I'm just having a bit of a hard time understanding the recoiless rifles in the Barking Dog, can you fire all 6 at the same time, thus multiplying that first weapon line by 6 and creating a huge crater in your terrain board?

Loophole Master said:

I assume it's just limited ammo - but I don't see much of a point. In any of the scenarios we currently have available to us, it's unlikely you'd fire his weapon that many times anyway.

Loophole Master said:

Yes, well that would be pretty much good enough for me.

In the end, there is probably just too much Dust Tactics that I haven't gotten yet to jump on these guys - $55 can get me a lot further with "official" Dust Tactics stuff than it can with these. That said, I'm really glad they've got the stat cards now. If I was swimming in money, I would certainly be all over these.

arkangl said:

It's not artillery though - nice cake

Has anybody found where the mystical new rules that aren't in any of the DUST sets are on the model site? They weren't on any of the model pages I checked, but they were certainly free with adding new rules. Crane, Engineer Vehicle, Recovery Vehicle, and Rare Vehicle have nothing. Neither does Naval Unit, but I expect that to be rather self explanatory (ie: goes on water and not on land).

I'll happily wait until the models are added to DUST with official stats, as a lot of the stats listed are quite a ways off from what I'd hope for. Cranes have never been known to be great anti-tank weapons until now, and while bulldozers have been used for some things during combat, it's odd to think of either of them as better than some of the the best anti-tank weapons in the game. It becomes more of an issue when the walkers currently wielding Dozer Blades don't have an attack with them, while the Bergeluther turns it into something so potent. Having more leeway moving the dozer blade up and down, or being able to dump a full bucket, would not improve its fighting capabilities against an armored vehicle.

From a game balance perspective, I can understand not wanting to allow all six of the Barking Dog's guns to fire at once, but taking only six shots into an armor battle is something that would have every tanker I've known fighting for a transfer. It works for a limited turn game, but not as a logical battlefield weapon system.

It is nice to have something consistent to work with for home brewed rules, but I really hope they brew them a bit more before they become official.

Well rare is can only have one in a force. That was mentioned by Olivier in the BGG forums. And Major Mishap the current card thats been out since like September doesnt have Artillery.

Naval Unit is prob a no brainer can only be placed on water tiles and can allow units to disembark on a land tile adjacent to a water tile.

As for the dozer blade only thing i can think of for it to be more useful is that its more maneuverable so it allows it to ram units. But even mine wasn't anti-tank I just gave both the Bergeluther and the AFV a light ability to defend itself.

Crane I would suppose can lift a tank trap and move it. That all are suppose to have rebar on the top to be picked up? At least thats what my Dust-Models.com terrain piece with tank traps come with.

I would say Engineer Vehicle allows it to repair other vehicles like a mechanic, but the only one that gets me is recovery vehicle.

My enjoyment is the Ryu. Does that mean that they are making a 1/48 scale model b/c im totally stoked for it. That was one of the models that got me interested in this game.

Gimp these models could be like forgeworld on use in personal fun nothing serious unless approved by TO.

Rare as 'one allowed' makes sense, but it should be noted as they said it was. The announcement said the rules were on the site or in Cerberus, but they aren't, hence my comment.

Dozer blades being more maneuverable actually would make them weaker for ramming. A fixed blade would take stress better than one with moving parts when you're talking about ramming several tons of vehicle. Even at that, I've seen the results of tanks colliding, and it is nothing like an anti-tank round hitting them. I saw an M60 rammed by a vehicle that ran the road guard and hit the tank at over 40 mph. The vehicle had to be carried away, and the tank surprised people because the car hit just right to break the end off of one of the drive gears. The consensus was that if the angle had not been just perfect, the tank would have lost nothing but paint. A slow moving dozer blade or crane arm won't have the ability to do damage to a walker except perhaps knock it down, which is something other walkers could do as well. The ability of the Crane and Dozer Blade to do more damage than most of the anti-tank weapons in the game is rather ridiculous.

Anti-tank traps can be cast with a hook for lifting them, but it isn't something a crew could easily hook to. They can also get removed once the trap is in place, because the defenders don't wat them easy to remove. When you were defending your limited ammo idea for the Barking Dog, you mentioned how hard it would be to have to get out and reload the guns. It would be much harder to hook a crane to an anti-tank trap.

Engineer Vehicle might have crew that could repair another vehicle, but the vehicle isn't going to be able to do that. Doing that would again require a dismounted crew to climb over the damaged vehicle. I could accept it, but it isn't something that should be easy on the battlefield.

