Just joined up after picking up a box of Dust Tactics at my local games store the other day and must say am really loving the game. Really easy to pick up and quite tactical once you start playing through the scenarios. Was talking through with a few of the guys I play with though and thought up some more advanced rules for the game and wanted to get some wider feedback on the ideas we had.

1. Armour Facing on 'bots

Front armour - re-roll hits

Side armour - roll as normal

Rear armour - re-roll misses

Allows for postioning of bots and adds a bit more tactical play to the game.

2. Hull Mounted vs Turret/Pintle Mounted Weapons

Hull weapons have a 45 degree front arc. This also includes weapons that are fixed to front or side of 'bots. Turret/Pintle Weapons have a 360 degree arc of fire.

3. Flamethrowers

Ignores soft and hard cover

Romanus said:

1) no thank you , this is not WH40K , and the game has plenty of tactical options for me and mine . additionaly , with the limited range of infantry weapons , longer range of walker mounted weapons , and the limited number of weapons that can actually damage a vehicle , it lends itself to much to potential abuse , especially if a player chooses not to take infantry , they can just back them selves up to an obsticle and take advantage of not exposing their rear armor .

2) no thank you , this is not WH40K .

3) they already ignore cover , page 21 .

1. is a reasonable and realistic idea but I feel that this would lead to less maneuvering and not more to ensue your bot doesn't get flanked and your infantry will be really screwed. Don't really agree with Kris' comment about backing up to a wall though as most scenarios force you to move to certain locations. I was thinking of something alongt he same lines but with a simple -1 to armour value for flank/rear attacks.

2. would only effect the allied walkers and tanks and I don't think we have actually had walker firing out of their flanks after 2 campaigns. I'll probably use this rule when I get my tanks out of the loft but not for walkers.

3. as Kris say's, this is the rule anyway.

Thanks for taking the time to share your ideas mate, but you might find that making robots harder to damage will hamper your enjoyment of the game somewhat.

We played scenario 3 two nights ago and my opponent took 2 Ludwigs. I wasn't unduly worried at first, but then I hadn't faced multiples of the same robot in a game before. It may seem that robots are easy to dispose of from the early scenarios just using the box set minis, but once you start adding more of them, their threat capability drastically increases!

It sounds to me like these rules suggestions are very similar to warmachine and hordes with arcs and model facings. Don't be too downhearted by the response mate and keep on sharing your ideas.

Red

1. I think adding armor facing is a good idea. but instead of adding re-rolls for the different sides it would be better to just add a bonus when shooting walkers from the rear. IMHO if you add armor facing to walkers, less maneuvering would only happen if the game is played with nine tiles, but it would present more tactical options when you start playing with more tiles, where you have more room to perform flanking maneuvers.

2. If you add rules for facing, definitely you'll have to consider tweaking the rules for the MGs. I guess only the .30cal needs revision.

3. It already does.

I think its written somewhere in the battle book that Dust Tactics is your game and your free to change the rules if you don't like them or in your case, you find something lacking. As long as you remember to keep it fair and fun. So I guess you're on the right track. he he he.

Oh, while your at it, consider revising the rules for the Ludwig as well. Two 88's firing together should be waaaay more than 7/1 when shooting a vehicle target with 4 armor.

Have Fun Making War.

John

It sounds really good. But.......

I can see players agrueing over how the mini is facing, and over small angles and dangles. I been there and played too many armor games where that has happened. So, I rather not go there. But, if you have a good group of fellows that can play well together, I say HAVE AT IT!

The Weary Warrior said:

That shouldn't be a problem with the grid system though, pretty much the same rule as LOS or in cover.

Major Mishap said:

believe me , i have played board games that used grids and LOS , it still happens . the new issue becomes not players who scootch their minis more than their aloted move to just get in range , it becomes " no , its facing THIS way , not THAT way " despite the direction their model is actually facing .

i have seen players claim their models face the direction their head is looking , and then later claim they face the way their guns are pointing , and later still , its the direction they are running , or SOME HOW their figures keep ending up facing kinda diagonaly , so that when they activate them or need an armor value , or weapons arc , they claim they were facing X direction .

the suggestion about increasing the armor values rather than the dice option , some weapons dont really change stats for armor attacks , such as the napalm thrower , the bazooka , the panzerfaust , etc ......... so it wouldnt really change the results of the attacks .

and jochen , are you suggesting the twin 88's isnt enough of a problem already ? the piece is made to fit the game . i rationalise it in the weight and recoil of the 88 being sufficient that it cant fire both each turn and represents a larger amount of ammo to draw on , so the stats are for one shot a turn .

GrandInquisitorKris said:

The suggestion was intended as a joke.

Regarding the facing of walkers, I think you could just use two; the front - all squares to its' side and front of it, and the all the squares behind it would be its' rear. But for this to work I think you should also add a rule that a walker should always end its movement or attack facing one side of the square that it is on.

I'm lucky I don't have players like that Kris, lets call them what they are - cheats. When I was a playtester I was once told that designers write their rules which include everything, but then the art is to remove the rules that you don't need. I don't think DT needs any more detailed rules and is fine the way it is.

Major Mishap said:

ya , but the sad thing is that groups allow them to keep doing it . so being the one person who says NO , doesnt solve the problem