Warboss Krag
-
Content Count
379 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Warboss Krag
-
-
The answer, of course, is Experiment 001, nee Marcus. Since he allows a unit of Kampfaffen to attack at the end of a move action, for free, he's the flank-chewer, particularly if the unit is attached to a Grenadier platoon and can receive a Blitzkrieg order. Furthermore #001 has DC Six (6)! allowing his unit to soak up fire like no tomorrow.
-
Speaking of multiple actions, has anyone come across the business of having so many command actions that, if the amount of commands that can be given to a single unit is unlimited, said single unit can move and attack (1 command, Marcus leading a kampfaffen pack), Regroup (2 commands, removing the reaction counter), and repeat, as long as there are command action available. I deployed a German force with 13 elements tonight (300 points), and proceeded to do this sequence once, attacking twice with said kampfaffen mob. My opponent cried Shenanigans, we discussed it, and since I was as appalled as he was, we agreed in the future to limit command actions to one per unit, to avoid that silliness.
FFG rules people, are you reading this? It's a serious problem, a major break in the system, and I cannot in good conscience imagine that this was envisioned as a tactic by the designer and developer of this game.
-
Re: Contradictory rules. Not only is this sloppy writing and editing (for that matter, my thread on what's wrong with the editing in Warfare is answered by this thread, in spades!), but it's one of the ways to create unfriendly argument among players, particularly those who are argumentative. I speak of rules lawyers, of course. The only way to discourage them is by creating unambiguous, clear, concise rules (which is also the best way to write a game).
I shall not, like Gimp proposed, give up the game in disgust. I like the concepts, I like the painting, and I like the game-play, since I'm playing among friends. Going into a tournament would do a lot to tarnish that lot of likes, I suspect, since those events tend to bring out the worst in people (distinctly including myself). I just hope FFG gets on its horse and ponies up a comprehensive errata list with utmost dispatch.
-
I think Panzerfaust has laid his finger on the large problem vis a vis disappointment in Dust Warfare. Like him, I didn't play Tactics much (twice - I was disappointed in it as a board-game, and put away my minis in anticipation of Warfare), and my problems are with the cover/obscuration rules (so much so that I'll not weigh in, and merely wait for official - and exhaustive - errata), as well as a few other lesser points already discussed, rather thoroughly. I have little objection to unit capabilities, and I consider both sides evenly matched, for now (which means I haven't played enough to discover if there's a broken list).
-
Forget 1/48 scale models; they're too big. Warlord miniatures sells WWII vehicles in 28mm scale, which is the scale of Dust and Warhammer. Not bad prices; a German halftrack goes for $29. I was disappointed to find that they have none of the M3 vehicle line, lacking both halftracks and scout cars.
-
Contradictory rules. Right. Now this is concrete evidence of an editorial problem. I couldn't agree more with the contention that there needs to be an official errata collection, and as soon as possible.
-
Hear, hear. I started out playing Germans, since my opponent du jour was playing Americans, and we were both suitably impressed with the capability of the Kampfaffen and Untertoten. Particularly since they could devastate any flamethrower American unit that got close (add Marcus, and a single command order turns into an assualt). When I started playing Americans (I'm teaching others how to play), I found that those flamethrower/shotgun assault units are really quite tricky to get into range of one's opponent. Just because they ignore cover doesn't mean they're the Golden BB; they have to get in range, first.
-
Indeed, the original comic shows the Germans using a Skdkfz 251 for transport. And, since the construction of walkers uses the McGuffin 'VK,' and I would assume tanks don't, we come back to the old Battletech problem: Why are we using these hideously hard-to-come-by things when we can simply overwhelm a foe with more conventional arms? The answer is thematic, usually: Walkers are cooler (the Japanese answer). But since the weapons being used are just as effective on these super-material 'VK' walkers as they are against tanks (moreso, I would think…let's face it, the average 88mm Rakatenpanzerbuchse would scarcely dent an 'obsolete' Tiger I), then why aren't tanks a fully viable option, particularly since, by 1947, an M24 Chaffee would be a real challenge for a Mk II Pkl, and an 'Easy Eight' Sherman would tend to do even better, and I'm not even gonna talk about what a T34/85 could do…or a JS II. Or a Pershing. Yikes.
That is, if we want to break the somewhat stereotypical Japanese fantasy of single-man mecha, making essentially a tank worked like a fighter plane. I wonder why this concept came about in Japan, post-war ('way post-war, sort of the 70s)?