I like the Ryu, but from what I'd read in some other places, I'd hoped for it to be an amphibious vehicle.

It's interesting to have a set of concepts for 'standardized' house rules, but some of those concepts need a lot of work before they would make sense for official models. They did note they weren't tournament legal, but they may still cause issues, just as I've heard complaints about Forge World models.

Answer to everything it's magic alien tech lol.

I didnt mean the dozer blade being maneuverable i ment the walker itself being easier to move. Since its lighter it can ram. I don't know I'm winging it. No matter how you argue it, it's already set in stone.

Crane again I don't know it's set in stone with crane ability. Look at AT-43 they had hoist whats the difference.

The engineer vehicle look at the self repair. I doubt half the damage that a tank would get would be internal only so they would have to dismount themselves also.

Yea I was hoping that too for the Ryu but i think there's another walker thats amphibious.

Forgeworld is the very mess of brokenness thats why its not tournie legal unless TO authorize it. This also means that everyone in the tournie would have access to thier brokenness so it levels out.

'Magic alien tech' would be a quick explanation to make me give up on the game. They really need to avoid that pitfall. Are you trying to cause nightmares?

I don't think any of the DUST Models' stats are things that are set in stone. They've already changed stats on models, and there's nothing to prevent further changes before they become official DUST stats. DUST Models has effectively given us partially formed house rules, and nothing more. If they were set in stone, they could have point values.

I never dealt with AT-43 very much. I read some fluff, picked up a couple of models, but that's it. It doesn't matter if they have a combat crane (hoist) or not. Rules for one should make some kind of sense, or shouldn't be in the game. Boom arms can't grab or lasso, and would make very poor striking arms because the leverage would make them very slow and weak for that. I keep trying to picture a way they could damage a heavily armored vehicle and coming up short, much less damaging them more than most specific anti-tank wapons in the game, or a Punisher or Fireball not being able to use a similar tactic for some kind of damage.

The Dozer Blade walkers would not be that much lighter than the chassis they're built on. While they give up the turret gun, they add a huge chunk of unbalanced weight in the form of the dozer blade and it's hydraulic controls. An M88 engineering vehicle isn't armored as well as any of the tanks it works with, nor does it carry a big gun, but winds up weighing about the same because of its crane and hydraulic systems. It's also very cramped inside for the same reason. The Bergeluther is probably pretty close to the weight of the other walkers with its chassis, so it won't be moving appreciably faster.

The Soviets did use ramming tactics with tanks sometimes during WW2, but it was to push tanks out of position, or into terrain they might bog down in. They didn't destroy tanks by ramming them, they only pushed them, and possibly locked them in place for an infantry assault. Ideal circumstances might let them push a tank into a postion where it might roll. Combat is rarely an ideal environment.

Walkers trying to push each other would be a dangerous proposition for both walkers, because they aren't as stable as a tracked tank. They wouldn't need a dozer blade to ram, either, as the damage would be due to knocking each other down, rather than tearing each other apart. I imagine the walkers have a method to let them stand back up, or ramming tanks to knock them down would be an easy tactic to use against them, as the neither vehicle would take much damage from the ram.

Adding broken rules to a tournament does not even things out. It creates a broken tournament. Not all players will come to the tournament with the broken units, so the brokeness destroys game balance for them. Players are forced to either give up on the tournament, bring broken units themselves and hope it balances the brokeness their opponents bring (far from certain), or accept they are playing with a disadvantage. How can that be considered a level playing field? Saying everyone being able to bring broken units levels the playing field is a farce, because the broken units are not balanced against each other, or against other units, or they wouldn't be broken. It's nice spin, but it's not realistic in practice.

Did I miss something? Does the card pack indicate that they are making a Dust 48 Ryu? I had not heard of that yet. As for the whole I card idea I kinda like it. I fail to see how you could use a crane on an active battlefield offensively. But that is just me.

Jeff

So as for the crane the only thing I can imagine is star wars, trying to trip the walkers with cable from the crane. The dozer blade make a little more sense but I don't think either should be more then a last ditch weapon as they are now they seem a bit too powerful but they are range 1 so how often are you going to be fighting point blank anyways.

Star Wars is called science fantasy for a reason. When they tipped thebig walkers, they had a weapon that could launch a grapple that stuck to the vehicle, and then flew around the vehicle fast enough to wrap the legs. Then the walkers tripped and fell after having walked with several wraps already around their legs by some mysterious extra ability the cable gained when they released what little tension was on the cable. All with a cable that was that thin, yet able to stop the mass of the walker's legs instead of snapping like most cables do when supporting more weight than they can handle . It was a cool looking scene, but one of the less realistic pieces of cinematics in the films.

