"The French Miniatures Magazine "RAVAGE" has published an entire list of DT game points for our model-kits, l heard that they are quite accurate."
Thats according to Paolo on the Facebook group. Anyone that has access to a copy of this, please translate and share!
Neat, I'd love to build a custom usable Recon Mickey.
I believe the website www.starplayer.fr is carring this issue. I am not 100% on this since I do not read or speak French, but there is an issue that I believe is the January / February and it says something about dust tactics on the cover.
Perhaps some of our multi-lingual members can assist with translation on that.
I think we are looking for THIS
@Gothik, are we sure about it being issue 68? If so I will order and post once i get it.
I think this is what we were looking for.
Mickey ARV : 30
Barking Dog : 55
BergeLuther : 30
JagdLuther : 60
Otto : 30
Ryu : 65
Fury of Ivan : 55
RARE UNIT
A unit with this skill is a rare sight on the battlefield: maybe it's difficult to build or it has been stolen from the enemy. Whatever the reason, when you loose it it's difficult to get another one.
A unit with this skill can never been brought back in play by a Command Squad after it's been destroyed on the battlefield.
CRANE
A vehicle with this equipment can lift very heavy objects: it can enter a space with an anti-tank trap. By spending 1 ACTION it can lift this obstacle and move it in an adjacent square.
DOZER BLADE
A vehicle with this skill can enter a space with an anti-tank trap. If it does, that obstacle is destroyed and removed from the board.
ENGINEER VEHICLE
A vehicle with this skill has many special properties, thanks to its specialized crew and equipments:
- if it's in contact with a Bunker, it can destroy it by spending 2 ACTIONS to do so: the vehicle needs a full activation. At the end of it, the Bunker is destroyed and all units inside are destroyed as well.
- the vehicle can freely enter a Minefield. When inside a minefield, it can chooses to spend 1 ACTION to clear the space it's in from any Mines. The space can then be crossed by any unit without harm.
RECOVERY VEHICLE
A vehicle with this skill has many special properties, thanks to its specialized crew and equipments:
- the vehicle gains the SELF REPAIR skill.
- the vehicle can gather a friendly destroyed vehicle and bring it back to the rear: it can then be salvaged. When you play with a RECOVER VEHICLE, place a marker on the gameboard for any ground vehicle you loose (flying or naval vehicles don't count). If the RECOVERY VEHICLE can manage to go in the space with this marker, it can load the destroyed vehicle (this costs 1 ACTION). The destroyed vehicle has now been salvaged: its parts will be used in another battle. Count only half the destroyed vehicle AP cost when figuring Victory Points at the end of the game.
@Dakkon426
Are these rules/points from the RAVAGE article? If so, great, I posted them up on the FB group. If not, they are still good and I'll be useing em for now, good job.
I'm not 100% sure but I think they are from Ravage No 66, not 68. Though both issues involve Dust Tactics in some way.
This is all very interesting. I wonder if this article is Dust Studios' way of getting this info out to the public without making it official or getting them involved with it...
- Barking Dog seems a bit expensive at 55. In our forum discussions we were valuing at about 45-48.
- Jagdluther sounds good at 60. It's very much what we were giving it in the forums.
- Cool that the Rare Units can't be brought back with Command skills, like heroes.
- Crane moving tank traps is a good strategic option (though probably hard to use when you really want to).
- Engineer Vehicle. What the heck is a bunker, and minefield? Sounds cool, but useless until such things are introduced into the game.
- Recovery Vehicle. Self-Repair is good, but just minimizing your AP loss for destroyed tanks sounds a bit underwhelming...
Interesting that they have rounded all the points to multiple of 5's. Not sure how Mickey and Ivan are the same cost though. 2 extra AT-dice, 2 extra Wounds and A5 trading for 2 MG's. Ivan is to cheap IMHO for that amount of firepower and resistance. As to the bunkers, maybe we will see them in the Zervolgrad (or whatever its called) campaign.
Mickey is not the same as the Ivan. Mickey is 35 and the Ivan is 55.
Ooops, meant the other Mickey, the Barking Dog
This guy gets bonus with the NCO comand squads:D
I would say the Barking dog is so expensive because its high attack power is contrary to the allies normal characteristics.
In the article that Paolo posted on the FB site it also lists a Jagdluther MG. Any ideas on what this is?
Can You link that Facebook page please?
I'm curious over two things: where did Ravage get their information, and is that information based on the weird stats DUST Models published, or something that makes more sense from FFG?
I had someone tell me they had heard Arkangl's stats on The War Continues were official, but they aren't.
I don't know how closely Mr Parente follows FFG's design team, nor how reliable his source was.
Gimp said:
I'm curious over two things: where did Ravage get their information, and is that information based on the weird stats DUST Models published, or something that makes more sense from FFG?
