants to get into playing them? Start with cheap and simple stuff and a theme you really like. Theme is very important as a newcomer to the genre, and so is simplicty. Don't be fooled to think that the more complex the game the better it is. Avoid getting games that take more than 1-2h to play, at least from the start. Also avoid games that require 3 players or more to play, as you are likely to play them very seldom after a month or so. Also, if you have any pictures of favorite models you've painted and would be willing to let me use them, I'd love to include a few in my article. Most of the tabletop gamers don't paint their models, while hobby miniature gamers do. Here are two pictures I took of my pre-painted (dust models) models that I am fond of that you're free to use: http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1191229/dust-tactics http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1191832/dust-tactics
  2. Most players find it easier to play Axis than Allies in the revised core set, out of the box. It's maybe a slight balancing issue, but, it also depends on how you play the game: Do you play the revised core campaign, or do you play head on custom skirmish? When playing the campaign the units in the core set make more sense and are more balanced in my opinion than if they go face to face in a custom game. Usuaully when playing with family/friends it will seldom feel like a balanced game even if the units are perfectly balanced, due to the fact that the people you play it with have less experience than maybe you have and perhaps also don't really know all the stats of all units, or what to make of them, their strenghts and weaknesses. Summed up there are many variables in the game and analasys paralasys is easily achieved if you're new to the game, as well as defeat. Hence, no matter how balanced the amies, if you want a balanced game with some people you better play with some kind of a handicap, and if you're wise you won't announce it or make it too apparant that you do. Challenge yourself by for example fighting with a non optimal army build, some less points or by each round letting randomness decide in some cases what unit you will activate in what order. The goal of gaming is to have fun, and games tend to be more fun if your opponent also enjoys them and have a chance.
  3. As with all rules, the question is perhaps not "how can we explait unclarity", even if that is indeed also interesting as it sports advancements of rules clarifications.The question is "what did the designers intend?" What are they trying to achive? That's really the only interesting part if one wants to get the most out of the game. If I had to guess it would be that their intention was to make the planes always move around in contrast to helis. If not, you end up with all kinds of obscure and in 99% of the scenarios - functionless - actions mentioned in this thread, where you move back and forth to "not move" at all etc. It seems as if in absurdum arguments speak against such notions. Then again, I wouldn't know as I can't read minds, but I'm convinces this will be resolved in FAQ or 2:nd revision. What seems to matter also is what other action can you make, without making it or by faking it? For example, why would it be logical to accept that you perform a movement action without moving the miniature (granted there are legal moves to make of course), when there seems to be no such equivalents when it comes to say the attack action? You can't perform an attack action unless there is a valid target. You'd have to have line of sight, and weapons reach, to actually perform the attack action. Notice the wording here: Action. It suggests thats something "is happening." So, let's say we all agree on that, for the sake of argument. In which case it seems coherent to suggest that you can't perform a move action without actually moving the miniature. Here it is also important to differentiate your personal "wish" or "desire" to perform the move/attack action: It is one thing to want to or intend to perform action x. It is another thing to actually be able to legally perform the action. For example, I maybe usually want to perform attack actions, but many times there are no valid targets to perform the actions on, hence the actions can't be performed. I'm not suggesting that all this is "the way" to understand the rules as they clearly need some explaining, but it's how I'd go about it in a logical way and also to keep the fun in the game.
  4. In case you want to save a buck you could also get the books as PDF by buying them legally from a couple of online-sellers. Personally I'd get the paper versions, or maybe even both if I played Warfare. Almost contemplated in getting the PDF:s just for the fluff
  5. Fenton said: From the "teaser summary" of Operation Icarus it appears they will be including cover rules for trees, so I guess we will be getting official rules for trees soon enough. However these will be transferable to actual "forests" is yet to be seen. Correct. It has been released, available as PDF from FFG support for the game. They also explicitly state that it's a single tree and not a forest…
  6. Majority belief is irrelevant… The original post made some assumptions I don't agree with about what the "majority" believes. 1) This hasn't been measured in any good and statistically reliable way, but let's for the sake of the argument assume it is a correct claim that the majority has the view that the walkers are x: So what? 2) That the majority has an opinion about something is reall only relevant in a democracy, if even there, and it doesn't show if a claim is true or not, if the walkers are unbalanced or not. The amount of people that believe something doesn't make what they believe "truer" in any sense. So, regardless of the subject matter, let's help each other to avoid these kind of argumentative traps. X could benefit from y: Yups. Always. Furthermore, the original post states that something could benefit from something, but lacks that. Hence something is wrong. Well, that holds true for every single unit in the game. We can all name units and conclude that they could benefit from some additional perk. It, in itself, doesn't really show that the unit is broken or unblanaced. It could be broken, and giving it perk y could perhaps fix it, but that's a completley different topic. SSU Walkers: Cannon fodder? I love the SSU as a concept and personally I find the aestehtics of their walkers overly gorgeous. I want to have them all, I want to be able to consider them as fully playable. That said, I am still sceptical about them in theory (as I haven't shelled out the cash to get them yet due to me being a premium only player): By looking at the stats for them I often question how they will ever reach their targets in time, most of the time or even half of the time, before they get destroyed. Sure, they aren't overly expensive in points value and some can take a beating, but that doesn't negate the fact that you have to cross a whole field and will have a very very hard time doing it "incognito" and behind stuff that usually hides your walker from the opponents line of sight. All of this does of course also depend on who you play against, if it's a all out skirmish or a mission/scenario, and so on. I'm sure they can work wonders in some very specific settings, but overal on the general battlefield in a skrimish game I just don't see them working out all too good. They feel clunky and slow, and I think most players fielding them would have an issue with their life expectancy not being fullfilled. I agree with the original post that something seems wicked with the walkers, but I have no hard evidence for that (yet) and wouldn't state that I'm necessarily correct. Nor do I expect a company to read and reply to every input that comes in a public forum, even if it would be nice if they did in cases where the posts are well founded and arguments are solid and backed up by more research. In this post I fail to find such research, even if there is a good initial start where a point is beginning to be made, it isn't followed through. Local patch: Aka "house rules" If indeed the walkers are overly hard to play successfully this is what I'd do, where each could work on itself or maybe combined with others if needed, in no particular order: a) I wouldn't want to see a rule that stated that all SSU walkers can be airlifted, as it would always force the future walker-designs to take that into account and more or less rely on the airlifting being done for them to be properly used. Summed up, it would be restricting SSU walker designs more than helping. Hence I would recommend some middle-ground and open up for more of them having the air lift-ability. b) Let them be agile: Give them the ability to round corners in ways other vehicles can't. c) Give them Fast. d) Equip them with Self-repair. d) Add Scout. Different combinations of one or two of the above slapped on different walkers should suffice to make them very viable without touching much of anything else.
