Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, BL was running into issues because necessary cuts were never made. FFG could have let it sink, but decided to cut and renew the game. Not their fault.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=4814

So this certainly doesn't sound like a gaming company that's on shaking financial grounds. Major expansions for all their lines, and two lines that players have been screaming for since the dawn of time.

If you don't pay all of your bills, it frees up a lot of cash for other stuff.

If there is indeed actual bills to be paid.

Wow, they're finally doing the Pacific?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=4814

So this certainly doesn't sound like a gaming company that's on shaking financial grounds. Major expansions for all their lines, and two lines that players have been screaming for since the dawn of time.

Why are they talking about the "new" open fire having plastic firefly and stug models in 2015? I thought they've had that for a while.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=354

Did they redesign the sprues even though the set just came out early/mid 2014?

Also, I don't recall the exact date of paulo first informing the community of secret issues with this kickstarter (this thread starts on 1/30/2015) but that state of the union post doesn't mention DUST. It seems like they had written off DUST from their 2015 plans well before Paulo spilled the beans. The date on the post is "Last Updated On Monday, January 01, 0001 by James at Battlefront". I assume the 0001 is a typo but it does call into question the rest of the date; generally, these types of posts happen in early january though.

 warboss wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=4814

So this certainly doesn't sound like a gaming company that's on shaking financial grounds. Major expansions for all their lines, and two lines that players have been screaming for since the dawn of time.

Why are they talking about the "new" open fire having plastic firefly and stug models in 2015? I thought they've had that for a while.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=354

Did they redesign the sprues even though the set just came out early/mid 2014?

Also, I don't recall the exact date of paulo first informing the community of secret issues with this kickstarter (this thread starts on 1/30/2015) but that state of the union post doesn't mention DUST. It seems like they had written off DUST from their 2015 plans well before Paulo spilled the beans. The date on the post is "Last Updated On Monday, January 01, 0001 by James at Battlefront". I assume the 0001 is a typo but it does call into question the rest of the date; generally, these types of posts happen in early january though.

That's the Flames of War State of the Union, so not mentioning Dust is of no surprise. Battlefront has many brands that are segmented off from each other, such as none of the board games they move being mentioned either (and the board games sell MORE than FoW if BF's statements and focus in marketing at covnentions is to be taken as indicative). That's a simple case of "This is the Flames of War site, so we're going to talk about Flames of War" and has nothing to do with Dust.

The timing is simply late, as he talks about products already released in the past tense properly. The rest of things you're seeing is colored by your mistaken belief that BF has a fully staffed tech group who's making sure things actually are correct on their website and being diligent. Spoiler alert: they don't. That'd be a basic operations thing, so of course they're kind of bad at it.

The Open Fire vehicles in the original set circa 2012 were terrible. They were hand-sculpted models that they tried to turn into plastic with pretty lackluster results. The StuGs are passable, but the Shermans are awful and require gap-filling and far too much energy to assemble. If that was your exposure to BF plastics, you'd buy nothing but PSC from that point forward; they're that bad. The re-package includes those new kits from 2014 which are categorically superior (they switched to CAD models in the interim). They're also doing a slew of 2-tank boxes, which in another show of "really?" are the same price for 3x2-box tanks as it is for a 5-tank box (based on the WarStore's pre-order page). I'm assuming those 2-tank boxes are limited or missing something like decals, but again that's one of those head-scratching "WTF?" kind of things.

Seriously, remembering Hanlon's Razor is VERY important when dealing with BF.

 warboss wrote:
Why are they talking about the "new" open fire having plastic firefly and stug models in 2015? I thought they've had that for a while.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=354

Did they redesign the sprues even though the set just came out early/mid 2014?

Yes, they're using the new plastic Sherman V and the new plastic StuG G instead of the old pre-CAD sculpts that were originally in the set.

You might also want to check your dates. The current edition of Flames of War (v 3) was released in 2011, not 2014.

 Ghaz wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Why are they talking about the "new" open fire having plastic firefly and stug models in 2015? I thought they've had that for a while.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=354

Did they redesign the sprues even though the set just came out early/mid 2014?

Yes, they're using the new plastic Sherman V and the new plastic StuG G instead of the old pre-CAD sculpts that were originally in the set.

You might also want to check your dates. The current edition of Flames of War (v 3) was released in 2011, not 2014.

