Panzer soldier said:

Unfortunately FFG do not comment on their own forums and although now quite quick to respond to a rules querry, they will not reply to any question on why a rule or uit profile is in place.

Panzer soldier said:

And that is why you put up with this game. Since you were wondering…

So I have been tilting at winmills. Oh well I stand by what I said. So what do we do now answer questions for newbies and complain about rules that no cares to change?

Change the rules yourself. Making up your local rules is as legal as your players want it to be. Change the cost if it's overpriced. Swap out the weapons from the airborne walkers to the standard ones. Find out what works to maintain the balance between the forces.

Then, when you post, you're not just b@#$%ing, you're problem solving. People are more likely to take your complaint seriously if they know that you have thought about it enough to come up with possible fixes.

If you tell your Wife/Mom that her meatloaf is gross…not going to end well. If you tell her that it might taste better if…better chance of not getting hit with a spatula, and she might even try your idea.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. - Dennis Miller

BTW, does anyone have both a airborne walker and a ground walker for SSU yet? Could you swap the arms between them? I think the reduced health of the airborne units might be a fair swap for the transport ability, i.e. no cost difference.

I don't think the airbourne units are out yet, seems a good idea to me, at least that might make the chainsaw walker of some use.

I have been working on some house rules but the problem is getting every to agree on them.

I can understand that, and empathize. Try to imagine what the Dust rule makers would have to go through if they had to get all of us to agree on even one thing. I do agree that it would be nice for them to consider our feedback. I think they may be listening discreetly. I would like to believe the new command vehicel was brought out because of many peoples displeasure with the command squads ineffectiveness.

The vehile is a heavy and will cost at least 60 points. That plus the command squad is 100+ points! Thats allot of points just to have a command squad that works.

I don't know if it will cost that much since it is only defense 4, and it doesn't have much in the way of weapons. But even 60pts for the ability to reactivate a unit roughly every other turn, or bring back a destroyed unit more reliablely… I think it's worth it. I say 60pts because the walkers weapons may not be much, but they'll be better than the command squads weapons, and just being a transport is worth something.

Here's an interesting question, does using your command abilities while inside include the mechanics repair ability? Can the mechanic repair the vehicle he's riding in? Or another vehicle adjacent to his transport?

Rules for new units are covered in box sets. So we should see the rules In Operation Hades or perhaps the next box set to come.

As far as the command squad I don't favor them because they are too unreliable. The new vehicle will make them more reliable, but I still still think it is much better to spent your points on other units.

Even if the new vehicle cost 40 points that's still 80 points. That's almost 1/3 of a 250 point army. I would spend the points on a Stormkonig. It would put an end to the transport and the command squad in 2 turns.

In an 250 pt game, I would agree it's a bit expensive. In a 300-400 pt battle royal it could pay for itself just if it's 2 single use abilities get used. If it reactivates a 40 pt walker, or 50 pt squad+hero, every other turn it's worth even more. Combat effectiveness aside, the tactical advantage could be worth the points. Right now your opponent is reasonably safe ignoring a unit that has already activated. With the command squad in the transport, he's going to have to consider every unit a real threat, activated or not. That kind of thing can cripple his strategy and force him to over think every activation.

I in certain scenarios a command squad can give you an edge. In an objective based scenario I think the Command Squad is the rite choice, but in a slug fest I think using those points on combat units is the way to go. I also think you are correct that the higher the point limit the more feasible the Command Squad becomes.

I field two Lothars these days and four spotter units. The spotter units are cheap and almost always give you more units than your opponent. If you place then first you will out maneuver your opponent, in the first first turn of the game. They also allow you to use indirect fire from the Lothars while not exposing then to direct fire from your opponent.

The fact that you have have more units also you to field a heavy without your opponent getting a free shot at it on the first turn.

Any tricks of your own that you would care to share?

I think we've had this discussion before. I don't play in tournys and I like to just have fun with the game. While I enjoy a "seek and destroy" mission, I also like objective missions as well. Personally, I like blind build formats where you don't know what the mission is until you are ready to deploy. It forces you to build a balanced force.

