No point posting here Ark anyway, no official reads or responds to these forums.

But as to your deploying in center question, scenario 2 Ambush scenario has different wording on deploying. The defender starts deployed and like in most scenario's the attacker moves onto the table, sorry don't have scenario book with me to get exact quote. I don't know the Descent scenario, is the deployment described differently in that to? If not then it will follow the normal 'come on table' deployment rules, guessing by the scenario title these troops are air-dropped? If so then normal deployment rules make sense.

Major Mishap said:

again , its not different :

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/571969/enter-vs-deploy

i would like to point out that the people who created the game DONT speak english as their first language , so there were bound to be some issues in translation .

FFG has not said or posted any changes to the rules that DG (Dust Games) came up with when they made this game . there for i choose to accept the word of one of the game crreators as opposed to just argueing a point that they have already clarified .

as you said MM , FFG hasnt answered any questions or participated , over on BGG , from time to time the game creators DO , and in this case did . they dont work for FFG , the contracts seem to spell out what is what for who , so DG has no reason to come on here and reply .

AA's comment that profiles mean nothing , that some one can come on a site and make a profile that says what ever is a double edged sword . the same thing could be said if some one came on HERE and made a profile saying they work for FFG , granted , it would eventually be killed when it was found out that they were not legit , but zamfiriscues profile is over a year old , and his participation in the last year has earned him the recognition that his profile IS legit .

FlorisH said:

I completely understand about the translation issue and can see both your point and Arkangel's, but I think it might be a good idea to include this clarification in the FAQ for those of us who don't frequent board game geek.

I have to be honest and say that while I was totally confused by the use of the word 'deploy' (being a big Incursion player) my group opted to use the normal rules for entering the board during patrol and found that it simulated patrolling units coming into view of the ambushers in drips and drabs.

I have played in tournaments for a long time now and this will require some kind of official ruling to prevent bloodshed of some description at events. Sadly, the majority of wargame tournament players have to put up with the occasional bum-hole who will argue semantics at the cost of having a fun game. I think that's what Arkangel wants to avoid at Dust tournaments.

The whole issue makes a lot of sense when you consider that the designers' first language is something other than English, but it could have been worse. I refer - in particular - to an incident where I told a Parisian waiter that I wanted a drill with cream for desert, (Une fraise = strawberries, or dentist's drill).

I won't tell you what I called his mother while I was trying to thank him...

I take it that the guy on BGG is a writer of the rules then? If so, he's a bit of a numpty for changing the set up description anyway, why would anybody do that regardless of language barriers? So yes, it needs to be on an official errata as deploy on and arrive on are two different things.

Major Mishap said:

oliver zamfirescu , top of page 2 of the rule book as " cammander in chief " .

its not necessarily that they changed it , but when you write a rule set for another language , its not always apparent that there is a problem that was lost in translation when you consider that some words have similar meanings , and multiple meanings . nowhere in the rules does it EVER say that one player sets up ALL his forces before another , though from the word deploy , you could confer that idea based on other games out there atht do things that way , how ever it could also be confered based on other sections of the rules that only one unit "deploys" at a time , which is how it works normaly in line with the rules , OR that deployment zones are simply whaer you can choose to set up .

and from my own experience , writing house rules like the airplane rules and such , even if you read it 10 times , you may miss an issue of wordage because when YOU read it , you ALREADY understood what you were talking about . its a bit more af a challange to make it so EVRY reader knows what you are thinking . then add in doing it in another language .

i dont deny that it should be in the official erratta , but as that BGG thread shows , this qusetion was already being asked in OCTOBER of last year along with other threads with rules questions that got answered over there , in some cases by players who knew where something was in the rules , and in a few cases by DG staff. the lack of response by FFG , or any official FAQ or errata means we are all we have here on this site .

unfortunatly , FFG and DG dont seem that close , so its kinda like dealing with divorced parents when you have a question .

I've had a read of the scenarios and have played some with the 'deploy here' set up and will continue to play as written in the book and deploy any force that the rules tell you to. Playing it any other way just doesn't make sense, how can a unit enter the board thats not on a table edge, its just not right.