While I appreciate you trying to answer my question, you might also want to recheck my post. I was referring to the open fire starter set by name that came out last year and never once mentioned the edition of the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Krinsath wrote:

That's the Flames of War State of the Union, so not mentioning Dust is of no surprise. Battlefront has many brands that are segmented off from each other, such as none of the board games they move being mentioned either (and the board games sell MORE than FoW if BF's statements and focus in marketing at covnentions is to be taken as indicative). That's a simple case of "This is the Flames of War site, so we're going to talk about Flames of War" and has nothing to do with Dust.

The timing is simply late, as he talks about products already released in the past tense properly. The rest of things you're seeing is colored by your mistaken belief that BF has a fully staffed tech group who's making sure things actually are correct on their website and being diligent. Spoiler alert: they don't. That'd be a basic operations thing, so of course they're kind of bad at it.

The Open Fire vehicles in the original set circa 2012 were terrible. They were hand-sculpted models that they tried to turn into plastic with pretty lackluster results. The StuGs are passable, but the Shermans are awful and require gap-filling and far too much energy to assemble. If that was your exposure to BF plastics, you'd buy nothing but PSC from that point forward; they're that bad. The re-package includes those new kits from 2014 which are categorically superior (they switched to CAD models in the interim). They're also doing a slew of 2-tank boxes, which in another show of "really?" are the same price for 3x2-box tanks as it is for a 5-tank box (based on the WarStore's pre-order page). I'm assuming those 2-tank boxes are limited or missing something like decals, but again that's one of those head-scratching "WTF?" kind of things.

Seriously, remembering Hanlon's Razor is VERY important when dealing with BF.

Thanks for the clarification. I was looking at it from a GW and FFG standpoint where all the brands are under a single url and not segmented and compartmentalized. I would argue though that it is not written in the past tense. The start the "state of the union" with Nachtjager which IIRC came out this year

We started the year with a new Late-war book, Nachtjäger, released in mid February,

so clearly referring to 2015 (as the preamble to the state of the union indicates)



and follow that up with

The end of March sees our updated version of Open Fire! hit the shelves.

which is not past tense. They segway directly from mid february commentary to end of march but apparently switched the year somewhere in between. If that is unfortunately the level of detail that Battlefront devotes to their flagship line's state of the union post, it's no wonder they might have issues with things like paying bills on time, contracts, and getting stuff out the door and onto shelves consistently.

And again, Open Fire did not come out last year. It was released for the third edition of the game that came out in 2011 and the latest that Open Fire would have been released was 2012.

EDIT: Here's a link to an Open Fire unboxing on YouTube from 2012, two years before you said it was released.

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, Open Fire did not come out last year. It was released for the third edition of the game that came out in 2011 and the latest that Open Fire would have been released was 2012.

EDIT: Here's a link to an Open Fire unboxing on YouTube from 2012, two years before you said it was released.

We're all referring to the updated open fire that was released last year which you seem to be completely unaware of.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=3543

The post and all the unboxing videos from the community are from summer of 2014. That is the open fire version we're (battlefront, myself, krisanth, etc) talking about.

 BrookM wrote:
Wow, they're finally doing the Pacific?

That gives PSC about 9 months to get their USMC and Japanese infantry and a couple of tanks in the line

 warboss wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, Open Fire did not come out last year. It was released for the third edition of the game that came out in 2011 and the latest that Open Fire would have been released was 2012.

EDIT: Here's a link to an Open Fire unboxing on YouTube from 2012, two years before you said it was released.

We're all referring to the updated open fire that was released last year which you seem to be completely unaware of.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=3543

The post and all the unboxing videos from the community are from summer of 2014. That is the open fire version we're (battlefront, myself, krisanth, etc) talking about.

And again, Open Fire was NOT updated last year. Open Fire has not been updated since 2012. If you're basing your arguments on the date at the bottom of the page, that is when they updated the page to show that it was out of stock.




From October 2012.

Can you guys argue about Open Fire via PM?

Just saw this - is it news?
Does it shed any light on this situation?

Lionsgate has acquired the big screen rights to Fantasy Flight Games’ popular sci-fi strategy board and miniature game series Dust and announced that Rawson Marshall Thurber will be directing the movie adaptation for producer Dan Lin (The Lego Movie, Sherlock Holmes).

Ashitaka wrote:
Just saw this - is it news?
Does it shed any light on this situation?

Lionsgate has acquired the big screen rights to Fantasy Flight Games’ popular sci-fi strategy board and miniature game series Dust and announced that Rawson Marshall Thurber will be directing the movie adaptation for producer Dan Lin (The Lego Movie, Sherlock Holmes).