Two lothars and four spotters is the almost 100 points and you can only attack every other turn, or one each turn if you alternate them. With the abundance of no cover weapons the allies have the spotters must be killed pretty quick. Or just ignore the spotters and use the three jump/2 squads (still 10pts cheaper than the Lothars+spotters) to swarm the Lothars and pummel the to scrap. Unless you keep some anti-infantry in the back to cover them, but then your leaving your spotters vulnerable. I take out one spotter squad, hunker down, and win the game by 5pts.

At least your keeping the ratio of spotters to artillery pieces reasonable. If the only reason they are in the force is to out-activate your opponent, well, that kind of meta-game strategy is the reason I quit playing M:TG.

I like the way Battletech did it. If one force outnumbered the other then they had to activate two units near the middle of the round to keep the simultanous feel. If you had 9 and your opponent had 6 it would look like 1/1, 1/2, 1/2, 1/2, 1/1, 1/1 not 1/1, 1/1, 1/1/, 1/1, 1/1, 1/1, 0/1, 0/1, 0/1. If you had more than double you would move 2 or 3 to make it balance.

The only "tricks" I use are the obvious ones that the game designers probably did on purpose. Putting Rosie in Fireball, scouting onto the board, and having her deploy and use Tankhead as soon as Fireball is in danger. Putting Angela with the sniper squad for some ugly spotter/frenzy action. One-eye Johnny's Badass ability with The Gunners one-shot UGL's nearly doubling the squads firepower and adding another no-cover weapon.

One mans trick is another version of strategy. Putting Rosie in a Fireball is a nasty one idea.

I guess part of my problem is that I started gaming 30 yrs ago with D&D and I've always cared more about the "flavor" than the rules. If the strategy has no logical basis except as a loophole in the rules, it just doesn't sit well with me. Isn't that what "meta-game" means?

I think you are rite we have had that conversation before. I also started with D&D and a few years before you.

I prefer the term power gamer. Yes I will use any legal means at my disposal to win. Why would you not.

So maybe you and yours view this as bad form. Don't hate the player hate the game.

If you don't mind though explain to me why 4 spotter units is bad form and a loophole to you. While Rosie in a Fireball is dandy and sporting.

You are using the rules to your advantage just like me. So why point your finger at me and cry fowl?
I think you are a hypocrite.

Again, we have had this conversation before. If the sole purpose of the spotters is to out activate your opponent, I feel it is not in the spirit of the game. The game is meant as a simulation of real combat in an alternate timeline. Ask someone with tactical military training if having more spotters than your force can effectively use could really help you win the battle. I do not argue that it is legal, and perhaps even effective. I don't care for it because it has no connection to real world tactics. It only works within the limited structure of this particular rule set. As I said before, if I wanted to play the "meta-game" with power gamers, I would have stuck with 40k or Magic:TG.

Rosie riding in the Fireball and then repairing it, may not be totally realistic, but it at least has some connection to reality. Field mechanics have always been essential to any mechanized force. While Rosie's ability is quite an exaggeration, some of the actual field repairs done in WWII were quite amazing. More importantly, the tactic of having a field repair unit, and keeping them protected in a transport until needed, would be valid in any game system that allows field repair and transports. I have seen the same thing in Mechwarrior: DarkAge just off the top of my head. Because it has a real world connection, it will appear in games across the board, regardless of rules. The spotter trick only works within the context of these rules. Having no real world connection, you will only find this tactic within the limited group of games that use this activation system.

I was trying to be polite earlier, and maintain a "to each his own" attitude. I don't enjoy playing with "power gamers" in any kind of game (even checkers), because too many of them have forgotten the true point of the game is for EVERYONE to have fun. Most of the "power gamers" I have had to deal with are more concerned with how to manipulate the rules to their maximum advantage, than if they're having a good time with friends. Maybe that's the only way they know how to have fun. All I know is that I've seen "power gamers" spoil games on more than one occasion.

