I doubt that a 5 man squad with sniper rifles will get the cover benefits of the 2 man teams.

Gimp said:

As mentioned above, we don't know that the rifle squad has improved cover. Just because they have sniper rifles, it doesn't mean they're just like the Crack Shots. For one, they don't seem to have a spotter, which is really the BIG boost of the spec ops snipers.

As for the whole issue around air units and the 6 range limit, I am absolutely sure they won't give any aircraft a weapon with a range greater than 6. Just because the attack chopper has a cannon, it doesn't mean it has Unlimited range.

I also find your rant about the sulfur throwers a bit odd. Sure, they are not a practical weapon for warfare. But then again, neither are mechanized claws, tanks on legs, gorillas with power gloves, lasers, phasers and little rockets to accelerate your punch.

As someone who works around acids everyday, I have to agree they may not be the most effective anti-tank weapon, but judging from the behavior of 'outsiders' at our shop, the fear of getting sprayed in the face with acid would have some psychological value against infantry. 

Ever messed with acid?  Something like sulfuric or phosphoric, if it gets on your skin, it starts out itchy, then burns.  In a cut or your eyes?  It stings a bit.  Nitric acid though, is nasty stuff.  Open a drum and you can see the fumes coming out of it.  Get a good whiff and you might just puke.  If someone told me to go fight someone, and said ''By the way, the have a gun that shoots acid,'' I'd be a little worried, cause I knew I'd be dealing with some crazy MFers.

/or something.

I sort feel like I am going to get beat up for saying this, but I think I get the range limit of 6 with AA. After all we are dealing with a very limited playing area 3'x4', and it would be much fun to move a chopper only to have it swotted out of the sky.If, and I will admitt this is a big if, the choppers have the same range limit then ballance is held.

The rest we can chalk up to giveing the SSU it's owne flavor.  Their is a delicate ballance between giveing a force it's owne flavor, and makeing it into what we used to call the flavor of the month. Meaning the newest army had all the latest greatest toys and if you wanted to win you had to buy it!

This is great for the manufacturer, but not for the players. This is my ultimate concern. I saw this happen with 40k, and I got off that treadmill. Now enjoy Dust far more than I ever did 40k, and I hope that the game stays about playability and fun. Not about just makeing a buck.

I comepleatly agree with Gimp that Dust Warfare was a huge disappiontment. Lets hope that this is not the shape of things to come! If so I'm oooout!

I think most of the "concerns" of gimp are rather an exaggeration, except the Legendary Tactical ability which seem really be absurd if the hero is not worth at least 40 points or more.

-6 Range of AA: thats absolutely no prob, especially if you consider that we are playing on a small mat, and the gunship of the SSU has only a range of 4!

-Acid sprayer is too unrealistic? Come on, thats a game with Totenmeisters, armored apes and zombies.

-team of 5 snipers? Only a prob for me if they are too cheap.

The concerns are not exagerations.  Some are questions, and some are concerns over how realistic they want to continue to make Tactics. 

Some people don't care about realism when they play with toy soldiers, but there are many others that do.  Even science fiction (or fantasy, for that matter) should follow logical considerations.

The sniper squad doesn't need to match sniper teams to get a benefit.  Legendary Tactician gives any unit with or adjacent to the hero a cover boost.  Even light cover is worthwhile for snipers moving for better shots.  If they match sniper teams for cover, the sniper squad would get ridiculous fast.

If the chopper with the canon has a limited range, that mitigates the balance issue, but we don't know what is actually coming out.  Unlimited range from the air against a six space range on the ground would be huge, as even a 3x3 grid can have a maximum range of 15 on the diagonal.  If the range is limited, it's rather silly, as one of the advantages of air power is its long range strike capability.  Limiting AA guns that shoot down planes at 30,000' to a six space range is stupid.  Read some WW2 history about low level bombing raids for examples on why.

They would have done far better allowing choppers to use terrain like real choppers do, and let them fly at specified levels like the levels of a building.  Choppers don't fly high in combat areas, especially not when delivering troops.

Totenmeister, armored apes, and zombies still follow a logical consideration.  They are sci-fi in a believable form.  They act like functional elements based on their fluff.  How does acid suddenly become capable of things acid can't do?