I had someone tell me they had heard Arkangl's stats on The War Continues were official, but they aren't.
I don't know how closely Mr Parente follows FFG's design team, nor how reliable his source was.
He mentioned on the Facebook page that these were developed on the French forums and he knows that some of his play testers are regulars there, so he was pretty sure they were involved.
blkdymnd said:
Gimp said:
I'm curious over two things: where did Ravage get their information, and is that information based on the weird stats DUST Models published, or something that makes more sense from FFG?
I had someone tell me they had heard Arkangl's stats on The War Continues were official, but they aren't.
I don't know how closely Mr Parente follows FFG's design team, nor how reliable his source was.
He mentioned on the Facebook page that these were developed on the French forums and he knows that some of his play testers are regulars there, so he was pretty sure they were involved.
So we're dealing with what may be accurate information that may not have completed playtesting, or resemble the data DUST Models has released with their bizarre stats, coming from people who are breaking their non-disclosure agreements as playtesters to try and get prestige by scooping data they promised not to release in their NDA's.
Why am I not impressed, even if the data is accurate?
Gimp said:
blkdymnd said:
Gimp said:
I'm curious over two things: where did Ravage get their information, and is that information based on the weird stats DUST Models published, or something that makes more sense from FFG?
I had someone tell me they had heard Arkangl's stats on The War Continues were official, but they aren't.
I don't know how closely Mr Parente follows FFG's design team, nor how reliable his source was.
He mentioned on the Facebook page that these were developed on the French forums and he knows that some of his play testers are regulars there, so he was pretty sure they were involved.
So we're dealing with what may be accurate information that may not have completed playtesting, or resemble the data DUST Models has released with their bizarre stats, coming from people who are breaking their non-disclosure agreements as playtesters to try and get prestige by scooping data they promised not to release in their NDA's.
Why am I not impressed, even if the data is accurate?
Because you don't seem to be impressed with a lot of things? I guess I'm not going to overanalyze what's said to be an accurate points list by the games creator for models that I can't use in an official capacity anyway. So, in short, it's good enough for me
Actually, I've been impressed with several discussions I've had on this forum. I don't bubble and gush about it, but if I didn't enjoy the discussions, I wouldn't keep coming back.
I don't have to agree with someone to respect them and value their opinions, even when they differ from mine.
I don't have an issue with people playing with the DUST Model stats, or points derived from any method they choose. It only impacts me if someone wants to use them while playing with me.
I've seen and heard enough people who are automatically assuming that any stats posted must be official that I play devil's advocate to remind people they aren't.
The fact that I consider people breaking their non-disclosure agreement distasteful is simply because I dislike people who sign a legal business contract only to break it for personal pleasure.
The noted points look reasonable for some of the models based on some stats suggested, though DUST Models has also released some stats that are going to be ridiculous if they make it into the game. Those leave some of the point values more tenuous.
Since I'm not likely to be playing with the models until they get an official set of stats unless I agree with the stats proposed, the scammed points and DUST Model cards are not a big deal for my gaming.
Since I'm an honest person that appreciates integrity, I'm disgusted with people breaking their non-disclosure agreement contracts with FFG. There are plenty of playtesters who are maintaining their integrity with FFG, but whoever released the information makes them all look bad.
Since I respect some of the people here who have acknwledged they are playtesters, I find someone making them look bad disgusting.
Why should anyone be impressed by someone making people they respect look bad?
Gimp said:
Actually, I've been impressed with several discussions I've had on this forum. I don't bubble and gush about it, but if I didn't enjoy the discussions, I wouldn't keep coming back.
I don't have to agree with someone to respect them and value their opinions, even when they differ from mine.
I don't have an issue with people playing with the DUST Model stats, or points derived from any method they choose. It only impacts me if someone wants to use them while playing with me.
I've seen and heard enough people who are automatically assuming that any stats posted must be official that I play devil's advocate to remind people they aren't.
The fact that I consider people breaking their non-disclosure agreement distasteful is simply because I dislike people who sign a legal business contract only to break it for personal pleasure.
The noted points look reasonable for some of the models based on some stats suggested, though DUST Models has also released some stats that are going to be ridiculous if they make it into the game. Those leave some of the point values more tenuous.
Since I'm not likely to be playing with the models until they get an official set of stats unless I agree with the stats proposed, the scammed points and DUST Model cards are not a big deal for my gaming.
Since I'm an honest person that appreciates integrity, I'm disgusted with people breaking their non-disclosure agreement contracts with FFG. There are plenty of playtesters who are maintaining their integrity with FFG, but whoever released the information makes them all look bad.
Since I respect some of the people here who have acknwledged they are playtesters, I find someone making them look bad disgusting.
