Good day gents, our playgroup had a really good discussion concerning reactive fire and I would like to share. All of us thought that the current reactive fire wasn't as effective as it was intended to be, it had a high risk with mediocre reward, and most of the time, it was better to just take a risk and let the enemy attack us instead of reacting so we can later sustain our attack, in other words not a great option.

Our school of thought is that reactive fire was created as a means to deal with fast moving units, and especially with black ops on the allies side (yes our allies agreed as well), and also to give a fighting chance for a weaker army against a powerful one.

So with that in mind, we thought why not roll two dice instead of one? That is a 56% chance instead of a 33% chance.

I suggested that we roll 7 dice and must obtain 3 to get reactive which is 43% chance.

I also suggested that if we implement this reactive fire change, if the reactive fire is successful, all attacks will be simultaneous.

I also suggested that maybe all infantry units will have the option to forfeit an action to get into a defensive position wherein they have an option to later reactive fire with 2 die instead of one.

I dunno, I need your feedback! thanks in advance.

I think Reactive Fire is perfect the way it is. It is meant as a last resort option, or a strategic one. It shouldn't become something you do matter-of-factly. There are those special units with Advanced and Superior Reactive Fire, for which it should be a more standard action, but for the rest, it is a risky move that can often save the life of the squad being attacked.

Thanks for your opinion and feed back.

How bout a hero with the ability to grant advanced reactive fire to other units? At least for the Axis. The Allies have Bazooka joe, and his Black Ops is great, you can take a calculated risk on the previous turn to put your units out in the open in the previous turn so that when you win initiative you can get first strike.

Let's face it, initiative wins games, maybe throw a little bone to the axis to even the odds?

Anyways at this point it is all theory, our playgroup will playtest it to see if it is any good or imba.

jowisu said:

Hummm, I disagree. Sure, it helps, but I don't think it's such a deciding factor.

But yeah, a hero with Advanced or Superior Reactive Fire is bound to show up eventually. The text for both skills says "A hero with this skill shares it with any squad he joins."

Maybe you haven't been ImbaOzz attacked... One of our players discovered this little niche and it is hell. The details are a little fuzzy but...

160 AP: So far the Axis player has been playing defensively, and the allied has been avoiding the axis the whole time using his speed. Neither player had been taking any any risks until...

Turn 6: Last unit activation. Allied player activates Ozz with Grim Reaper, moves 4 into the middle of all axis units. Round ends.

Turn 7: Allied player wins initiative, activates Ozz, does heroic attack, sustains, kills an entire unit, damages another unit, and walker. All allied units run backward. Round ends.

Turn 8: Allied Player wins initiative again, activates Ozz finishes off the walker and the other unit with sustained. Ozz Survived the rest of the counter attack.

Round Ends

Allied player wins Flawless victory...

Now I might sound like a bitter Axis player, but guys I have Allied figs too, and I enjoy playing as Allied as well.

A few stats to help my argument out...

A player without black ops will roll 1 hit 70% of the time 2 hits 26% of the time and 3 hits 4% of the time.

A player with black ops will roll 1 hit 80% of the time roll 2 hits 41% of the time and roll 3 hits 11% of the time.

Player with Black Ops wins more or less 60% of the time, which is almost like rolling to hit on a black side...

Suggestion: kill Joe.

What I don't understand in your example is why in round 7 the surviving units didn't take a couple of steps back, to prevent Ozz from doing sustained fire the next round. I mean, they couldn't attack him, so why just sit there adjacent to that physcho?

Plus, an easier to activate Reactive Fire wouldn't change the example above at all, since Ozz was performing sustained attacks, which don't allow for reactive fire.

Sorry, I made a mistake at round 7, the walker did move two square. I believe the surviving units were heavy lazers and they moved back 2 squares as well away from ozz. Ozz moved 2 into tank and busted it, Grims shot the last Heavy lazer. Heavy lazer reacted and failed.

Also on killing joe, believe me I am sure the Axis player wanted to, but like I said, the Allied player can just avoid contact as joe was attached to BBQ squad.

So in short, what you are saying is that one of the local players has found a good combo that can win him games and instead of learning how to deal with that combo you expect the rules of Dust Tactics to be altered so that you yourself don't have to come up with a new and better strategy. . . . . . . . . .

Oh how could I be so stupid Flourish! **** you caught me! I just want to change the rules so I can win! Right?

Well, if you read my post I said, I own ozz. I own the same units. I can do the same combo. Ooops. I wasn't really complaining.

I must admit, that combo can be beaten. No body here said it coudn't. But if the only way to beat it is to really on a 40% initiative roll, then the axis is screwed 4 times out of 10. Also there are some scenarios where obviously this combo won't work.