The logs used by the Ewoks on the smaller walkers would make more sense, except that DUST's walkers appear to have a better center of gravity. If they didn't, the ramming tanks I mentioned would be an excellent way to deal with the walkers. Run into them to knock them down, and then watch them twitch.

The crane doesn't mount a grapple; only a standard crane hook. How it could catch a walker solidly enough to tip it over is unclear, as is whether the walkers can stand themselves back up, or if we should all start buying ramming tanks. Even if it had a grapple, it would be difficult at the best of times to make it catch on an enemy walker solidly enough to make a difference. Fly fishing for walkers with a crane arm is not the most plausible of concepts. Perhaps if they used show girls as bait...

There are tie downs shown on many of the walkers, but they would be incredibly small targets, and would be likely to have problems holding the weight of the walker singly. If the walker somehow got caught, you'd then have the issue of a tug-of-war, rather than the crane automatically being able to tip the walker over with a spectacular crash. Try that with a heavy walker, with its lower center of gravity, more mass, and the probability of a much stronger engine, and it gets stranger to imagine the crane being the devastating weapon they suggest on the card.

The dozer blade actually makes even less sense to me, as it can't damage a walker when ramming from the heavier Punisher or Fireball moving at the same speed as the Bergeluther, while it becomes one of the most powerful anti-vehicle weapons in the game on the Bergeluther. The fixed mount dozer blade on the heavy walkers would be far better for ramming, as the frame of the walker would take the impact. The dozer blade on the Bergeluther would have the arms and hydraulics wrenched in an impact with a vehicle anywhere near the Bergeluther's mass. Weak points absorb impact during a ram, and the dozer blade arms would certainly qualify compared to the solid bodies of the walkers. It also adds the problem of there being no guarantee of a win for the raming dozer, as the target walker would certainly be willing to push back. Attacking from ambush would help, but every attack would not be able to be an ambush.

Add to that the idea of having to build up speed for an effective ram, or the walkers would be likely to just get into a minor pushing match. As it currently stands, a dozer blade has no rules noting it has to build up speed to ram, so it becomes a range 1 weapon capable of making a Sustained Attack with a 55% chance to do ridiculous amounts of damage to enemy walkers.

As for use as suggested with range 1, if the battlefield were filled with enough terrain, especially for a city fight, a walker could have a far easier time getting into range to attack.

Hanomag said:

Actually, for once, I think most are in agreement, so not just you. Could be one reason why FFG do not want tourney legal rules from Dust Games.

Gimp you can argue all you want but its on the model and like star wars this too is a science fantasy game and dont say its not bc retro scifi is still scifi.

My idea for the reasoning to the AFV and the Bergeluther is for it to be similar to the Loth and the Hot Dog. And im not saying i agree to it just saying thats what i am interpretting. They have such a short range and a big punch when they get close. I mean for christ sake there are apes with giant gauntlets that can punch a tank whats your reasoning of that gimp bc im sure it would take a gorilla a massive amount of strength to even lift those things. What are you gonna do if I am right and the rules do become official about some of the stuff I said (not saying it will but just saying).

I again like it or not stand firm on Alien Tech for the answer to all this bc thats what all this is running on. If you don't like the idea of Magic Alien Tech its simple you shoulda read the background of the game before you got into it and stop playing if you don't like it. I know ppl who don't like the apes and zombies for the historic value and I'm ok with them not using them and they are ok with me using them.

Also in the description of the Bergeluther you will read about the dozerblade:

"Even if it doesn’t carry a proper weapon, the “BergeLuther” can defend itself! Its dozer blade can smash any foolish tank that would come close enough.
For the very fact its not historic it doesn't need to be acturate just needs to be fun. And these models are for fun use not for tournie. Until they do become tournie legal deal with it." Here

and

The description of the AFV

"The Medium Armored Recovery Vehicle M2-B "Mickey ARV" is a front-line walker capable of handling critical tasks such as destroying heavy fortifications or helping another damaged robot. It's powerful crane can lift even the heaviest vehicles on the battlefield and can also crush almost anything on its path...." Here

I almost want to say the AFV is like a hydralic jack hammer mounted to a walker and giving a crane on the end. Like it could punch the hell out of a tank with the arm.

And don't even say ppl don't come when forgeworld is allowed. If you played 40k you'd know more ppl show up when they are allowed bc they for once can bring their big stuff they have laying around. My store has run a couple and the turn out is double ppl came from the opposite side of the state and other local states to play.

O and for the rules read the post.

