Just recently added DUST TACTICS to my collection and so far we've quite enjoyed it. However, there is one thing for which I'm looking for clarification - several posts here on the forums state that a unit can use multiple weapons in an attack. The rules specifically state that each expendable weapon must be fired by a separate miniature; i.e. a squad with 3 mini's left cannot throw all 5 demo charges in one go... something that makes perfect sense. But the rules ALSO imply that same squad can, in a single action do ALL of the following:

• fire its primary weapons (i.e. the weapons carried by the mini's)
• fire as many single use weapons as it has squad members
• use its close combat weapons in melee

Is that interpretation correct? If so, it certainly seems odd. A squad with 4 rifles at range 4 can only attack 1 target per mini in the same amount of time that, say, a Battle Grenadier squad that is 1 square from 2 infantry squads and a walker can fire it's 'fausts at the walker, then, with attack with each mini's small arms at one (or both) adjacent squads and then close assault them with the bayonet and do all that in the same time that each of the Ranger riflemen can fire their weapons a single time (with the proviso that all the attacks are properly declared.) Wouldn't it make more sense that each model can attack *once* per SHOOT phase with whichever single weapon it chose to employ whether it be with a one use weapon like a 'faust or UGL, or with their primary weapon or in close assault?

Weasel6 said:

Your interpretation is correct. It is a very bloody game. As long as the player declares it may:

•fire its primary weapons (i.e. the weapons carried by the mini's)
•fire as many single use weapons as it has squad members
•use its close combat weapons in melee

Heh, I understand and approve of the bloody nature of the game, but it just seems a bit nonsensical to me that a trooper can attack three times in a combat action as long as they are careful to use three different weapons while an identical trooper who does NOT have to take the time or effort to switch between weapons can only attack once... and no, I'm not pushing for multiple rifle attacks, merely pointing out how odd the rule seems to me in the context of a game turn.

Yup it is odd, its aso odd that a geman mech with 1 crew can fire main gun, pop out of the turret to fire the MG and then duck down inside, drive up to an enemy and hit it with its pincers - you soon get used to it though Of course you could always try it out th at 1 man fires 1 weapon only, but I think the overall effect will be to just make the game last a little longer.

LOL - true... and I'm not arguing for "realism" in a game that has drug-enhanced combat apes, zombies, aliens and mecha ... though I'd point out that the fluff mentions that the german MG on the mecha is remotely operated like the current CROW/Remote Weapon System turrets. If I was arguing realism I'd point out that the poor sod lugging the flamethrower (and those predate even my service) probably is the furthest example possible from someone who'd be 'fast' or I'd be arguing ballistic characteristics of the British 76mm gun (the weapon on the Sherman Firefly) versus the German 88 Long. I'm more than happy to skip past those though - I have different games for that sort of thing.

In all seriousness, my "point", such as it is, is the apparent lack of internal consistency where a unit such as the BBQ squad can cover however much terrain two squares represents, fling satchel charges, fire its personal weapons and then launch a bayonet charge in the time that a unit of Recon rangers can fire their rifles one time. My concern also is for the outsized effect it has on initiative to have any one unit (not just the BBQ boys) be able to launch that many attacks in one sequence - once units close to range it's entirely possible for a single recon grenadier squad using sustained fire to easily destroy one or even two walkers (if one is previously damaged enough for a 'faust to one shot it), eliminate a squad in the open with rifle and LMG fire and then close assault to destroy a third squad... all before the loser of initiative gets to act.

It just seems to me, solely on a personal level, to make more sense that a single trooper can fire a single weapon as part of a firing phase - he can choose from any of the weapons available to the squad so he might fire a 'faust at a walker within range while the SAW gunner fires at a squad in the open and the other three members use their bayonets and grenades to flush an enemy squad out of heavy cover that would mostly ignore their rifle fire.

I'm certainly not saying that people are playing the game "wrong" (the rules irritatingly use only mecha in their examples of employing multiple weapons from a single mini- I can't find any instance where it straight out discusses an infantry squad employing more weapons than it has troops though I certainly could have missed it) and of course that could entirely be the designers intent. Our gaming group up here is likely to stick with the 'one trooper/one weapon' as a house rule but we all come from a skirmish gaming and military or history background where we're more comfortable with that idea. But obviously, folks are welcome to play and enjoy the game as they'd prefer; something the desginers are quick to point out! I'm just pitching this out there as a discussion point for folks to consider...

Don't think there are any that would disagree with you, give it a go and let us know how you get on.

Well, so far we've played the dozen or so games that way and while it has slowed it down somewhat all things are relative. Even with 2 mechs, a hero or two and three-four squads (including a command squad) per side we've still not had any games go over an hour though we've not played anything larger. It wasn't until poking through the forums for something completely unrelated that I realized that perhaps we'd read that rule differently than everyone else who plays the game!

