Jump to content

Trasvi

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Trasvi

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Perth, WA, Australia
  1. DoomOnYou72 said: These rules are similar to what I made up for our group. I took the same route as you treating bunkers as vehicles with 0 move. Ive also made a damage table for the bunkers. So far we have just used them in scenario games so I havent made an attempt to point them out yet. I do think that 60 maybe on the high side though especially for something the other side may be able to take from you and use . For shooting attacks we did things differently. All attacks beyond 6" must target the bunker (except snipers). Any attacks from within 6" may target the occupants instead. Troops in bunkers receive hard cover when targetted. I think that that your idea of treating troops as 1 type higher may be alittle OP as it means that most weapons can no longer harm type 3 models. If you think that they need a bigger buff then maybe give models inside damage resilient instead? Agreed with the other posters, only targetting within 6" is a much more elegant solution. I think that models actually inside the bunkers should have a little bit more protection than units simply with hard cover - you an get hard cover from standing behind sandbags or whatever, a bunker with a 6 inch view slit and 2 feet of concrete protruding either side is a different story altogether. What kind of damage table did you make for the bunkers? How do effects like blind, weapon destroyed etc affect the troops inside?
  2. One of my best holidays ever was to Normandy and the west cost of France. I found the Atlantic Wall (well, its remnants) absolutely fascinating. My family stayed in a holiday house near the beach, and the block next to us was vacant because it was some massive concrete artillery emplacement. Our view of the ocean was obstructed by a few large concrete bunkers which were slowly being swallowed by the sand…. If you haven't seen what the Atlantic Wall looks like, do a quick image search for it. http://goo.gl/k4fvx I want to make a Dust Warfare scenario that represents a second assault on the Atlantic Wall or an invasion of Great Britain. Central to that idea are significantly built up fortifications. How would you represent large fortifications within the rules? I don't know if this stuff has already been covered in any Dust Tactics expansions, so if anyone can help me out there? My thoughts are that a Bunker should provide a very high level of protection on units inside. This could be represented by: The bunker counts as Movement 0, Vehicle 7 HP 8 with carry capacity 6. The bunker has 4 sides, 1+ of which has an entrance, and 1+ of which is a firepoint. Can only enter a bunker from the entrance All models inside a bunker can fire from a firepoint, measuring distance from the edge of the bunker: alternatively, one can fire from the entrance. When shooting at the bunker, you can elect to target the bunker itself, or the models inside if over half the models in the firing unit are within the arc of a fire point/entrance Artillery and Air Strikes may only target the bunker. Models inside count as being 1 armor class higher (including when rolling armor saves), except from sniper, grenades and spray weapons. They get hard cover. When rolling to remove suppression, units inside count as scoring 1 extra hit (ala Armour saves). A bunker is a square of 6" per side. Bunkers and Trench networks may also have weapon emplacements like Victory MG's. If a unit has a model within 1" of a stationary weapon, that model may forgo firing all weapons it is equipped with an instead fire the stationary weapon. A stationary weapon is a Movement 0, Infantry 2 HP 1, and does not make armour saves or gain cover. There may also be heavy weapon emplacements where a weapon normally mounted on a tank or a walker is placed in a concrete bunker: A heavy weapon emplacement is Movement 0, Vehicle 6 HP 6, with its own operating crew. Turret has a 90* arc of fire. A heavy weapon is a circle of 3" diameter. A bunker I think should probably be worth 60+ points, a stationary Victory MG at 3-5 pts, and a heavy weapon at about the cost of a medium walker with the same weaponry. I'm also thinking +15 pts per side to protect a bunker with terrain. What do you think of it on face value? Ridiculously ovepowered? Very powerful and representative of big German bunkers? Too weak? Got better ideas? Input very much appreciated
  3. Coming back to this after a few more games, and I'm beginning to see the light. I think the major thing was coming to Dust from a GW games perspective, where there is never really any sense of cooperative firepower between units. Now in Dust Warfare I say to everyone: "Suppression is REALLY IMPORTANT. More important than causing casualties." If someone screws up, I can say 'they should have had covering fire' or something similar.