All the rules to play our models kits can be found in Dust Tactics' expansions (I think this is mentioning about the damage resilient and other rules that are in the rulebooks), mostly Operation Cerberus(again last mentioning) and on Dust Model website(O here's the new rules they are just behind in posting the rules for them), on each model kit's page. There you will find the description of the unique skills these models can have. All other skills and game rules are within Dust Tactics' booklets.

Where are the rules for these vehicles special abilities? Its says on the models page but can't see them.

Engineer Vehicle could allow this walker to spend an action making a self repair check on an adjacent vehicle.

Recovery Vehicle could allow it to use the officer ability to bring back a dead vehicle if a hit is rolled on a single die. I would say the mickey has to be in the square the vehicle was destroyed in. Also the destroyed vehicle wouldnt count for VP purposes but would not return with full limited ammo.

Crane could just equal Dozer blade to keep things simple.

arkangl said:

Well, the "Berge" part is certainly historic, as there was a BergePanther. It was certainly never used in combat, however. =)

I know DUST is science fiction. It's rather obvious with the entire alternate history and recovered alien technology motiff. Star Wars falls under the sci-fi category of science fantasy , where the science part can be easily ignored with handwavian babble instead of acknowledging real world physics or other common sense concepts. I say that liking Star Wars.

There is a significant difference between magic alien technology doing things that make no sense, and applied alien technology that still allows real science to make some kind of appearance.

I have no problems with power fists being good anti-vehicle weapons because the units using them can get in close and effectively grab things on the outer body of the vehicle to cause damage, especially to walkers. I have no problem with apes being uplifted to higher intelligence, or soldiers being reanimated with varying levels of remaining intelligence to use those power fists. I have no problem with that, because, while it shifts from what we can do in the real world, there is a plausible allowance for suspension of disbelief within the game to allow it.

Dozer blades do not smash things, they push things. Things that are very light in comparison can be bent when pressed down, or hooked and pulled, but strongly built objects don't fear more than a push from a dozer blade. Likewise, cranes can be hooked to objects, and lift them. They don't work for pulling them along very well, because the crane has to worry about its center of balance when lifting. It doesn't matted how much it can lift if it can't get the bracing to lift it and remain balanced. Lifting without enough balance simply results in a tipped over crane.

The crane does not have anything to grab with, nor is the model structured to allow the crane arm to be able to be used as a battering ram, as there are no mechanisms on the crane arm to have it move that way. Hydraulic rams can be used to pound things, and can be mounted on upright derrick arms like a crane's arm to pound things down into the ground, but they have specific parts that let them do that that are not on the Bergeluther, nor is the arm mounted to allow it.

The same can be said for the dozer blade. It isn't built to function like a combat weapon as it is placed on the model, nor is there an allowance to explain why it can be so powerful on the Bergeluther, but unable to cause any damage mounted on the heavy walkers. The mounting is not designed to use the dozer blade as a hydraulic ram there, either. It's designed like normal front end loader blades to shovel up and lift things it can carry without overbalancing. It isn't branced to handle that much weight, unless an Armor 4 vehicle should have better armor than an M1 Abrams, VK gives a lot more power than they've suggested with anything else, and they have something like artificial gravity for stability. Since WW2 weapons still take them out, that's obviously not the case.

If the technology from the aliens were able to overcome the actual physical limitations of metal and applied power enough to make the models as created into the combat monsters the pseudo-rules give us, the Axis would have had far more of an advantage before any technology was recovered by the Allies or SSU, and the war would have been over already. DUST is working with significant improvements from alien technology that allows walkers and lasers, but not so far an advance that the other countries technology was completely overshadowed.

Simply saying a model can do wonderful things makes no sense if there is nothing on the model to show how it can do those things. That's handwavian science fantasy physics, where DUST has been fairly good about having their models make consistent sense without resorting to fantasy.

As for dealing with the models as non-tournament legal; I am. I am discussing the problems with the rules as written on a public forum. That gives feedback that FFG can use, along with other presented opinions, in deciding how the vehicles will function when they get around to releasing them as official models with official stats for the DUST games. Hopefully, the released rules will make more sense, and have the rules released in time to go with the official stats. I have engineering vehicles for my historical WW2 gaming, and am happy to use them as engineering vehicles without expecting them to be impressive in combat. Engineering vehicles have other jobs to do. Some blow things up, but some do construction and recovery in dangerous environments, and so go with armor and limited weaponry so they can get the job done. They could be cool models with cool rules that only worked well for some scenarios and still be something worth having.