The part that we enjoy of using this sort of mechanic is that it forces a lot of choices upon the players to determine which weapons are most important to be employed and which targets are most critical for that squad to engage. So sure, my recon grenadiers have panzerfausts, but is it more important for them to use them or leave the allied walkers to their axis counterparts and instead engage the rightfully-feared BBQ boys with their rifles in hopes of cutting down their numbers and so on. Our favorite games are ones that force players to make compromises and choices and sometimes know that there are no right answers, only wrong ones...

The very first time I played the game I misinterpreted the rules and played it with each unit only being able to attack with a single weapon line per SHOOT action.

I much prefer how I do it now....

One problem with your system, though, is some weapons would never get used. For example, you would never EVER choose to use your knives. Any other weapon you have is sure to do more damage than a knife, amd knives provoke retaliation...

Well, that's only partially true. Leaving aside the fact that bayonets are used for just about everything except stabbing people, they have one prime advantage over most of the other weapons - they ignore cover. That means bayonets/grenades can be used in their "proper" role - i,e, to winkle troops out of cover once they've been suppressed or taken some damage. Three rifles firing from range 1 have almost no chance to cause a casualty to a target in heavy cover (three shots at 33% hit will get 1 one casualty, which will be saved 66% of the time...even sustained fire statistically won't get you a kill in that situation) whereas using bayonets and grenades will inflict their hits without a chance for the cover save. You're absolutely right that it's a last resort ... which pretty much defines the only reason to use a Ka-Bar when you have nice spiffy assault rifle. Anytime five guys with knives charge five guys with automatic weapons it pretty much should be a 'bad idea'... but five guys with knives attacking one guy with a 'zook or Panzershrek cause you really need to kill him before he nukes your walker two hexes away and you don't want to risk him rolling 66% saves on every hit makes perfect sense. Like all things it is situational...

Ive thought about this and think it should be fixed in an erratta that only one weapon can be used per turn for infantry. I can almost buy that the walkers have controls that would allow them to manually fire all weapons from inside. I am also strongly thinking about not allowing weapons with ranges greater then 1 (2+) able to fire into melee/close combat after the first round. You could still use class C and Class 1 weapons after the initial fight began.

Also thinking that perhaps melee weapons should reduce cover by 1 step, so hard to soft, soft to none and GRENADES should ignore all cover.

These are just ideas, nothing I have tested yet.

Peacekeeper_b said:

1. so a guy with a bazooka isnt smart enough to shoot at the same time as the squad nor could he fknd a different target of opportunity? cant buy that one.

2. there is no 'engagement' in this game, its too abstract. i see adjacency in this game being a close quarters firefight. guys leaning behind buildings, taking pot shots, tossing grenades, a few being able to rush some strays to knife them, etc. they woild still be far enough away that another nearby squad would still be able to support them.

3. this is the only rule that has some merit so far, though it adds another thing to remember, and i love thos game for its simplistic beauty.

The fluff in the main rulebook specifically says that the MG44 on the hull is remote controlled by the driver inside, so he or she does not have to pop out and use it.

Why would you restrict weapons fire if the rules state you can use them all? I think you are assuming that assault combat, that is when everyone can use everything at once, is instant, when in fact it probably represents a horrific struggle like you see in the great war movies.

How long does a combat action take place for? A squad of men could easily use all there weapons over a 3 or 4 minute period. I would imagine that each action is 3 to 5 minutes in length, so a squad could use all their weapons quite easily.

And yes it is brutal and bloody, but that is why you try to use the terrain and tactics. They say war is hell for a reason. STOP RUNNING UP ON LUDWIGS IN THE OPEN TURN AFTER TURN!

Grand Inquisitor Fulminarex said:

And yet a squad with only one weapon can only fire it once? In 3-4 minutes? Time arguments like above never work. Yes they explain why they could fire all their weapons at once in a turn, but it doesnt explain why that soldier with the machine gun can only fire it once, yet the opposing soldier with a machine gun, a grenade launcher, a slingshot and knife can use them all at the same time.

blkdymnd said:

I can, as a bazooka isnt exactly a weapon you want to fire at someone who is "abstractly" close enough to hit with a knife. Esepcailly if said target is "abstractly" slugging it out with your allies. Sure, he may be able to fire it at another target outside of who the rest of his buddies are sligging it out with with shotguns and fists, but that is a simple use of the reactive fire rules. Squad A is in egaged with Squad B, until either squad A or Squad B spend a move action to disengage they can only use Range c or 1 weapons against each other. However, a individual in the squad may opt to attack a target of opportunity with a different weapon as long as he scores a -HIT- result on a single die. Failure to get a -HIT- results in the miniature being unable to fire at his target of opportunity or attacking at all that turn.

Grand Inquisitor Fulminarex said:

Im all for walkers and vehicles firing all their weapons in one round, just not infantry.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Your squads have slingshots? Where do you get these?

