StarkDad said:

You have more options then just UgoIgo and Alternate Activation. You have the rules for Reaction and initiative, which can give you certain edges in "combined arms tactics" and so forth.

I would like to see something like this. The Command Phase is when you roll off for initiative and advantage. Using the same basic tactic and rule as in Dust Tactics you roll 3 dice for initiative. He who has the most wins goes first. However, you allow the Black Ops skill to stack, so each character/hero/squad with that skill gets to add a dice to your initiative pool.

A skilled general can use his suboridinate commanders information, skill, knowledge and position to catch the enemy off guard.

For each "hit" you receive over your opponent while rolling for initiative, you can move one squad before they can go. So if you net two hits and he got 0, you can move two squads before he can take any action.

Now you could be able to control more units at once using Siezed Initiative, Raction and Command Squad Reactivation.

Add in a rule for Overwatch (similar to Reactive Fire but "pre-planned" therefore you get an extra die to activate it) and you can create your tactical movement and fire drills.

But perhaps Side A goes, Side B goes with reactive fire can work as well. Cant wait to find out.

Another design question (since I humbly believe this tread should focus on questions for the designer and less on debate/discussions of the possible answers - if only because it will make the tread so long that it will discourage the OP from actually reading it all

What will be the strength, weaknesses and play style of each faction? What design philosophy guides which faction gets what kind of troops?

For example Germans may favour an aggressive Blitzkrieg approach epxloiting mobility of tanks, and have disciplined troops with advanced weaponry. (Although from the looks of it, the leap-capable Allied walkers are actually more mobile than Axis walkers...)

Americans might have industrial might represented by lots of artillery and available back-ups/reinforcements.

Brits might get some kind of overal air superiority advantage and perhaps elite commando units.

Russians might have lots and lots of cheap infantry and simple yet reliable vehicles.

Are Japanese even a faction in Dust? They would obviously get some kind of Immunity to Psychology for some troops

Captain Erf said:

Yeah, well Andy hasnt been on this thread in over a month. Since, I assume, he was hit over the head by the rules of the NDA I would assume.

Captain Erf said:

Seems you awnswered your own question there. No modility, speed, blitzkrieg for the Axis.

Captain Erf said:

Yes, they are part of the SSU (with the Russians). Why would it be "OBVIOUS" that the Japanese would get immunity to Psychology?

Andy has gone AWOL

Captain Erf said:

I bet he's thinking kamikaze?

Peacekeeper_b said:

My bad, took me a few days to realize I stated the Japanese are part of the SSU. They are part of the AXIS. So technically anything released for the Axis thus far is also "Japanese".

Peacekeeper_b said:

Of course the japanese are part of the Axis. The Axis discovered a new power source and the first thing that jumped in their mind is: "LET'S CREATE GIANT ROBOTS WITH IT!!!"... i mean... who else but the japanese could've come with this?

It's funny cuz it's true......

"Add in a rule for Overwatch."

Personally, I think Reactive Fire should be deterministic. Not random. The way it works now, it's completely and utterly useless. If it was an activation first to declare something similar to overwatch and that it was then automatic, like in Space Hulk, it would be a lot more tactical and a lot more interesting.

Devain said:

I think there is room for both. Reactive Fire is more like "Oh $#!+ here comes the enemy" where Overwatch is "if anything comes between that wall and that tree, shoot it!" And both can coexist in the same game. Overwatch is a action you determine when you activate your squad. And therefore when you trigger it (functions just like Reactive Fire) it works automatically. If by the end of the round nothing crosses its overwatch path, it can take one action move.

Reactive Fire stays as is, thoug to be fair, I would either make it two dice needing one success, or make it succeed on a miss just so it is more practical and less of a gamble. Or on a failure you can only take a single action instead of a full turn.

pancake said:

I'm still here, stealing all ur best ideas for my designer diaries.

I have a question about custom weapon load outs for walker.

The cover of the Original Core Box showed Axis walkers with one rocket arm and one gun arm, will there be rules to swap arm weapons and add other support type weapons ( like rocket pods and such), to add custom weapons designs for tailoring your armies tactics?

Or will it be like Tactics where you pick your stock units and play as is?

I know, not so important for Allied players, after all, the walkers only have one turret!

( By the way, I happen to think you're the best thing to happen to wargames since they invented dice with more than 2 sides!! FFG couldnt have picked a better designer!!)

Andy Chambers said:

LOL, nice one, lots of good ideas popping up on the forum. I'm sure you have it all under controll.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Leaving in Reactive Fire as the "Oh $#!+" version works for me and although I'd like it to be less of a "small chance we blast with everything, big chance we are sticking our thumbs up our bum", I don't see a way to to that with Dust dice. Maybe give Reactive Fire a chance for any unit on a "hit", even if already activated and allow unactivated units to use the "miss" roll?