Why should anyone be impressed by someone making people they respect look bad?
Ok, so first get your facts straight. Paolo said they were HIS playtesters, not FFG's. Though without knowing the exact agreement, that may cross over between the two. Remember that the game is developed by Dust Studios, not FFG. FFG produces it, and runs the organized play, also it seems they have a big hand in developing Warfare also (which I think was always going to be farmed out to the production company because even early on with AEG, AEG stated that the tabletop rules would be developed, they only planned a crossover PDF at the time).
Secondly, even if they were strictly FFG playtesters, how is the research of producing unofficial game stats anywhere coming close to breaking their NDA?
I don't know who all is playtesting Warfare or Tactics. I do know FFG has playtesters, and as they are producing it, they normally would have the final word on stats. With multiple companies involved, it gets more complicated, but the end result is the same. Whether Mr Parente has personal playtesters, or simply considers playtesters for his creation his playtesters, is not information I am privy to. I know FFG has playtesters for DUST.
As for the released information, the core of every non-disclosure agreement I have ever seen was that the signer agreed not to release any information on the proprietary game information they were given access to. I saw a copy of FFG's NDA once, and it certainly had that language.
If someone has contracted to an agreement not to disclose any information about a product they have been given information about, the release of any information, including playtest point values or gaming stats, is a violation of that agreement. Final published stats come from the playtest data, and all of that data is part of the intellectual property that is the game.
Many companies specify the signer is not even allowed to acknowledge they are a playtester, because that could cause problems with their forum posts being given more credence then they should have. Disclosing who are playtesting is disclosing information not available to the general public, and is intrinsic with an NDA.
Whether a company wanted to sue someone for releasing information, cull them from their playtest groups, put up with them because they liked their input, or was lax enough to not care so long as nothing major got released, would be up to the company, and how strictly they wanted to enforce their contracts. Any release without official sanction, however, is breaking the law.
Gimp said:
I don't know who all is playtesting Warfare or Tactics. I do know FFG has playtesters, and as they are producing it, they normally would have the final word on stats. With multiple companies involved, it gets more complicated, but the end result is the same. Whether Mr Parente has personal playtesters, or simply considers playtesters for his creation his playtesters, is not information I am privy to. I know FFG has playtesters for DUST.
As for the released information, the core of every non-disclosure agreement I have ever seen was that the signer agreed not to release any information on the proprietary game information they were given access to. I saw a copy of FFG's NDA once, and it certainly had that language.
If someone has contracted to an agreement not to disclose any information about a product they have been given information about, the release of any information, including playtest point values or gaming stats, is a violation of that agreement. Final published stats come from the playtest data, and all of that data is part of the intellectual property that is the game.
Many companies specify the signer is not even allowed to acknowledge they are a playtester, because that could cause problems with their forum posts being given more credence then they should have. Disclosing who are playtesting is disclosing information not available to the general public, and is intrinsic with an NDA.
Whether a company wanted to sue someone for releasing information, cull them from their playtest groups, put up with them because they liked their input, or was lax enough to not care so long as nothing major got released, would be up to the company, and how strictly they wanted to enforce their contracts. Any release without official sanction, however, is breaking the law.
Again, these are unofficial models that may never see the light of day as official Dust models. No one is even close to violating an NDA here. And FFG seems to have no issue with identities because posters here have already discussed some of their involvement in Warfare playtest without breaking NDA. This is a release of unofficial stats with Paolo's blessing, who is the creator of all things Dust, so there is no issue.
Accepting it happened, and giving it his blessing, are not the same thing. Few companies can do more than go for good spin when stuff gets leaked that wasn't supposed to. If it got leaked in France, good spin would be to let the rest of the world know.
Unofficial stats by gamers, or even those released by DUST Models, are one thing. Point values released by playtesters, and acknowledged as coming from playtesters, are something else entirely.
I have seen that FFG has not publicly addressed the playtesters who have said they were (or even any players who aren't, yet said they were). That is the contract violation most often overlooked by game companies, because they know players tend to be young, exuberant, and not always as discrete as they should be by contract. What FFG has decided to do about it privately has, obviously, been private. Whether there was nothing done, censure, quiet rebuke, or removal from playtest groups has not been indicated by anyone. It doesn't matter.
People speed all the time locally, and sometimes the cops let it slide. It doesn't mean the people aren't breaking the law, only that they are escaping punishment for doing so.
The same holds true for leaking information against an NDA. Depending on what is leaked, it can also be difficult to figure out who did it, which makes corrective action harder to enforce. If you have many good playtesters, you may not want to have to replace all of them because a few are breaking their contracts, and you can't figure out which ones are. The new group would take time to get established, andmay be no better in the end.
Annonymity can protect the bad as well as the good.