As far as a time argument and a machine gun only firing once, I think that a man firing a machine gun with 8 dice all at once is assumed to be bracing it or whatever, 8 dice is a lot of dice for one man portable weapon to shoot. The other guys are using assault rifles(2 dice) knives {and Grenades) Bazookas and their kin (2 dice). So the guy with the machine gun is using it for 8 dice, then he is using his knife for 2 dice. So the guy with the MG is actually firing more than the other guys by double. I think it is factored in there.

And Time arguments do work, unless your math is different than mine. I am not a math wizard, so I could have made a mistake in my math, so lets look it over and see:

Based on a RECON GRENADIERS SQUAD OF 5 GRENADIERS:

3 have a Panzerfaust, a STG47, and a knife/grenade= They have 6 dice if they survive

1 had a MG 48 and a knife/grenade= He has 10 dice if he survives

1 has a STG47 and a knife/grenade= He has 4 dice if he survives.

Based on a RECON BOYS SQUAD OF % RANGERS:

2 have a UGL, a M1 AR and a knife= They have 6 dice if they survive

1 has a Victory MG and a knife= He has 8 dice if he survives

2 have a M1 AR and a knife= they have 4 dice if they survive

SO YOU THINK A MG SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIRE 3 TIMES A TURN? MADNESS!

Grand Inquisitor Fulminarex said:

I do not think the machine gun should fire three times a turn. I think everyone should fire a single weapon a turn. The time argument doesnt work (and Im pretty sure my math is right, at least for me) because what is stated above in a earlier post is (paraphrased) "a round could be 3-4 minutes long simulating action scenes from great war movies allowing each individual to take shots of opportunity and fire different weapons, changing from one two handed weapon to another, unslinging them and reslinging them and then drawing a knife and jumping on the enemy with a knife in one hand and a gun in the other!" And it doesnt work because the following fact is not possible "a round could be 3-4 minutes long simulating action scenes from great war movies allowing each individual to fire only one weapon once"

So what I am being told is that if I have a rifle and the guy beside me has a rifle, a grenade launcher, a knife and a pistol that in the time it takes him to fire all three weapons, I can only fire my weapon a single time? Even more ridiculous is the notion that he can sustain fire with all of them as well!

And as someone else stated earlier, the difference in a length of time in a game that limits to 1 weapon fired a round is what? 15 extra minutes?

Knife + Gun in Assault (which is close-in hand to hand, so forth) would be a bayonet. It is possible and feasible to shoot someone and then bayonet them, or vice-versa.

I imagine a combat round being fairly lengthy. 5 guys against 5 guys using everything they have at their disposal to kill each other. And we are talking about Rangers and Sturmgrenadiers, not National Guard and Volksturm. It is assumed these are the special forces of each power. I think a Ranger is a pretty good killing machine in 1947, especially if he is a veteran of a war which has lasted 7 + years. Maybe I am wrong.

Each weapon is only firing once. HOWEVER I think that different weapons have different precedence, don't they? First are firearms, casualties are removed, then hand to hand. I think this is in Seelowe, cant remember.

Please do not get me wrong, I do agree that if a turn is short, like 1 or 2 minutes, then NO you could not use more than one weapon. But if it is 5 or more minutes, I see no problem with it.

Grand Inquisitor Fulminarex said:

OK, then riddle me this.....

If the turn is long enough for me to fire a grenade launcher, a pistol and a rifle and then use a knife, then why is it not long enough for me to fire my rife two times, or three times?

Ok Peacekeeper B:

The rifle, and the knife/grenade do the same dice in attack. I think the average joe will have 6 dice during this bloodbath, and the heavy will have 10 dice usually.

So if your guy has 3 weapons which each have 2 dice, and they are all the same effect, could you not say "I am using my rifle 3 times?"

As far as the heavies are concerned, I assume that much of the using of it is bracing and so forth.

Just play it however you want to. I for one will take the weapons in range order descending. Rifles then knives, etc.

I made a mistake on my calculations: I was figuring the dice against Armor 1 targets, not against 2, which is typical. Sorry!

Grand Inquisitor Fulminarex said:

But what I am saying is that he guy with ONLY a rifle doesnt get to fire it more then once. But a guy with a rifle, a UGL and a Knife can use them all at the same time.

I am not saying "Can I fire my rifle twice instead of firing my rifle and my UGL?" I am saying that the statement that it is 3-4 minutes (or so of time) therefore people can switch weapons and fire several of them in a round does not work, when that one guy with only one weapon can still only fire once.

Its like sayog, I have two cars so I can drive twice as far as you in one minute cause you only have one car.

Ive been looking over the rules and looking for a passage that says a unit can fire all of its weapons at one time. I also cannot find a statement where it says it cant. I would appreciate if someone pointed me in the right direction. I did find a statement that all weapons of the same kind must be fired at the same target.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Page 7 of the rule book.

Move then shoot

The activated unit may move up to its X value then use all of its weapons to attack.