-
Wargods of Aegyptus! You mean someone else in the world read it? From the reaction it got, I assumed I was one of the very few indeed…
As for complaints about the 40K RPG line and its editing, I don't think Perecles could talk FFG's way out of that hole. Each book seems to have been written by at least three separate authors and thrown together into some sort of blender by way of 'editing.' Bad show.
For the price - after all, a >160-page book for 2/3 the price of a 400+ page book? - charged for Warfare, would it have killed FFG to at least repeat various special ability rules near each troop list section? Yes, it's repetition, and there's an onus against that in publishing circles - it's usually accused of being padding - but that feature would have been very useful during the game. As it stands, I've got to permanently bookmark the 50s page sections, since I'm referring to it so much.
Back to Wargods, I think I see the point in that comparison. A lot less white space on the pages, a lot more information. Drier, though, desert dry. With the emphasis nowadays on trying to make games accessable to those who don't want to plow through what could be considered college text level, I can see why Wargods might have been unpopular. Pity.
-
Ah, yes, Warzone…I have several very large armies for it. Yes, the minis were not very good (although the 2nd edition ones were excellent), but the game was very interesting, as micro-tactical as it was (one had a huge army of essentially one-man armies, sort of acting in units. I call it this because every figure had multiple actions each turn, allowing one to duck out of cover, fire, and duck back into cover, for example, in one smooth action). A very interesting system, and, I think, author Bill King's sole foray into game design? 2nd edition was full of rampant Anglophile revisionism, and it did easily loose the majority of the background and its flavor (which made a cracking great role-playing game, by the way).
I do confess to some intellectual curiousity about the basis of Gimp's comparison, vis a vis his condemnation of Dust, as to what he thinks is a good, complete game. Switching to first person, what do you hold up as such a good example, Gimp? I've got my own set, largely war-games from the 1970s - Avalon Hill and SPI titles, head-lined by Panzerblitz and Panzer Leader - which, in all fairness, are a lot less open-ended than point-based games today, and had mechanics that were similarly less complex. I'm not apologizing for Dust; its rules give every evidence of not having been blind-tested enough, if at all (for those of you not familiar with blind-testing, it's the process where the game draft is sent to cynical, anal, mean-spirited old rules lawyers like me, to be perused and played without any input from anyone already familiar with the game. It takes time, and knowing some of those cynics to use in that fashion. Privateer Press accomplished this by plopping their draft on-line for all to see, an despite decades of Games Workshop's shrill claims that releasing a peep of one's upcoming rules would result in people not purchasing those rules when they finally came out, I haven't heard anything about that playtesting act slowing down Privateer's sales any).
But, all the same, what are your paragon games, Gimp? I'm curious; I may well have played some of them of old, and it'd be nice to chat with another old grognard.
-
In answer to an earlier post, "Is that a chainsaw?" I believe that it is. And if that question hadn't been asked, I wouldn't have gone back and looked. I think the chainsaw is a capital idea, given the thickness of jungle foliage in the South Pacific (although the pictures of the jungle on Guadacanal look like you'd need a Gundam light-saber to get through them - we're talking stuff so dense that even the Wunsler's machinery (Lorax reference) couldn't get through.
Since Flames of War has failed for years to introduce the Pacific Theater to a WWII game (I can only conjecture that the New Zealander Anglophiliacs who write the game are so fascinated with British failures in the Eurpean Theater that they're ashamed of British failures in the Pacific. American-hating much?), I would welcome whole-heartedly the inclusion of that theater in Dust Warfare!
Warboss Krag
-
Re: felkor's notes in initiative. Verrrry interesting, to quote an old comedian dressed as a grenadier, lurking behind the potted plant. I shall have to make use of that information…(Since I see that a regroup action does not give the receiving unit a Reaction marker!)
Seriously, i do like that this game actually awards the real-world tactic of pinning fire. So nice after the charge-happy idiocy of 40K
-
As for the SSU, I suspect they will have their famed (and unique) power-suits in squads, not operating singly like walkers. Although I am sorry that its seems the Russkies aren't going to have something in the way of armor 1 horde infantry of 1941-43, having instead the veteran survivors. I am somewht troubled that I've seen nothing of their large walkers in the production pipe.