On Overwatch, make it "automatic" Reactive Fire or go with the "miss" activation. However, the unit is now committed to Overwatch so if nothing crosses its path, then it has "wasted" its activation and gets no further action that turn. Remember, the purpose is to stop something from biting your buddies on the butt as they move.

"However, the unit is now committed to Overwatch so if nothing crosses its path, then it has "wasted" its activation and gets no further action that turn."

+1 to this. The way the game works, it's mostly about movement and placement. Proper Overwatch would make it even more interesting. Reactive Fire in general is an area where games have evolved in the last few years. Especially given a mechanic like the Automatic Reaction Order (ARO) in Infinity represent an increased and very welcome flexibility and decreased downtime.

In my opinion, anyway.

Some type of Overwatch "order" would be nice. I really did appreciate the order aspect of AT-43. The tokens used in that game were really useful to keep track of which units had different kinds of orders like "take cover" and such.

Algesan said:

All I can say is that Reaction works differently from DT... It is much more useful.

Gobbo said:

<mugs Gobbo for a set of the playtest rules>

Oh wait, you can't do that over the Internet.

Darn!

Algesan said:

Yeah... not really.

Being more serious, can the enhanced Reaction Fire rules in DW be useful in DT to improve the rules there?

IN YOUR OPINION , I know you cannot set policy, just do you think it might work without being a big mess of rules.

Algesan said:

In my opinion, I think with a few changes, it could very well work well.

Will Dust Warfare give the walkers a more realistic feel by addressing the concept of crew bail outs? Also creating a more punishing wounded rule would reflect real life. Where a wounded man or woman causes men to be redispersed as the person is taken to a field hospital, moral drops as friends see the wounded taken off the field. Many snipers actually shot to wound rather than to kill. It is just one aspect I would like to see in a new game if possible, especially as new sniper sets are available.

New sniper sets? Why do we need new ones? Other than the fact that a lot of WW2 snipers actually worked alone and not with the modern spotter/partner.

The problem with crew bail outs and figuring on people to deal with the wounded is that it complicates the game. For crew bail outs, we'd need to know where the hit came at, what the munition was, the expected survivability of that kind of hit by each crew member, the results of that kind of hit on the vehicle, etc., etc., etc. Easier to say the crew (1 man Axis, 2 man Allied for medium walkers from Dust comic) become a casualty when the walker fails (maybe just knocked out badly).

Dealing with wounded, same thing. Some of the people "killed" are either wounded and/or dealing with casualties, but in either case are no longer available for combat. Also remember that the troops so far are in the "Ranger" elite mode. Get in, hit hard and get cycled out of combat in a couple of days. Morale in the context you are talking about is a non-issue as the casualty rate of WW2 Ranger operations show. All nationalities had similar elite units.

I can see an armor 3 sniper. I would rather see some sort of mortar trooper/sqaud and a heavy MG team, but that's me.

My biggest design question right now is, now that we have obviously scrubbed the planned expansions mentioned in the first core set what are the plans now? More Allied/Axis expansions to flush out the rules (read: aircraft) or the intro of new factions? Also, will we see new theaters of war such as the desert.

-Jeff

I have problems with an Armor 3 Sniper. The big bulky armor would be a bit of a problem for stealthy maneuver for the right shot. It doesn't really fit the Sniper concept of trying to stay unseen before striking.

Admitedly, DUST Tactics doesn't really have a mechanic to keep Snipers alive other than a better range, but Snipers in a pitched battle frequently found themselves simply more light infantry.

I will heartily agree with the request for heavy weapon teams and light mortars.

On the idea of mortars and artillery, will blast weapons remain a single unit target weapon, or gain more of an area of effect?

I don't care if there are templates (in fact, with the issues they frequently cause, I'd be happy not seeing them), but a big gun having a bigger effect could be nice. I play a historical WW2 game that simply gives blast weapons a range from a target unit to affect an additional unit at reduced effect. A small blast can target one unit. A larger blast can target one, and the one closest unit, friend or foe, within 6". An even bigger weapon extends the radius and the number of units that can be affected. Really big guns (ie: 16" offshore battleships) can target multiple units in a 24" radius. Each additional unit is attacked as one class lower artillery.

That gives the possibility of a serious Danger Close situation, improves large calber ordnance, and still gets away without having to carry around templates people will argue over.

DUST could do it simply by removing attack dice for the additional units. An alpha strike from a Steel Rain could cause 12 dice on the target unit, and then 6 dice on nearby units with any models within something like 3-6". A Lothar would do 6 and 3 dice (2/+ and 1/+ vs infantry). Because they'd be farther from the center of effect, Incendiary Blast weapons might allow cover for the additional units.

The ground scale is different enough in DUST that larger areas of effect would make less sense and cause other problems, but having artillery strike an area would make people think about how close they bunch their troops.