Acid sprayers simply to make the SSU different then flamethrower units is like making a rule that normal troops can fly: there is no rational explanation on why it works differently than acid would in real life.  Is it playable?  Yes.  Is it stupid?  Yes.  That doesn't even mean it can't be fun, but it moves Tactics further from Sci-Fi and into ridiculous fantasy.  Simulationists prefer inherent logical structure that makes sense in a game.  Acid sprayers don't, for the reasons I noted and others. 

Gimp said:

Acid is capable of killing people and disabling machinery. As far as I know, that's what the sulfur throwers will be capable of doing in Dust Tactics. Just because we haven't found a way to use acid as an effective offensive weapon, it doesn't mean the pararel Dust universe haven't either. We haven't found a way to use lasers as effective offensive weapons, but the Dust guys have.

You might not like the idea of sulfur weapons, and that's totally fine. I didn't like the inclusion of the apes initially. But I think at this point it's unfair to say a simple sulfur thrower is the one thing that throws Dust into the realm of ridiculous fantasy.

 Can't see what all the hoo-ha about Sulphur throwers is about, at the end of the day its just another stat line the same as all the other flamer types :/

Loophole Master said:

It is an alternate world, where things are obviously different, but it is also a world where things work the same.

Lasers I have no problem with, as that's simply taking physical constraints and adding sufficient power to make the laser combat effective.

Acid can kill people, and it can disable machinery.  That I have no issue with. 

The problems I have with the concept of weaponized acid are that it would be ridiculously dangerous to the unit when a flamethrower would be capable of the same things for less risk, the quantities required for effective combat capability would be enormous, the time required for it to eat through armor would be extreme for combat purposes, and so flamethrowers would be capable of the same kind of effects far more easily and at less risk to friendly forces.  Why would they bother?

Lasers in Tactics follow logical constraints based on possibilities inherent in lasers.   Acid as a weaponised agent misses the mark significantly based on the physical constraints of acid.  You can't make acid react as other than acid.  It has specific properties, and consumes itself during the specific chemical reactions of the acid if it is used against something it can react with.  'Alien' blood eating throgh anything was fine for the movie; but even there they acknowledged both time and reaction mechanics.  They only pushed and cheated reality by not specifying what acid was being used to allow such a reaction.

The end result is simply that they added acid sprayers simply to give the SSU something different, when there was no reason to do so, and their chosen replacement was rather ludicrous.  Why can't the SSU use flamethrowers when the other countries do, and if acid sprayers are somehow more capable, why aren't the other countries using them as well?

Every country in WW2 used similar weapon concepts.  The Allies and SSU don't have acces to Vril blood to make zombies or enhance apes, and may have moral objections to using them, but effective weapon systems using the same principles were being used by all sides.

The Germans developed the panzerfaust, and the Allies and Soviets didn't, because they had similar weapons and an overwhelming advantage in their number of tanks.  They were happy to use them if they captured them, but they didn't really need them.

The Germans developed the StG44 as the first assault rifle ahead of the others, but they were working on similar concepts.  The same can be said for jets, rockets, or just about anything else.  Anything that was fielded had similar designs from the other side. 

Acid sprayers, if they could come up with a reasonable explanation for them, would be dealt with the same way.  If they were better than flamethrowers, the other countries would use them.  If they were not as effective, which everything about the science of acids suggests, the SSU wouldn't bother with them.

Guys, u know that u r arguing about the game, where zombies exists next to the walkers, right? :D

daniello_s said:

Don't forget the aliens and flying saucers!

Acid could be very dangerous, Anyone who saw the movie Aliens? No prob at all that it takes apart an futuristic APC with just acid blood in a few minutes. And nobody can deny that this is a VERY classical theme in SciFi. But generally I think its quite silly to argue about the capabilites of chemical substances in an alternate SciFi universe where zombies are running around in order to kill jumping tanks. Such arguing reminds me of a similar silly discussion about the question if Darth Vader really could stop a laser shot with his hands or not, so I will stop here

 Also even a rather mild acid can cause blindness and sever chemical burns. also many acid reactions are extremely exothermic.

Woe ya, light saber or pan galactic gargle blaster. Makes no difference, playability and game balance that's the key.