Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
moffmalthus

Dust Tactics 2nd Edition this year!!

84 posts in this topic

Major Mishap said:

Don't think a Pass Acivation is the way to go, I certainly wouldn't be pleased  if I were disadvantaged just because I was winning a game.  Also the balance would swing in favour to the guy with the high cost units.  Best bet is just not to play with a guy who cheeses out his army with spotters if you don't like it or agree to restrictions like 1 spotter be artillery piece and no artillery, no spotters.

i was thinking the same thing about the 1 spotter per artillery, but was thinking 2 per artillery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Major Mishap said:

Don't think a Pass Acivation is the way to go, I certainly wouldn't be pleased  if I were disadvantaged just because I was winning a game.  Also the balance would swing in favour to the guy with the high cost units.  Best bet is just not to play with a guy who cheeses out his army with spotters if you don't like it or agree to restrictions like 1 spotter be artillery piece and no artillery, no spotters.

 

Unfortunately, choosing to not play against someone really isn't an option if you're in a tournament.

 

If FFG wants to have a viable tournament scene for Dust Tactics, they really need to ensure that certain army builds don't give you huge advantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Major Mishap said:

Don't think a Pass Acivation is the way to go, I certainly wouldn't be pleased  if I were disadvantaged just because I was winning a game.  Also the balance would swing in favour to the guy with the high cost units.  Best bet is just not to play with a guy who cheeses out his army with spotters if you don't like it or agree to restrictions like 1 spotter be artillery piece and no artillery, no spotters.

Is the other player being able to pass an activation really such the disadvantage?  I don't see it.  Especially if they can't use it at the start of the turn, or twice in a row.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

xBeakeRx said:

Major Mishap said:

 

Don't think a Pass Acivation is the way to go, I certainly wouldn't be pleased  if I were disadvantaged just because I was winning a game.  Also the balance would swing in favour to the guy with the high cost units.  Best bet is just not to play with a guy who cheeses out his army with spotters if you don't like it or agree to restrictions like 1 spotter be artillery piece and no artillery, no spotters.

 

 

i was thinking the same thing about the 1 spotter per artillery, but was thinking 2 per artillery. 

xBeakeRx said:

Major Mishap said:

 

Don't think a Pass Acivation is the way to go, I certainly wouldn't be pleased  if I were disadvantaged just because I was winning a game.  Also the balance would swing in favour to the guy with the high cost units.  Best bet is just not to play with a guy who cheeses out his army with spotters if you don't like it or agree to restrictions like 1 spotter be artillery piece and no artillery, no spotters.

 

 

i was thinking the same thing about the 1 spotter per artillery, but was thinking 2 per artillery. 

Sorry, mean't to type 2 spotters per art :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats exactly true. If you go to a tourney and see your opponent has loaded up on spotters you can't just say "no I'll pass on this fight".  Kriegschatten I 100% agree with you about the tourney system. If they want it to grow better they will need to fix certain things. Or every tourney winner will be heavy on spotters and cheap infantry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fhaugh said:

Major Mishap said:

 

Don't think a Pass Acivation is the way to go, I certainly wouldn't be pleased  if I were disadvantaged just because I was winning a game.  Also the balance would swing in favour to the guy with the high cost units.  Best bet is just not to play with a guy who cheeses out his army with spotters if you don't like it or agree to restrictions like 1 spotter be artillery piece and no artillery, no spotters.

 

 

Is the other player being able to pass an activation really such the disadvantage?  I don't see it.  Especially if they can't use it at the start of the turn, or twice in a row.

fhaugh said:

Major Mishap said:

 

Don't think a Pass Acivation is the way to go, I certainly wouldn't be pleased  if I were disadvantaged just because I was winning a game.  Also the balance would swing in favour to the guy with the high cost units.  Best bet is just not to play with a guy who cheeses out his army with spotters if you don't like it or agree to restrictions like 1 spotter be artillery piece and no artillery, no spotters.

 

 

Is the other player being able to pass an activation really such the disadvantage?  I don't see it.  Especially if they can't use it at the start of the turn, or twice in a row.

Yes, its a big disadvantage.  Instead of forcing a unit to activate, maybe it has to move out into the open or range to shoot.  If it passes then it can sit there and force the opponant to move, the other player could sustain fire in cover instead of moving to shoot or doing nothing.  If you can pass, then you might go last meaning that the unit won't get shot at that turn - very important if walkers are facing each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are getting pass cards it means you outnumber them.  If they pass when you were hoping they would have to move a unit into your walkers range, activate a different unit than the walker.  You have more than that one unit availible.  I believe that pass cards would create a more "simultanous combat" enviroment.  Also, if you are losing units, you are already at a disadvantage.  Eliminating the activation difference would help keep the game balanced until the final turn.  As it is now, if your opponent gets one lucky turn, you will be unlikely to recover.  Out-gunned AND out-activated means you had better get real lucky, or hope your opponent does something real stupid.