No one so far can counter it. Can you? Obviously you do, I mean you have the ability to reply to the topic without reading the entire conversation and contribute so much. So please show me how you can counter this play.

Against move 2, axis cannot chase allies without exposing themselves, or taking a risk in initiative which they will lose 60% of the time. Playing defensive won't cut it because that is exactly what this play is for.

The only way you can beat this if your opponent gets bad dice rolls. Not a strategy.

Show me a better strategy and tactic please. Obviously this idiot need your help.

Actually!

In short, you have discovered a very effective combo, a combo that your opponent is so helpless against, and has to rely on terrible odds to win, and you don't want the rules to change so that you can win most of the time. Gotcha!

But that is besides the point of the topic. If you disagree with the suggestion then state why. Don't post trash in this thread otherwise.

jowisu said:

jowisu said:

When I lose to the Axis and it happens more often then I admit to, I am not playing against a Defensive Axis Player. They may be slow but they are powerful and should not just sit back and wait to be attack. (That is what a defensive player does)?

As far as Bazooka Joe, people can throw out statistics all the time, but I don't believe it is the game changer you make it out to be. I think I have gone entire games without winning initiative with Bazooka Joe. But, we do have a ton of re-rolls. Who won the initiative on the first six rounds?

I don't think this is a little niche, I think it was luck. You had an Axis player that waited to be attacked six out of eight games turns and he was. He placed OZZ and Grim Reapers in the middle of four axis units which I believe was risky and bold at the same time. He was betting on a 60% chance of winning initiative. Without Bazooka Joe, it would have been a 50% chance. That is only an increase of 10%. He could have easily lost initiative and took some serious damage. Sustained Laser attack could have done a world of hurt.

As far as changing Reactive fire, why make this even more of a Defensive Game? Don't reward players for sitting and waiting to be attacked. Already the attacking unit that moves to attack can't use sustained fire, and if he doesn't eliminate the enemy he will receive sustained fire in return. Now you want to give the defending unit even better chances to get off a first attack before the attacking unit can get off a shot?

I think Reactive fire is good just the way it is. Usually, only used when you know you are about to lose your unit and you want to possibly take some of the enemy with you. The other time, is when the attacking unit is so weak you have a chance of eliminating it before it even does any damage. But, I don't think we need to increase the odds of that happening.

I don't think rewarding all units equally to stay put and wait to be attacked would be in the best interest of Dust Tactics. It would slow the game down. For six turns it sounds like the Axis player didn’t move and the Allied player danced around. Would increasing the odds of reactive fire, encouraged either player to attack more?

@DCAL12

Like I said, I never said that combo was unbeatable. But if I was to risk something, I would rather risk a 60% then a 40% you know. There is actually a 20% difference not 10%. And crunching the numbers really helps, I may not be an expert, but I want to play a good balanced game that relies on actual tactics, not unit composition, and statistics can help balance things out.

The Axis was trying to engage, but you can't really chase a 2 move unit if your fastest unit can only move 3 squares max. You said yourself that Axis units are slow.

And as for it encouraging defensiveness, I disagree, respectfully. Let me remind you that you have to activate units every turn, and an activated unit cannot reactive fire. Sitting there playing on hopes of a reactive will get you killed as your opponents will just pick off activated units instead.

Adding another dice will make it 50% to get a successful reactive instead of a measly 33%, still not as good as the 60% advantage the allied players have with joe.

At first when my playgroup brought this idea up, I was like you sir, skeptical, but I want to explore this and play test it to see if it could work. Although I like winning, I wouldn't want to win against helpless opponent who had terrible odds, where are the tactics in that? Only idiots want to win that way.

jowisu said:

Thats happened to me too but add in an extra 2 activations with the Command Squad - pretty much my entire army destroyed by 1 unit and a hero

Don't play defensive.

Choose the order of your targets at the start of the game and try to follow that order as much as you can.

Use walkers with U range to soften Ozz and his unit up before they get close.
Luther = 5 dice
Lothar = 2 dice per model
Ludwig = 2 dice (I know not much but it will help)

Use Manfred and his Assault to get into range of Ozz.
Combine Manfred with the Sturmpioniere and that is a 3 square move and you can shoot or a 5 square dash to get into position for the next round.

Don't rely on Reactive fire.

Trouble is with jump packs and M2 and the use of blocking terrain, Ozz gets first strike, pretty much every time unless oppo makes a mistake.

observor with artillery can help with line of sight being blocked

I think you guys forget what DT was meant to be. A fast paced and bloody game. Maybe OZZ is a bit OP at the moment but let's wait for the totenmaster or other heroes to be released. This schould be fast and you need to feel pain! We would need some opinion form "pro tournament players" or sth. Also consider just not using OZZ or just simply remove his ability. And well in my opinion you do too much match on this.. Black Ops can be pain in the ass, but also for the Allied player who relays on it to much. Anyway, remember the most imprtant rule : you need to have some fun:D

i receved totenmiester as a tournament prize and shes been able to due some insane damage . the W serum really just makes the unit a powerhouse. totenmiesters constent regen kept the squad together and managed to survive round after round of combat turning what looked like a losing battle into a win for me.

