Hello, I'm new to these forums. I'm looking at Dust Tactics, as well as their non-board counterpart, Dust Warfare. I have yet to pick up the Revised Starter rules, but in a stroke of luck, I bought second hand everything from the original starter minus the mechs (because everyone loves the mechs). I've read through both the original and revised core starters, and the rules are simple enough without taking away from the game.

However, there is no game without an opponent. I've gotten a friend to share in buying the starter, and have 2 more friends to are interested in playing. I want to give them a positive gaming experience with this game, so that we may have many more in the future.

One of the ways I'd like to make the gaming enjoyable is asking what the strengths and weakness of the Axis and Allied sides are. It's no fun when you don't have a single clue, and go rushing into close combat with your opponent and all your units are ranged experts.

Thanks in Advance

Generally speaking, the axis has better range and hits harder, the allies have more speed and weapons that ignore cover. Though if you don't have the core set walkers, that doesn't come into play as much.

Both sides have a great variety of units that can be tailored to many different play styles the Axis Units tend to be Defensive, have long attack range, and tend to more specialized though they also have some very strong Close combat units. The Allies favor High Mobility and Have the High movement Values and troops tend have less specialized weaponry. The allies special weapons also tend to ignore cover while the axis special weapons may deal extra damage.
From what has been revealed from the SSU faction they appear to be Offensive and have shorter weapons ranges but with increased damage (and for now the only air units).

At the risk of making a bad joke -- start playing with yourself.

But seriously, folks… If you really want to learn the rules & how the different units interact with each other strength/weakness-wise, don't be afraid to lay down a few tiles and play some games of solitaire. Trust me, once you start throwing the dice you'lll understand.

Plus, if you already know how to play the game, it's easier to teach someone else how to play. You're not just throwing the rulebook at them and saying, "Hey, read this 30 page rulebook! Then we'll play a game!" Being able to actually explain the mechanics of the game to a friend affords shortcuts to teaching it. It takes less time for a new player to learn, which usually translates into more actual playing time. You can teach better when you already know how.

Also, if you, (ahem) "allow " them to win the first game, they usually come back for more. Just sayin'.

Why not just look at the stat cards, they tell you how good the units are.

Would merely "looking at the unit cards" be better than playing a game, even if that game is just solitaire?

Experiencing how the game units interact -- even w/o an opponent -- is always a waaaaay better experience than just theorizing how the game is played.

Granted, there is no substitute for an opponent. But lacking an opponent, there is no substitute for game experience, especially since this game (like so many others) depends on dice rolls.

Trigger time, even against mock targets, is still "rounds down field," correct?

Or mebbe my oldschool Battletech is just acting up. It itches sometimes…

LotusPwn3r said:

Not really, as playing a game throws in random elements such as lucky dice throws, both players skill and grasp of the rules, scenario played etc.

Analyzing the cards will show you exactly how good a unit should be in any given situation and will give you everything you need to know about every unit.

In theory yes, but unless you have a really prodigious abstract mind, just by reading the cards you won't really grasp how big an area a squad of apes with Markus dominates until you're face to face with them on the battlefield and realize that wherever you move, they can still charge at you.