Though you guys might want to know.

For all the lazy people out there:

http://www.dustgame.com/products.php?page=1&nid=18

... cool Stuff Imo, but I´m wondering what "Frenzy" is (see Angelas card)

Axis Heavy Command squad isn't DR? First time for an Axis IA3 to be missing that, right?

Operation Cerberus rules now online: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=2827

Your answer to "What is Frenzy?" can be found in the new rulebook.

Algesan said:

Hopefully its a misprint, would be totally stupid if all of the Axis heavies have Damage Resiliant and their command, wearing the same armour, doesn't.

Looks like Frenzy has exactly the same special rules as lasers.

Major Mishap said:

nope, no misprint...in the description of the squad it says, they carry so much stuff around, they are not realy good at evading/flying...makes sense from fluff view (well the no fly part only), but even more balance view.

If you only give one unit their ability (DR) this needs to balanced by the point value. But if such a crucial unit would have different point values it would be a huge drawback for the side that gets the expensive one. And having DR/ fly on the squads to balance them out, I think it would be a problem having a (mostly) non-aggressive unit (lots of support) with a (mostly) aggressive skill (since DR let you move your squad to the front and keeping them alive, flying is only good for running away oder suicide tactics, especially with a flamethrower in the squad).

But on the other side, making them as fast as the other jump squads would really be a bigger advantage then DR, since rhino/ozz+ hero skill + squad on drugs would hit like a ton of bricks on your soft spot in round...hmmm 2 or 3...and wipe out a lot of the backstanding units like commad squat/artillery/sniper etc. wherever they are on a usual 3x3 map. Of course you can do the same with the DR troops, bit they are a little bit more predictable because they don´t have fancy tricks like jumping over a building, a river, a squad, a walker and still hitting with full force. DR on a command squad doesn´t change the dynamic and possibilitys for your troops, while a flying command squad does...a lot...

So they should need a price increase for flying (IMO) wich would lead back to people arguing why their squad costs more than the counterpart even with DR.

I think this would be the first Unit, where I feel that Fluff/design is killed by balance...but I´m ok with it even if it leaves a foul taste.

Ursi

When fluff trumps game balance, you end up with a badly-balanced game that is soon thrown in the dustbin. Personally, I like this game enough that I can shrug off issues like "no DT".

Personally, the thing that makes my brain hurt more is that the StormKonig (four 128 mm guns) does the same damage against vehicle armor as the Ludwig (two 88mm guns).

Wombattangofoxtrot said:

If it makes you feel any better, the armor penetration on the German 128mm was significantly inferior to the armor penetration of the 88mm. It had a bigger round, but lower muzzle velocity, and muzzle energy is king for armor penetration.

The anti-infantry capability is significantly increased, which fits a bigger explosive payload, but the armor penetration decrease is simply offset by the greater number of rounds increasing the probability of a solid hit.

I thought it fit nicely from fluff, historical, and balance perspectives.

The Ludwig has the L56 gun from the Tiger, not the KwK43, which puts the armor pen in the same ballpark as the 128 K40.

Wombattangofoxtrot said:

True, I spaced that when I typed, but that still justifies having similar performace, instead of being better. Four weapons firing together do not improve armor penetration, unless they are independently targeted for greater accuracy. They are better for high explosive delivery, because you have more explosives going down range, but they can actually have a harder time for anti-armor work, as they would be firing a volley, as opposed to individually aimed rounds targeted on specific weak points.

There could be computer control allowing independent aiming with laser range finders to zero them at the specific target range, but there's nothing to indicate DUST technology is that far advanced yet. The game mechanics support the idea that there is not independent computer controlled aiming.

The weapon table doe not just include armour penetration, but also rate of fire, accuracy and explosive capability. No, sorry, in no way will a twin 88mm be as good as a quad 128mm with advanced targeting systems.

Major Mishap said:

The issue becomes a consideration of just how good those advanced targeting systems are, and are they independent for each weapon, or do they lock the quad mount into a fixed firing pattern.

A fixed firing pattern appears to be the case, because it would explain the increased effectiveness against infantry, where precise target points are not as important as the mass of high explosive fragmentation, and also account for the lack of improvement against vehicles, where precise round placement is more important. High explosive ammunition is not very effective for anti-armor work until you get to the really big shells, which would not include quad 128mm's.

With the Sturmkonig designed as an anti-aircraft vehicle, which would fit the quad mount concept, then independent targeting for all four weapons would not be needed, as it would be firing proximity fused warheads into the air, where volume is also more important than specific accuracy. Vehicles built to be good at too many tasks are rarely efficient at those tasks, but vehicles built for one task can be used for less effect on other tasks. The German 88 was adapted to anti-vehicle work from its beginings as an anti-aircraft gun, so it makes sense the Sturmkonig could be an anti-aircraft vehicle that happens to be very good against infantry, and also good against vehicles.