  4. Most people playing wargames allow decent leeway of shuffling, placing and re-placing units. Its not like chess where fingers off means you've stopped moving. Nearly everyone that I've played (especially in games which allow pre-measuring) let you move, say "I'm deliberately putting these 12.1 inches away", or find that an entire unit can't be put down in exactly the right spot so they get moved back. You'll see it happen. If you want to counter jump infantry, the best way is suppression with long range weaponry, or supporting your walkers with infantry. Thats what I've found very different about this game to others that I've played (well: 40k)… suppressing fire, supporting units. A tank on its own can't survive, but with infantry support it might.
  5. ** Maybe I was unclear, I'm firing at his combat troops, which are very close to my troops and attacking them with combat weapons. Does it seem odd to you that you can use indiscriminate weapons (Burst/Spray), or large guns (Long Toms, 8.8cm shells) when your units are immediately close by? I understand that the rules let you, but it seems a bit… odd.
  6. I'm trying to get players in my area into Dust Warfare, which is an uphill battle at times as many people are very entrenched in their favourite rule sets (Warmachine, Infinity, 40k). The game I played yesterday against a new player, him with Allies and me with Axis, brought up a point that I'm fairly certain I played right, but turned my opponent off the game. This was: Are there any restrictions on shooting at units in 'close combat'? His unit of Hammers/Rhino got into combat with my Heavy Laser Grenadiers, I survived, and in return fired my Heavy Flak Grenadiers and a nearby flamethrower into them. He said (and I agreed) that it seemed a bit odd that I could use a flamethrower on his troops, which were standing behind my own troops, and not hit my own guys. I didn't know how to respond to this… A few more little questions arose: 1) Cover and Armour reduces Damage, not Hits, correct? (ie, 3 1/3 hits causes 9 damage, which he then reduces using cover and saves) 2) Can you use a Take Action - Attack Order to split fire, and thus put suppression on multiple units without provoking reactions? 3) Heavy Flak grenadiers seem to provide a nearly identical role to Heavy Recon Grenadiers, but better and at a lower cost. (less dice against I2 compensated for by ability to Burst and dice against A3, in the rare case that you actually need more anti-I2 firepower. Similarly Battle/Recon grenadiers seem to trump Laser Grenadiers. Not really rules question, but do other people find this?
  7. If it said, "The Hero may move 6" as though he had taken a Move Action." I'd be with you 100%. But it starts by saying… "The Hero immediately takes a Move action." Which by very definition, is a Take Action order, IMO. I'm not sticking to it just for argument's sake, as I have no ego about being wrong, and I freely admit it when I am. This is where I disagree. The hero is executing an "Army of One" order, which by virtue of being an "Army of One" order is NOT a "Take Action" order. The two allow you to do similar things, but they are not the same. As far as the rules read, an Order only adds a Reaction Marker to a unit when the Order explicitly says so. Let's look at the two orders which have Reaction Marker rules exceptions: Blitzkrieg has nearly identical text as An Army of One when dealing with the unit/hero move… "The ordered unit takes a single Move action" but is followed by this sentence, "The unit does not gain a Reaction marker when given a “Blitzkrieg!” Order like it would when given a “Take Action” Order." Now, look at how the Smoke Screen Order reads… "This Order is not a “Take Action” Order and does not add a Reaction marker to the Command Section." To me, these statements are redundant description/clarification. They could say "This Order is not a Pavlova and does not add a reaction marker…" A.) State in the Command Phase rules, "All Orders cause a Reaction Marker unless specifically stated otherwise." Or B.) Include text in every Special Order stating they do or they don't. They pretty much already do. Every Order which adds a reaction marker explicitly states 'Add a reaction marker", and therefore any order which doesn't explicitly state this does not add a reaction marker. Simple! EDIT: My god, this forum software is terrible. Down with Asp. Quoted bits put in B/I to differentiate.