For example the second scenario Ambush, does it not make sense as its an ambush, thats what you do to the defender? If you play with the defender moving on its just another kill all battle. Has anybody contacted and received a reply at all?

we see it as kind of a 'fog of war' effect. you know the force is on the board, just not sure they're positioning. it was always clear for us when we read the rulebook because of page 16.

Major Mishap said:

I kind of see what you're saying, but like I wrote about the Defender deployment in patrol, the attackers would have a general idea of which units are where on the patrol route, but nothing specific. The deployment of defending units one at a time simulates the fact that attackers cannot possibly know the 'exact' layout of their enemy's deployment, only where they will deploy.

Similarly, the lift mission. The defenders know for a fact that their opponents are descending on the lift platform, but don't know much more than that. They can only guess about their exact deployment on the platform.

Does that make sense to anyone else?

While I was originally confused by the wording of 'deploy' and 'enter', I have no problem whatsoever with deploying as normal in the patrol and ambush scenarios.

Major Mishap said:

i havent contacted DG , as i accept the BGG post as legit from one of the game creators , but you can always be the first to ask the company its self .............. though you may not like the answer

O'h I don't mind the answer either way, a reply would be a bonus though Sent off email this morning.

My responses over you guys posts.

"i would like to point out that the people who created the game DONT speak english as their first language , so there were bound to be some issues in translation ."
This is why publishing companies hire editors whether it is for books or for games.

"I completely understand about the translation issue and can see both your point and Arkangel's, but I think it might be a good idea to include this clarification in the FAQ for those of us who don't frequent board game geek."
That is what I have been trying to say the whole time. Either FFG or Dust Games needs to make one.

"I have played in tournaments for a long time now and this will require some kind of official ruling to prevent bloodshed of some description at events. Sadly, the majority of wargame tournament players have to put up with the occasional bum-hole who will argue semantics at the cost of having a fun game. I think that's what Arkangel wants to avoid at Dust tournaments."
This is what I am trying to prevent b/c I know as soon as a 40k player steps into this game they are gonna argue.

"Its not necessarily that they changed it , but when you write a rule set for another language , its not always apparent that there is a problem that was lost in translation when you consider that some words have similar meanings , and multiple meanings . nowhere in the rules does it EVER say that one player sets up ALL his forces before another , though from the word deploy , you could confer that idea based on other games out there atht do things that way , how ever it could also be confered based on other sections of the rules that only one unit "deploys" at a time , which is how it works normaly in line with the rules , OR that deployment zones are simply whaer you can choose to set up ."
If I wrote that they should always enter I would have wrote the same word over and over again so enter would be enter in no matter what language its translated to. I got a hold of a French copy of the rule and even in that the wording is different. Does anyone have it in Italian or some other language?

There is a new mission in operation cyclone thats worded completely different to simulated an ambush. One army deploys then the other. If there pg 16 rules are in affect then how do you work that one out?

[ "i would like to point out that the people who created the game DONT speak english as their first language , so there were bound to be some issues in translation ."
This is why publishing companies hire editors whether it is for books or for games."

who likewaise have to deal with translating the documents ,

"I completely understand about the translation issue and can see both your point and Arkangel's, but I think it might be a good idea to include this clarification in the FAQ for those of us who don't frequent board game geek."
That is what I have been trying to say the whole time. Either FFG or Dust Games needs to make one."

which sadly FFG doesnt seem to be interested in dealing with any time soon . and DG doesnt have any reason to gothrough the trouble of since FFG has all the rights to this . if the contract were different so that DG could still produce official game units for the game , i am sure they would have a stake in it , but they dont . we are lucky that they answer questions , and the occasional nuggets form ZAM on BGG . i dont deny your point that it needs to be put in an FAQ , just that untill some one gets around to doing so , we have to use what we got , and what we got is not here on this site .

"I have played in tournaments for a long time now and this will require some kind of official ruling to prevent bloodshed of some description at events. Sadly, the majority of wargame tournament players have to put up with the occasional bum-hole who will argue semantics at the cost of having a fun game. I think that's what Arkangel wants to avoid at Dust tournaments."
This is what I am trying to prevent b/c I know as soon as a 40k player steps into this game they are gonna argue."

actually , there are plnty of 40K players getting into this , and i dont think rules lawyers are strictly confined JUSt to the GW player base . most people have been willing to accept the BGG ruling , or just ask for an answer from DG .