I don't enjoy being called a hypocrite for my views, and I will be ending my part in this discussion before I say/hear something truly rude.

I don't have ask some one with tactical experience anything. I am a retired U.S. Army Staff Sergeant. My Mos was 19k30, that's a tank commander. I have had combat deployments in both the first and second Gulf Wars.

So their you go making assumptions again. You are the one that got all high and mighty about meta games and all that garbage.

What did you expect me to say? Ooooh your rite all knowing rules and fairness guy! I will change my eeevil ways!

So have you had enough or do you want to go another round?

So I'll ask you with your tactical experience. Could having more spotters in your force than you could ever actually use ever really help you win a battle in real life?

I've tried to be polite, and that apparently hasn't worked, so I'm going to walk away. Never wrestle with a pig, you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

I use my spotters all the time. They allowed to keep my lothars in cover and still kill my friend Fury of Ivan walker in a game today. One more victory for the Father Land!

As for real tactical forward observers, they were used heavily in WWII.

I use mine much like scout units that are used in the modern military. You see artillery is often miles away from the target they are engaging. If an artillery unit is engaging the enemy with direct fire then something at the front has gone horribly wrong.

The point here is that my use of spotters is historically accurate, legal within the game, and a successful tactic.
So you can be butt hurt and call me names because you didn't win the argument. I value your opinion of me less than two *****.

@fhaugh: I really like your points and comments and i'm all with you on this one. I'd love to play games against you, would be fun as hell!

If you use spotter as spotters, I have no problem with your tactics. My problem lies in using spotters solely to out-activate your opponent. When people do this they are using a loophole in the rules to bypass one of the basic building blocks of the game, the back and forth activations.

I enjoy the fact that Tactics doesn't have force building rules. I like being able to construct my army without having to take a bunch of mandatory choices. Unfortunately, this kind of abuse is one of the reasons many games have force building rules.

Panzer - You are choosing to ignore the vital point I'm trying to make. Yes, forward observers were and are used to good effect. I asked you if having more spotters THAN YOUR FORCE CAN EFFECTIVELY USE could help you win a battle. That is what is being done by some people to win a game. I saw a force list that included 5 spotter units AND NO ARTILLERY . The spotters were there only to activate first, and effectively force his opponent to move and shoot with his force at once, thus bypassing the core rule of "I activate one, You activate one". This is what I, and the people I enjoy playing with, call "rule lawyering", and it takes the fun out of the game for me. If it makes you feel better to call it "power gaming", go for it. It doesn't change the fact that it is a loophole around one of the core rules.

Look I appreciate your passion for game, I really do. Spotters are a two edged sword. In my experience 5spotters is too many. You tie up too many points in weak units. The small advantage you get during the first two rounds is minimal. After that at least two units are usually dead and you opponent better units slowly defeat you.

I really don't see this as an over whelming strategy. Just one more strategy in a game of many strategies. I have certainly lost plenty of games using it, and I don't see how it is the terrible monster you want me to think it is.

Now another point you bring up is fair play. Don't get the idea that I am some idiot who's entire self esteem rest on winning a game at any cost. I think enjoying the game is more important, and that has allot to do with your opponent. I don't think I have ever met a dust player that wasn't a decent sort. Now 40K, wow you could get some real twisted ones their.

Most of people I play with are really good games, and are very competitive. I personally like a real knock out drag out challenge. This way victory is sweater, or there is pride in a well fought loss.

So I guess what I am saying that I agree with you as far as the spirit of your argument. But I think that using multiple spotters is just one more tactic in a game that has many.

I know that this thread is quite old and gone way off topic as well, but I'd like to go back to the original topic: Are the SSU walker transport and its walkers worth it? They have been out for some time now, and I suppose a lot of people have bought them and played them several times - or put them in a box after some games because they just weren't good enough. As I am still wondering whether I should get a walker transport or not, I'd really like to know if the airlifted walkers are as useless as some people here inthis thread claimed them to be, or if one or more of them can be put to good use in the game. Or is the combination of transport and walker just too expensive (concerning points) to be included in an army?