  8. -- Just to clarify: I'm genuinely interested in whether other people find this a problem/to what extent, and/or if it can be overcome by using various tactics. The principal issue is that in the last few demo games I've run, one player has won initiative for nearly the entire game and used this advantage to win significantly, to the extent where both players remarked that it seemed unfair. This is hampering me from getting more people playing, and I do want to fix that.
  9. Shadow4ce said: I followed your logic (albeit situational how much I agree with all of it - as the reacting player doesn't have to issue orders, and if I'm that player and my opponent doesn't issue any, I usually don't either unless I need to suppress something, like say jump troops which I can't react to their movement anyway), until your last sentence. I have know idea what you're talking about there, as reaction markers aren't removed until after both players' Unit Phases are complete. You're right, I misspoke. But there is a much much lower penalty for the initiating player to react at the bottom of the unit phase, than for the responding player to react at the top of the unit phase. For the initiating player to react, this only stops him from reacting again later (and often he won't have an opportunity to react anyway, so it's no loss at all). For the responding player to react, this lessens his actions in the unit phase. When you're the responding player, and you don't issue orders in the command phase, how do you overcome the advantage that the initiating player gets in being able to possibly take 2 actions and a reaction per turn?
  10. The way we found it working is that the initiating player was in a very good position most of the time to do both actions and a reaction. If the reacting player took full advantage of all his commands, the best he could hope to do was to put suppression markers on a handful of units, and end up with a lot of reaction markers. The initiating player could take very few commands, attempt to shake suppression, and act with impunity as most enemy units already have reaction. The reacting player then has suppression and reaction on many units. Even if their units shake suppression, the initiating player can still react with no penalty as reaction markers are then immediately removed.
  11. I've been trying to get other people at my game club into Dust Warfare. I have both the original and the revised core sets and a few extras, so quite a few models, and I've played about 10 games of it so far. One thing that has been coming up that has been turning people off is the incredible advantage of going first, especially multiple times in a row. I understand that the idea is that the reacting player uses his extra commands to remove/place suppression, but in the games that I've been playing the ranges involved have been such that the reacting player generally has very little in range to do this. Short range units like the BBQ squad seem especially disadvantaged by this. The last three games I won initiative every single turn, even when rolling 6 dice to 1, which led to me slaughtering my opponents. Obviously everyone else is subject to the same phenomenon. How do you counter it so that the reacting player has a fighting chance? What kind of strategies can I use or teach to overcome going second?
  12. I've removed the tokens from the rulebook pages and put them on a single, slightly more printer-friendly page. This will provide enough tokens for 5 units, one hero and one vehicle on a single printer page, as well as fortification markers. Additionally, I've provided a recoloured pages so that the Reaction markers are blue, rather than red - in the games I've been playing we've used blue/red for reaction/suppression as this is easy to tell from a distance. the tokens are sized to be exactly 1". The pages are in jpeg form, but there are also .xcf (gimp) documents if someone wants to further improve them. GDrive: https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B68sF-FpNewFRGtVTnh3eUJyczA/edit
  13. I've played only a few games of DW so far, and ran into a question last night that I couldn't see the direct answer to: Are units affected by suppression gained during their activation? For example: a unit executes a MOVE-SHOOT action, and the move provokes a SHOOT reaction. The reaction scores some hits and a suppression marker is placed. Can the activating unit still execute their SHOOT action? A slightly different, but similar situation: a unit with a reaction marker executes a MOVE action, which provokes a SHOOT reaction at the beginning of the move. The reaction scores hits, places a suppression marker. Can the unit still perform its MOVE action?
  14. Thanks so much for making these! I'm going to go get them all professionally printed and laminated this week. I've made up an image for the reverse of the cards. My photoshop-fu is weak (well, GIMP-fu) but please feel free use it yourself or give suggestions for improvement Link to dropbox: javascript:void(0);/*1341197494409*/ EDIT: severely disliking this forum software. How can I preview an image from dropbox?
×
×
  • Create New...