  7. You're right: I didn't spell it correct in this post, but when doing the search I actually did. Stupid as I was I assumed the world used the "ö"-character, which happens to be the same in both my alphabet (Swe) and the German. Thanks for the thread. Read it all, and it's an interesting discussion. However, I don't think it really establishes something that's reasonable for it. It sounds like most believe it's OP, but I don't agree if it's priced in proportion. Question is what it would cost then… 120 - 160?
  8. What would you price the Köningslothar? I want to use it in a casual game but can't even find the name mentioned even once in the forum… maybe says more about the search though … = /
  9. Camo pattern is different in these pics than in the ones that Dust Studio posted (which uses mismatching green/brown jungle-pattern). Anyone happens to know how the premiums will be sold? I can't imagine FFG and Dust Studio releasing separate cards with diff camo. Reading recent news on Dust Game it's suggested they'll ship their premium with the green camo but with non-matching card, where the mech has the arctic camo.
  10. Dust: Domination is a customizable format for Dust Tactics that is being worked on. It adds some basic resource management, troops reinforcements, unique skills and some additional victory conditions. I invite everyone that happens to be interested in it to check it out and contribute. A preview can be seen here of an early draft >> http://WTactics.org/files/Dust.Domination.pdf …and the original files aimed for devs live here (inkscape + libre office) >> http://WTactics.org/files/dust.domination.dev.tar.bz2 Please keep in mind this is early work and that english isn't my native lingo.
  11. Ikka said: I see almost no "real" anti-armor weapons in the infantry, other than the single bazooka in the commissar squad. /../ I don't see them lasting very long even against the Allies ranged anti-walker weapons. I really don't want my friend to start the game and then give up in disgust when he can't take out walkers. Can anyone reassure me?? SSU seems at a first glance to be a non-newbie-friendly faction in so far that they may require the (sound) tactics suggested already in this thread by previous posters. Consider: 1. Fury of Ivan 2. The assumption that your friend is not being a moron and running towards your mechs with his/her infantry as cannon fodder… 3. The other assumption that you, when trying to introduce a game to somebody, especially when that game costs a lot and takes time to learn, won't actually do your best to win over that person: Best thing for you to do to both have fun but also make sure your friend enjoys the game is to let your friend build an army first. Then look at it, and adapt, but only to a point where you know that whatever you build has a 30 - 40% chance of beating his army. The reason for this approach is simple - your friend can't be expected to know the meta-game yet, as well as you do, and thus shouldn't be "punished" by being beaten by you in his first couple of games. If you really want to have a good time always make sure you play even armies or that you are at some kind of serious disadvantage when you play an "inferior" player.
  12. I don't follow: Which one do you claim is pre-painted premium? The left or the right? (Footnote for all others: The right uses customized basing that looks great, although it's not what comes with the premium)
  13. Anyone have any experience of how well mekatank models work with the dust ones? ( http://www.phpshopxml.com/quakit.shop/CID/f9d89e097df6d3065d8562bab0d0d9fd/function/itemPageDisplay/shopItemCode/MEK48004 ) They claim they're "compatible" , and judging from some of their comparisons they seem to be, judging from others, I'm less convinced…
  14. Loophole Master said: What I think is a nice surprise is that for the first time, some of the multiple configurations for a basic unit are now included in a single Premium set. /../ I think that's a great development which can really save you quite a few bucks if you don't feel the need to field all variations at the same time. Was just thinking the same: Will pick them up just for that reason, especially the walker-transport with the cutomized KV's…. For once I won't have to wonder how it comes I get premium hole in my wallet without getting the same benefits as the non-premium buyer would have of customization. Hopefully it will continue and become more frequent on models that are easy to hot-swap….
×
×
  • Create New...