"Its not necessarily that they changed it , but when you write a rule set for another language , its not always apparent that there is a problem that was lost in translation when you consider that some words have similar meanings , and multiple meanings . nowhere in the rules does it EVER say that one player sets up ALL his forces before another , though from the word deploy , you could confer that idea based on other games out there atht do things that way , how ever it could also be confered based on other sections of the rules that only one unit "deploys" at a time , which is how it works normaly in line with the rules , OR that deployment zones are simply whaer you can choose to set up ."
If I wrote that they should always enter I would have wrote the same word over and over again so enter would be enter in no matter what language its translated to. I got a hold of a French copy of the rule and even in that the wording is different. Does anyone have it in Italian or some other language?

which goes back to the chicken and the egg . if one translated version was made first , then translated over and over again from that one , the error could go on in most .

There is a new mission in operation cyclone thats worded completely different to simulated an ambush. One army deploys then the other. If there pg 16 rules are in affect then how do you work that one out?

unfortunatly i cant afford the $60 in printer cartriges , and havent copied them at the local kinkos , and since the PDF doesnt have the scenarios , i dont have a "home" copy of the opcyclone rules . but i would play it as normal . something this game is that many others are not , is fair . and even with the normal enter/deploy ruoles as written in the rule book , you can still have a "ambush " based on how the board is set up . and despite the mission being to ambush the opposing player , it needs to be understood that its all part of a story , and that fluff and game play are 2 seperate tings since the fluff doesnt rely on rules to tell the story , and the story , rarely depicts what really happens .

i have been working on putting together some special scenarios for day long special events , and one of the things i have l;ooked at is ambush type scenarios . i have looked at and testplayed a number of differnt ideas , and found that the rules as written work best to keep it as a game , and not just turn it into a blood bath for the defender . the rules as written work just fine , and it can still be a fun to play and greatly bloody ambush just based on how the board is set up , and WHERE the defender gets to set his forces up .

Yea I completely agree with your. So I messaged Dust Games themselves to see what they say if they dont answer then I'll message Oliver himself. I also want to make my own FAQ if no one is taking the initiative to do it kind of like the ones the 40k players use for the adepticon and other cons the INAT FAQ. It's a suggestion of FAQ rulings nothing official so TOs and players can use this until the games maker makes a ruling.

arkangl said:

I've been a 40K player for 20 years now and while I agree that a number of the player base can be very circumspect in their interpretation of fair play, the worst gaming community for out and out exploitation of army lists and rules is Warmachine/Hordes, which is one of my favourite games.

What I love about Dust Tactics is that it's not possible to cheat in the same way due to the method of range calculation. Like warmahordes, what I particularly like about Dust tactics is that unit stats are on a card in front of you for all to see.

I know you don't mean any offense, but some 40K players could become annoyed by being used as a metaphor for the wargaming bad guy. I myself have always striven to play fairly in all my games, but especially 40K which was the one that got me into the hobby.

I'm not having a dig at you mate. That's not what I'm about at all. I rarely offer my criticism on forums, but you're a good bloke and you do a hell of a lot for this fledgling community with your excellent blog.

I just don't think we should base our enjoyment of this game on slagging off ones that other people enjoy and have enjoyed for a number of years.

Red

Thought you'd like to know I got this response about deployment:

Hi Dave,

You recently asked a question about the FFG board game Dust Tactics. Here is the answer:

Using the word "deploy" was an error, and the correct word should be "enter." In other words, this scenario is just like any other where you enter the battlefield.

Thank you for your interest in Dust Tactics. I hope this answer has resolved your question. Enjoy the game!

Steve Kimball
Associate Game Producer
Fantasy Flight Games

So, all cleared up

This discussion reminds me of playing a few weeks ago where I had to explain for 20 minutes why a hero can suck up damage for a squad done by a flame thrower. Trying to explain to the person that the damage is done the squad as a whole, not the individual members of the squad and because the hero is part of the squad they can absorb some of the damage (if not all of it).