I never said people don't come when Forge World is allowed at a tournament. I said people had to choose to play with unbalanced models, or stay away. There are plenty of players who don't think about game balance. There are some who, as you noted, want a chance to use their big stuff in competitive play. There are others who are happy to play with armies they've figured gain an advantage in unbalanced games. There are some who enjoy playing with the challenge of an unbalanced game, to see if they can win an uphill fight. I own some old Forge World stuff that fits with my 40K armies, and bring it out sometimes when I'm playing for fun without worry about balance. I prefer to see balance in tournaments, however, because I believe the players' ability should decide who wins, and not broken rules.

I did read the post stating the rules were in the DUST rules or on their website. I asked if anyone else had found them because I had looked for the new rules without finding them. If they were going to announce the cards, and make such a statement, they should have the rules needed on the site. They were on time enough to say they were there, and should have them if they knew them far enough in advance to have them printed on the cards, so there is no reason for them not to be available.

Wombattangofoxtrot said:

You've gotta admit, they were used in combat, but never intentionally. Pity the engineers who had to figtht to get their recovery or construction vehicles out of a mission gone south.

For other forces, think of the SeaBees in the Pacific during WW2, and you have a group doing construction in the middle of several firefights.

I've played a few other games that had recovery missions where teams from opposing sides wound up meeting after a fight. They've been interesting to play.

A DUST scenario where engineers had to clear obstacles or recover vehicles, and enemy forces showed up to 'ask' them not to, could be very interesting.

Here's another one for you. We have, super-heavy tanks with dozer blades and walkers that can smash their way through tank traps without even a pause or smash up a tank like a cartoon character with a giant hammer, but have 1 guy hiding behined that tank trap and they all grind to a sudden halt

Major Mishap said:

Tanks get nervous when infantry are hiding nearby. That guy hiding at the tank trap could be carrying an anti-tank mine or demo charge big enough to cause serious problems. It's always better to take out the infantry before they're crawling on your vehicles.

For WW2, a single guy mounting an unprotected tank might be able to take it out by themselves, as most had no infantry protection unless they opened up, which would also let the guy outside throw a present in. With vision slits being open, an enemy on board could also play ricochet to see how many rounds could be fired in through any openings before they heard screaming. WW2 is where we proved tanks need infantry support to survive.

I don't have a problem with infantry making walkers pause instead of push through a tank trap.

I new somebody would say that . Not logical though. If a tank commander was wary of an enemy position or even if he can't see the enemy but suspected, he would not move within anti-tank range, you send in the infantry to clear it out. In game terms, no vehicle can go closer than 4 squares away than a terrain piece, but that's not possible in the game. Alternatively, if needs must, he puts the pedal to the metal to get out of a sticky situation as fast as possible to make it a harder target, especially for those wishing to place a nice sticky bomb on his tank. The last thing you will do is stop right in front of an enemy waiting to be blown up.

There will always be compromises between simulation and game play, but I don't agree with your full assessment..

Tanks are willing to get within infantry firing range, though they do prefer to kill from a distance when they have the opportunity. It's a logical consideration to want to attack while you can't be attacked, but tactical considerations sometimes mean you have to accept some level of threat. The level of threat you're willing to accept, however, has to be a level of threat you can react to, whether it is by backing off, going around, or anything else.

There's a big difference between letting infantry get close enough they can shoot at you while you shoot at them, and letting infantry get in a position where a single soldier can take your tank out without you being able to do anything but call for help from somebody else. The first is standard combat, where everyone knows they're at risk. The second is suicide unless you've got friends very close that can get there fast enough. The first gets people killed sometimes as is expected in combat, but the second gets unit commanders relieved if they survive, whether by higher command or their soldiers that remain, due to incompetence.

I never play a game with armor and assume the armor stays completely still unless it has a really good reason to. Stop, fire, and move, with each stop only as long as is needed. That was the best standard from WW2 up until the advent of the current tanks that can stay on target while moving. Any tank will be looking for advantageous ground a tabletop can't show. Every infantryman will be using the three second rule to get out of the line of fire to try and stay alive while fighting. Players don't necessarily know that, but it is built into the simulation part of the rules easily. They use microarmor battles to teach cadets and officers, just as they have for centuries, with the understanding that the figures they're pushing around know their jobs. It doesn't matter if the people pushing the figures around understand all about tactics if the rules create a functionality that allows similar results as if the figures did.

Gimp said:

I should have added "offensively". =)

Wombattangofoxtrot said:

That's what I thought you meant, but the opportunity to tease was a trifle larger than I could resist at the time.

This does have me thinking about what they might do for the SeeBees in DUST. They were some interesting combat engineers.