Changing reactive fire would also require consideration of those changes for units with advanced or superior reactive fire.

A Sturmkonig with a 70% chance to get off reactive fire of 10 dice against Armor 2 infantry is too much power, so either the unit would need to be reduced in other capabilities or increased in price if reactive fire were improved. Then look at the Wildfire rolling 4 dice for reactive fire, and it gets worse.

I also have no problem with reactive fire as it is written. Reactive fire is not a panacea for tactical woes, nor should it be.

Using simulataneous attacks is a thought, but it negates one of the principles of overwatch tactics, which is to be able to fire at the enemy before they are fully ready to attack you. I would rather reactive fire continued to represent the tactic it is designed to simulate more closely.

Allowing units to 'go defensive' for an improved chance to get off reactive fire is another thought, but again faces problems interfacing with advanced and superior reactive fire. A tactic allowed as a general rule should be allowed to all units, which would power up the current reactive fire specialists. Allowing only certain units to use a new rule would require a good rationale and an adjustment of point values to represent improved capabilities. The gain would be minimal compared to the effort to implement it appropriately.

Ozz is tough with his Heroic Attack. Units need to hit his unit hard early when possible, but they also need to position to minimize his effectiveness. The Grim Reapers can attack two units, one with their machineguns, and one with their fists. Ozz can attack two more the same way. Attacking four units requires all four units to be packed close together. That should be avoided when possible. Three of those four attacks have a one space range, and two allow a simulataneous counterattack when they are used. Weak weapons and Heroic Attack negate some counterattacks, but not all.

Ozz can ignore cover with his flamethrower, as do the unit's close combat attacks, but the machineguns have to worry about it, so use it.

Screen important units with intervening units so the Ozz slam can't hit multiple major units in one turn. If he moves four spaces to get the ideal attack, you should be able to watch for it, and either move units after Ozz moves to mitigate the situation, or be smart enough to see it coming and position before he gets there.

Ozz moves quickly, but not so quickly that you can't react to him. Use cover, maneuver, and appropriate units to limit his capabilities, just as the Allied players have to do with Lara teamed with heavy hitters.

Ozz has one turn of invulnerability, so force him to use it, or don't give him so many excellent targets.

Reactive fire doesn't need to change to deal with Ozz. Practice and good fire and maneuver tactics is what is needed.

Alrighty I am back, been a busy few days and I wasn't able to reply. First off, I'd like to apologize to Flourish, I shouldn't have snapped back as I did, it was a bit immature of me. So sorry mate, didn't mean any thing by it.

Second, I feel that this thread has been taken out of context. First of all, this suggestion wasn't just my idea, this was a collective discussion in our playgroup. We thought, both the Allied players and the Axis players, that the initiative advantage of the Allied players with Joe was a bit too much with allied players winning initiative 60% of the time at only 18 AP, this is of course debatable. Whether or not you agree is completely up to you, but this is what I want to discuss. And perhaps your teams can playtest this theory as well. Know that I have read your reactions and comments and have taken it into heart, I appreciate your feed back, thank you.

Remember all factions will get the reactive fire advantage. Never said it was the right thing to do, or a must for the game to progress, I only posted that it was interesting to try, and might make the game better.

Third, about this Ozz Tactic thing, for the record, I only stated that scenario to show that the advantage of initiative can be a game winner, I did not mean for this to be an OZZ should be banned thread, as I own an Ozz, and I would rather not have a fig I cannot use.

Our playgroup has been playing with and experimenting with Ozz, this tactic is definitely the best so far we have come up with, and we have tried and experimented with ways against it. Sure it is a risky move that relies on winning initiative 3 turns in a row, which for an Allied player is about a 30% chance to do so, for comparison an Axis get less then 5% chance to do the same thing.

And while we are on that topic, I'd like to address Gimps reply to the thread. Thank you for your suggestion, our playgroup has tried the said counter tactics you have presented, and it is a great affirmation that another person not within our group agrees with our findings, this let's us know we are on the right track. Make note that I never said the Axis players are not entirely handicapped, but against an Allied Player whose gameplay is to avoid confrontation until the end of the game, then most of the time he will be able to because of their speed.