I originally said you would get pass cards to keep the activation even, but that was mostly to keep things simple.  I do understand some of the objections people have brought up.  Personally I would play it as "Pass cards equals the difference in units minus one."  So if you have 5 and they have 7, you would only get one pass card.  It would prevent the "hordes of cheap units" armies, but not "punish" whoever is winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my limited (no tournaments yet), out activating the opponent means being able to avoid dealing with reactions when you have an unfavorable LoS or move to make. Activate a half dozen observers, and boom, his Rattler can't do anything about the Hammers landing next to it.

 

If I could instead declare, no, my Rattler is going to spend its two actions to "Overwatch" and then just wait for an opportunity to react, that wouldn't be such an issue.

 

And yes fhaugh, I read your idea, I think your solution might be more layers than the game needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I originally liked the idea of overwatch, but it seemed to get shot down so quick, I tried to think of something else to solve this problem.  I'd be happy if they  used either idea, but I think both would be too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think limiting the number of spotters you can take at a ratio of 2:1 to artillery units is a simple way to fix the problem.  Until they fix the points cost of Recon Grenadiers they will continue to be a problem, but at least this would fix the spotter spam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

xBeakeRx said:

I think limiting the number of spotters you can take at a ratio of 2:1 to artillery units is a simple way to fix the problem.  Until they fix the points cost of Recon Grenadiers they will continue to be a problem, but at least this would fix the spotter spam.

Unfortunately, we now have the cheap Type 1 infantry for the Allies to deal with, too. 

For 150 points you could have 10 units of Leathernecks and their infinite range, cover-ignoring, insta-reload, All-in-One artillery spamming the battlefield.  And since each Leatherneck unit could have 2 observer units under your proposed rules…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me about it! I've been unable to access the dust tactics forums most of the day. This seems to be a regular problem with the FFG page as a whole. As far as Leathernecks go I def think we will see some tourney armies with 10 leatherneck units paired with 10 spotters and then another 100 points to spare for walkers or whatever else. Should be an interesting season…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kriegschatten said:

xBeakeRx said:

 

I think limiting the number of spotters you can take at a ratio of 2:1 to artillery units is a simple way to fix the problem.  Until they fix the points cost of Recon Grenadiers they will continue to be a problem, but at least this would fix the spotter spam.

 

 

Unfortunately, we now have the cheap Type 1 infantry for the Allies to deal with, too. 

For 150 points you could have 10 units of Leathernecks and their infinite range, cover-ignoring, insta-reload, All-in-One artillery spamming the battlefield.  And since each Leatherneck unit could have 2 observer units under your proposed rules…

Right, and if that's what someone wants to do, then so be it.  At least in that scenario the spotters serve a purpose outside of just creating additional activations.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Major Mishap said:

One question, do people really spend $100's on just one unit type, just to win a game?

Have you ever played WH40k?  People will buy entirely new armies in order to get an advantage to win, that's just the essence of the power-gamer.  Watch a 40k tournament and you'll see a majority of the players playing slight variations of a few particular armies.

The problem with an extreme list like 10 leathernecks + 10 spotters, is it will do very well against certain armies, and get crushed by others.  It just depends on who you get matched up against that will determine their fate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen people spend thousands of dollars for 40k armies just so they can win tourney's. It's complete maddness and that's why I got out of the 40k hobby. And it's only 100 dollars for a premium model. I paint my own and you can get the command vehicle on amazon for under $40.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, and that's why I'm sure we'll see some "Leatherneck Spam" at the regional qualifiers this year.  I'm considering just taking a Mao Zedong and Lavrentiy Beria with some cheap infantry and saying "come get me!"  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 Leathernecks

10 Spotter squads

4 Wildfires

24 unit activations, Leathernecks just pound everything from behind cover while the Wildfires provide protection from air attacks.  GG!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless these are not balanced lists. You would be annihilated by half your opponents. Even with wildfires (which are lets face it very squishey). Still. I could see someone taking 4 or 5 heavy weapons teams and making it very difficult for your opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dakkon426 said:

Yes, All of the weapons teams we've seen so far are fairly cheap for what they do.

 

Which is kind of frustrating to see because, from what I remember, AT-43 had the exact same problem.

 

Rackham made it possible to fill out army lists with cheap heavy weapon squads and tons of people started to pad out their activations with them.  Because, why wouldn't you, if given the chance?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0