It's been brought up in the thread already. The movie rights were bought by Thurber personally so as it stands the film exists as a possiblility only. Sometime in the next couple years it could end up with a script, a cast, studio backing and a shooting schedule but right now it's nothing more than a rights deal.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

This seems like the most likely to me, Paolo has never seemed like the most reliable chap to me, and I heard there were issues when he was working with FFG.

Battlefront on the other hand is a company that I have a great depth of experience and a long term relationship with, they might do some boneheaded stuff now and then, but they always deliver and they go to great length to take care of their customers. As mentioned, they still do the free rulebook upgrade thing every edition, and their edition changes are nowhere near as common as other games. We're on edition three now and unlikely to go anywhere any time soon. There's no need to, as Phil and the lads have made a very balanced and easy to play game with a great set of rules. Why fix what isn't broke when you can do the fun stuff and introduce new armies and parts of history instead?

Now that this thread is playing out, I can't help but notice a consistent down vibe on Paolo and Dust coming from you, and consistent cheer-leading for BF.

Could it be your great depth of experience and long term relationship with Battlefront might be coloring your opinion? Because my personal experiences with both have been about 180 degrees off yours.

It's not like I haven't followed dust for quite some time. I have plenty of edition one stuff kicking around, is my experience coloring my perception? Absolutely. That's what experience does, but I absolutely stand by my opinion in this case.

Edit: Moreover, I'd hardly call derailing the circle jerk with a differing opinion cheerleading.

Also, that movie deal is probably just an option.

Which means absolutely nothing in the movie industry. So many properties are optioned and never come to pass that Dust will likely go the same way.

 Major Malfunction wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

This seems like the most likely to me, Paolo has never seemed like the most reliable chap to me, and I heard there were issues when he was working with FFG.

Battlefront on the other hand is a company that I have a great depth of experience and a long term relationship with, they might do some boneheaded stuff now and then, but they always deliver and they go to great length to take care of their customers. As mentioned, they still do the free rulebook upgrade thing every edition, and their edition changes are nowhere near as common as other games. We're on edition three now and unlikely to go anywhere any time soon. There's no need to, as Phil and the lads have made a very balanced and easy to play game with a great set of rules. Why fix what isn't broke when you can do the fun stuff and introduce new armies and parts of history instead?

Now that this thread is playing out, I can't help but notice a consistent down vibe on Paolo and Dust coming from you, and consistent cheer-leading for BF.

Could it be your great depth of experience and long term relationship with Battlefront might be coloring your opinion? Because my personal experiences with both have been about 180 degrees off yours.

How you can retain a positive opinion of Paolo is beyond me.

I have a very small dog in this fight. I choose not to back this and instead gave a friend money to pick up two characters for me. I play both DUST and FoW and started with a positive opinion of both companies. At this point I think both have acted in a manner that reflects badly on them. Neither has the interests of the backers in mind. Both seem only to be advocating their own petty positions. Blaming the other guy for failing to deliver. Paolo in particular seems to like burning bridges he happens to be standing on. Choosing one over the other is a foolish.

Tell me about burning bridges with local distributors... the KS was exactly this.

 Duncan_Idaho wrote:
Tell me about burning bridges with local distributors... the KS was exactly this.

For Battlefront, Dust Studios, or both?

DS.

 Duncan_Idaho wrote:
DS.

So you mean DS for choosing Battlefront in the first place to act as their distributor, who in turn chose kickstarter as one of their distribution methods so they could get bailed out of debt?

BF chose kickstarter at DS urging.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

How you can retain a positive opinion of Paolo is beyond me.

Paolo is a friend. I'm a fanboi.

I will be the first to admit my opinion in the matter is colored by a relationship with one of the entities involved, albeit an unpaid relationship. Not like I'm on the Dust Studios payroll, badmouthing Battlefront because I work for the other party.

Paolo is a great guy to hangout with...
i've never done business with him, but as an artist and a person, i have tons of respect for the guy...
this whole fiasco hasn't done anything to tarnish my positive opinion of the guy...
it seems like all three parties involved in this situation are partially to blame...

cheers
jah

carboncopy wrote:

 Duncan_Idaho wrote:
DS.

So you mean DS for choosing Battlefront in the first place to act as their distributor, who in turn chose kickstarter as one of their distribution methods so they could get bailed out of debt?

Certainly seems so, but at this point, who really knows?

Battlefront is distributing the product. Something like a KS to finance product sounds more like a DS decision then a BF one.

Sure. That's why BF is the one receiving and keeping all the money