-
I am disappointed that we don't already have the Rakatentruppen: Craaaazy German infantry with really huge rockets strapped to them. Huge enough to propel quasi-kamikazes (say that three times fast) into the air far enough and fast enough to attack aircraft in flight! (They were in the original comic.)
-
I cannot possibly applaud your efforts enough. I can't even explain why I am so filled with admiration; the reply space is too small. Although I don't think I have to.
-
I have Cerberus. That building is something else and no doubt. Massive, three stories, modular - it's not a ruin; looks like an industrial area in construction, done except for the windows and insides. Good rules for three-dimensional gaming (for Dust Tactics, of course) included. It's an all-infantry affair, naturally; walkers don't fit inside. If the next expansion's going to have another of these behemoths, good on it, that'll make the price tag really worth it.
-
All in, consider the total benefit of buying the Revised Core Set anyway. I estimate the total value of the units within at around $140 - 2 walkers, 3 5-man squads, 3 3-man heavy squads, and 2 heroes. All for $80. That is not a poke in the eye.
-
You know, I consider the first impression of "Thoughts" emblematic. Despite the faults displayed in Dust Warfare, and a lot of messes (some small, some not so small) that need cleaning up, my first play-through of the game engendered much the same visceral reaction. There's a darn fine game here; yes, it needs some tweaking, but I don't know that I can say I've really, truly ever seen a game that hasn't. I just hope that the company doesn't mess it up under the auspecies of attempting to improve it.
-
One other signal feature of the setting (and thus the game): For the most part, the models are portrayed in more-or-less WWII gear and uniforms. Now, for the decorative among us, camouflage is a perfectly acceptable option. For those of us bone-tired of painting Warhammer Empire figures, with their ever-greater insistance on Reniassance fashions (and ever more outrageous examples - check out the new Empire General model), the drab of WWII uniforms is welcome, and so easy…I just finished painting a command squad, a Fliegerfaust squad, and Stefan, in a matter of less than an hour. Delightful.
-
An interesting thread to read, I must say. Yes, it tends to wander all over the road (and into the pastures beside the road, and sometimes over an occasional confused cow), but points of interest.
Gimp's opening salvo (sorry, Gimp old bean, couldn't resist the allusion to artillery) may have been long, and controversial, but was thus a rather good way to open the discussion. Certainly beats "so, whadda we talk about?"
I did not know that FFG rushed the final production. Hm. I've worked in the industry; such things are hardly unusual. And while I agree that it would be ducky to have the game book industry adhere to production standards of other industries, I also know this industry works on a shoestring budget for really tight margins, which might explain why there are so few editors for so many products, etc. And, yes, I would dearly love to see more comprehensive editing, fewer typos, and better pre-publishing problem identification and resolution. (Although said limited staff would tend to explain why a major revision of Dark Heresy, for sake of rules update and continuity, is nowhere on the horizon…)
As for nomenclarture, my objection to referring to the Allied artillery (honestly, why didn't they just say "American artillery?") as a "Long Tom" seems a bit flaccid. No insult to the 155mm rifle, but a 22cm howitzer deserves a name of its own. Perhaps an acronym; 'BFH' (Bloody Fat Howitzer), or some such?
Yes, I also forsee a second/revised edition coming. I haven't seen wargames that don't need major errata and revisions since the late 70s. Ah, Avalon Hill and SPI, I miss you. (Yes, I'm keenly aware of the irony there. SPI could've profited from swift release of game errata.)
-
This is by far the most "tactical" game I've played, and the choices and options it gives you are great.
Hear, hear.
-
Right, I grant that there are confusing items within the book, areas where there have not been enough explanation. Not surprising, really. If I may inquire, what other games are you using as a comparison. Mind you, I'm not disagreeing, I merely want to establish what you're using for comparison, as contrasting to my own comparison basis.
-
The title sort of says it all. I don't really have trouble with the editing and format; I believe it's superior to a lot of other games I've seen and played, learning from the errors of others. Having done both game writing and editing, I am honesty curious to explore other opinions on what others would see as wrong, because I believe years of gaming experience may have numbed me to the flaws that others perceive (I'm so used to bulling my way through loads of rules refuse…).
So please do speak up. I'll never learn anything trammeled in with my own opinions.
-
"fighta bombas," while crude and unciviized, are rather awesome, what?
close combat ?
in Dust Warfare
Posted
Or it's Marcus leading a kampfaffen unit.