felkor said:
I agree that FFG should clarify, but I still haven't gotten a response from the 3 other rules questions I've sent them throughout the last month - I'm fairly sure they just don't answer Dust Tactics questions.
What other rules questions have you asked?
Yeah, I've given up on asking them as well. I've asked about artillery firing into and out of the new buildings, and about the different AP cost for the Loth in the Revised Card Pack. No answers.
Loophole Master said:
Yeah, I've given up on asking them as well. I've asked about artillery firing into and out of the new buildings, and about the different AP cost for the Loth in the Revised Card Pack. No answers.
I sent an email to customer service telling them of my and other people's issues getting rules questions answered for this game. We'll see if they respond. It might do well if other people put in customer service requests as well.
Devinoch said:
felkor said:
I agree that FFG should clarify, but I still haven't gotten a response from the 3 other rules questions I've sent them throughout the last month - I'm fairly sure they just don't answer Dust Tactics questions.
What other rules questions have you asked?
I've asked about artillery and structures. I also asked about Victory Bridge Scenario 5, which has you starting a walker inside a structure that walkers are not supposed to be able to get inside of.
felkor said:
Devinoch said:
Sure, but the argument would just be you have to ask your opponent how they're placed in the square, then target the one on the far side, thus engulfing the square. Something to send an email about, I suppose.
No - the rules states it applies to units in SPACES in-between attacker and target unit. The space the target unit is in will never be a space between it and the attacker, so other units in the same space wouldn't count.
I agree that FFG should clarify, but I still haven't gotten a response from the 3 other rules questions I've sent them throughout the last month - I'm fairly sure they just don't answer Dust Tactics questions.
Sometimes you have to use a bit of common sense and the intent of a rule though. Do you really think that enemy on 2 adjacent squares to the shooter would suffer different effect depending on which route you fired? (both could be target and both could be in the way). Sometimes rule writers do not see every possiblity in a game and therefore no rules to cover the situation.
Clarification is not needed for the regular flamethrowers. It says under flamethrowers in special weapons pg 25 of revised rulebook
"Flamethrower weapons that fire farther than one space inflict damage on all units in
spaces between the attacking unit and the target unit – even if the spaces
are occupied by friendly units."
It says flame weapons with range more than one.
That would mean regular flamethrowers would just fire at the diagonal tile. While the one with Range 2 would hit each tile the path crosses corner or not. It follows a path that you count for range look at the example. You would have to follow a set path for counting range. You can go up one over one instead of diagonal is what it is also saying but you cannot hit 3 tiles bc its only range 2. As for the unit or square I would say square bc it hits previous square and ones in between. So your other unit is in between. Besides the fact that the flamethrower would only do 1 damage per hero and have to roll for each hero seperately.
Also I agree with Mishap since when has any of these rules had to use strict verbatum compared to common sense. They need that rule in War Machine if you oppose a rule being a hard ass or any problem refer to page 5.
And why am I always the one who ends these arguements. If you go through the forums like every one I pretty much ended unless I don't know.