Now one can always argue that Axis players have quick units that can catch up, let us all analyze shall we? Sturm 3 moves, Apes 3, Zombies 3 moves, with Markus apes can move 3 and attack, with Stefan, Manfred, and Grenadier X they can move 3 with attack, or move 5. Using those units are a real help against a move 4, but to move your units as close as you can so you can attack next round is still reliant on the Initiative advantage for it to work, and Allies most of the time will get initiative, it is more risky for the Axis player, which when I play Axis I do because there is not much else anyone can do. And like I said, if the Allied player doesn't want to fight, he has the mobility to do so most of the time, a luxury move 3 units cannot have against move 4 units.

Also worth stating that damage resilliance helps alot, but if I were an Axis player I wouldn't really put my eggs in that basket, it is way to risky, and often times, at least in my experience, it let me down when I needed it the most. Another thing worth stating is that the Ozz tactics doesn't work well on certain campaign scenarios, and lags behind on 300+ AP games, but works really well against wipeout maps that have timed rounds.

And for a final statement let me just share that the best way to counter this tactic is to corner Ozz, but against an experienced player it's easier said then done. Thanks for reading and sorry for the long post.

Consider what Bazooka Joe gives a unit for his 18 points compared to the other heroes.

Like most, he adds four damage points.

Only Johnny One Eye matches him in not being able to damage medium walkers or above, though Johnny gives an attached squad a lot more power if the right squad is used.

Rosie is worse against infantry, but far superior against vehicles. She gives nothing to an attached unit, but Tank Head is a huge boost when used well.

Only Rosie and the Chef match Joe in not giving abilities to an attached squad, but the other two significantly increase their squad's effectiveness.

From the Axis, Sigrid is the closest match in capabilities, because she slightly exceeds Joe against vehicles due to her Laser Weapon, is better in close comnbat with Armor 2, but equal against Armor 3 infantry, and only loses out in range 1 firing at Armor 3 infantry and close combat against armor values not currently in use. For two more points, she gives an attached unit the effect of a Sustained Attack at any time once per game. Winning initiative at the right time can mean a lot, but getting the effect of a Sustained Attack for a normal attack, or further increasing a Sustained Attack's impact, will have a huge impact unless it's used foolishly.

Joe gives a squad four more damage points, and a moderately effective weapon not much better than an extra assault rifle. He loses range, but gains a weapon that ignores cover, and adds a little more firepower at range 1.

All of the extra points put into Joe are to give the Allied player four dice for initiative instead of three. A 60/40 split on initiative instead of a 50/50 split if your numbers are right.

I didn't check your 60/40 split numbers, but something to consider; your three turn example is significantly off if the 60/40 is right. Winning three turns of initiative with a 60% chance per turn would happen only 21.6% of the time, while the Axis would do the same 6.4% of the time.

One time in five winning three consecutive turns of initiative, when winning is not always the most important aspect of the turn, is not a huge advantage. Sometimes, it can be, but sometimes missing out one time during that spread is all it takes to change the battle. I've seen a lot of battles come down to a single initiative roll, but rarely be decided simply by a string of initiative victories. That's one of the advantages of alternating activations.

jowisu said:

How is the math for that done? Each individual die always has 33% of being a hit, no matter how many other dice are thrown. That is fact, but it is of course also true that the more throws you get to make in a run the more likely you are to end up getting a hit sooner or later if seen to the total result.

Ulrike Meinhof said:

Because to get initiative 3 times in a row is 60% of 60% of 60% but if you apply the same argument to the axis' chance of the same then they have only £6.4% of winning intitiative 3 times on the trot. Anyway despite all the math and hypothetical reasoning, Black Ops is a killer for the Axis when you actually play the game.

Ulrike Meinhof said:

Because to roll 1 hit on 1/3 of two dice is 50%, I also made the mistake of not rounding off some equations, I should have.

Yes each individual die is a separate 33%, but when you combine your rolls, and when the law of averaging kicks in, you will always more or less roll the average.

Ex. 33% means 33 out of 100 you will get the hit result. or 3 for 10. So roll 10 die and most of the time you will get 3 more or less.

Major Mishap said:

Took the words right out of my mouth... Lol

jowisu said:

You are welcome to the words. I disagree, having dealt in several different games with some models giving initiative boosts for one side, it simply becomes something to plan for.

Winning initiative in DUST is good, but only a game winner at just the right moments, just as it is in many games. I've played several DUST games where I lost initiative just about every turn, yet was able to pull off a handy victory against a capable opponent.

Black Ops gives basically as much shift in initiative as a +1 initiative bonus in a d6 initiative based game. There have been many games that gave at least that much bonus (or more), yet were quite balanced overall. I've dealt with games where one side had a 30% bonus in initiative, yet the game was still quite playable and balanced.

Initiative does not win DUST games. Good play does. Initiative is something to consider, but that's the case in any game with rolled initiative and tactics.