After 20 minutes of trying to convince the person and even showing them the rules in the rule book, as well as the rules for snipers (being able to select members of a squad for damage), I had thought I had explained it well enough. The following week the same person still brought up the same argument claiming they couldn't understand the rule.

I guess some people have a problem understanding the context of a rule within the larger rule set.

Different topic from the question / responses above:

Does a unit with the Spotter rule (ie. Sniper Teams) confer this onto any hero that joins the squad?

Example: Would Rosie's Bazooka hit on 'blanks' instead of 'hits' if she joined the Sniper Team?

If so, that'd be awesome, able to 1-shot the starting box walkers 2 / 3 of the time.

yes , it says the unit has the ability as long as the spotter is alive , and any ability that effects a hero effects a squad , and vise versa .

but unless you only play the same oppoinent every single game , and its some one who just doesnt "get it " , rosie is better served running in a bot hunting squad . sure , she may not get the same odds , but she is kinda fragile in that she is to short ranged , and only really has the bazooka and a weak knife attack .

having her in a bot hunting squad gives you 3 expendable troops that you can afford to lose and still have 3 bazookas , so the squad can take 6 damage , and still be a real threat to tanks , having 3 bazookas . in the sniper squad , once the unit has taken 5 damage , she is all alone .

your strategy , only really would work on small boards , and even then , its very iffy . any thing larger than 3X3 , and your opponent has plenty of space to maneuver to take the sniper team on with infantry up close , or vehicles at longer rnages .

but after having played snipers , i do admit they need a hero in the squad just to actually last long enough to get into the fight , because of the short range of the sniper rifle . for the americans , ATM , bazooka joe is a better idea , not to benifit joe , but to benifit the sniper squad since they are fire magnets , and putting a hero in a sniper team only draws MORE fire if the hero has an offensive weapon or ability like rosies bazooka ..

- Heavy walkers are lumbering beasts, as they should be. They need to perform MOVE+MOVE in order to fully deploy onto the board, and moving around cluttered terrain will be a hassle. Attack LOS is thankfully quite simple.

What if the deployment zone is two full tiles, basically 18 squares, does a big walker still have it do a MOVE + MOVE to enter the board. Or one MOVE to enter on to four squares and second ACTION to ether ATTACK or MOVE? Can a large walker ever deploy an ATTACK?

Yeah, I suppose if the deployment zone is not just a line at the edge of the board, but a large area inside it (say, like SeeLowe 3), then you can fully deploy a heavy walker with just the first action, and use the second one to attack.

Yeah i suppose doesnt really go along with the Operation Cerberus wording below on Heavy Mechs though? This why its very confusing, wish they would state only apply's to single line deployment zones.

Entering the Battlefield
Like any other unit, large vehicles must use a MOVE action to enter the battlefield. Until
they are completely on the battlefield, large vehicles cannot perform any actions other
than the MOVE action, and cannot be targeted by an attack. Because of their size, some
large vehicles cannot fully enter the battlefield with a single move action. These units
must perform a second MOVE action to enter the battlefield.

Well, they kinda clear the issue then muddle it up again in the same sentence.

"Until they are completely on the battlefield, large vehicles cannot perform any actions other than the MOVE action" - This sentence explains everything. They can't do anything else until they are fully inside the board. In case of a wide area of deployment, they would be completely on the battlefield with their first move, in case of a linear deployment zone at the edge of the map, it would take another move to fully enter the board.

"These units must perform a second MOVE action to enter the battlefield." - This sentence tries to muddle things up, so it's better to just ignore it.

You need to read the whole rule in context though and not just highlight one line from it. If a mech can't deploy in one action then it has to use both, thats all there is to it really.

Just to clarify I wasn't highlighting that part, its how the rulebooks shows it. They highlight that part in the Cerberus Rules, like I said it would of been way more clear if they just would of said it only applys to single line deployment zones. But yes I get that's what they where referring too. Thanks

Just so everyone knows I got a response back from Fantasy Flight Games and the heavy walkers must perform a Move+Move to enter the board from any deployment zone. see below

Heavy Walkers must always perform two MOVE actions when deploying on the board, no matter where, or how large, the deployment zone is.

I hope this has answered your question. Happy gaming!

Christopher Hosch
Associate Game Producer
Fantasy Flight Games
[email protected]