50019
Post by: Igloo
Hello everyone, I have loved the Dust miniarures for a while but never wanted to use them for just a board game. Now that the new full wargame, Dust Warfare is out, the figs have peaked my interest a lot more. I was wondering if anyone has played Dust Warfare and was wondering if it is worth getting into.
33033
Post by: kenshin620
I do not have DT/ DW myself but this topic probably belongs down here
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/30.page
I hear it is very fun though
8932
Post by: Lanrak
The guys on Beasts Of War have done a good review of this great wargame.
Andy Chambers has done a great job on the rule set , (assisted by Alessio Cavatore and others.) Straight forward rules that deliver fast fun tactical battles! 
I was not a great fan of Wierd War 2, until DUST warfare came along!(The artistry is just so cool.)
I think Fantasy Flight is on to a winner!
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
I found this to be an interesting read (taken from another forum):
Warfare, for me, needs a significant amount of rework before it's a game worth playing. The core capability is there. Andy Chambers has been working on his reactive mechanic system for several years now, and it's a reasonbly workable system. I like the board game he mentioned he drew inspiration from. I liked what he did with it for another miniatures game. I like what I see of it layered behind the morass of mediocrity Warfare currently is.
That said, some major points (skipping others that have been mentioned in the errata thread or I don't want to take the time for right now):
Measuring of all distances is declared to only consider the horizontal component, but never the vertical. That sounds nice, and on a nice flat playing board, or on a table without much terrain, it stays workable, even if silly. As terrain is added, such a mechanic requires the use of a plumb bob if you want accurate ranges. Tactics accepted they were using separate ground and miniature scales, as most miniatures games do. They still acknowledged the problems inherent in firing at elevated targets, which any marksman will acknowledge exist. Since Warfare decided to go for a true line of sight mechanic, using line of sight ranges would be far simpler. It would also eliminate the ridiculous concept of an infantry unit charging up a 45 degree hill being able to move over 40% faster than they could on level ground (hills are not classed as difficult terrain). balancing that is the silliness that a normal infantry unit cannot climb more than one level of a building per turn, though that climb does not count as movement distance.
The worst point: close combat is a 3" ranged attack, so there is no reason to climb a building with close combat troops unless there's an objective up there. Move within 3" horizontally of a unit twenty stories up, and you can punch them in the face from the ground. No vertical distance considered as per the rules.
Suppression is announced as a way to track unit morale in the game, but instead only counts how often they've been shot at. There is no mechanic to show actual morale differences between units. If a unit takes a hit, even if they save (and not even requiring the hit for some weapons) they take a suppression marker. Since they decided to change the unit stats anyway, why not allow different classes of morale like real soldiers, with elite getting a set number of dice to resist suppression, and lesser units getting fewer. Then, you would have actual morale instead of bean counting.
Reaction allowing a unit to move out of range from weapons fire has been tried in several other games that allow reaction movement. All have found it to be laughable because it is so unrealistic. People don't outrun arrows, and don't even see bullets to try and outrun them to get out of range.
Reactions have way to many exceptions, with none of them making sense. Jump troops can never be reacted to on a move, though they're flying high above cover while they do so, which kills a lot of paratroopers when enemy soldiers are around. Assault doesn't allow a reaction at the end of movement, but only at the beginning. So a unit with Jump, a unit doing a forced march with Assault, and a unit with Fast are all moving at the same speed, yet no reaction can happen against the easy target Jumpers, limited reaction can happen against the the rushing Assaulters who are ignoring cover for speed, but full reaction can be used against the Fast unit.
Units giving cover, as written, gets silly fast. A unit can move in a blob, with the leader at the back of the pack, and will give itself soft cover until it takes a hit and is suppressed, at which point it gain soft cover for hugging the ground. Gorillas never suffer from suppression, so they can advance giving themselves cover across every open field. Zombies don't gain from light cover, or they could too. Any unit can walk behind a walker, using it to give them hard cover as they advance, and so long as the squad leader touches the base of the walker, it counts as open terrain for them. For players using felt forests, as soon as a squad leader enters the forest, everything within the forest becomes open terrain for their men.
The concept of a unit touching difficult terrain being reduced to a 3" move was used in similar form for Mage Knight, but people have always considered that an overly simplistic system. Here, Warfare goes just as simplistic when it adds nothing, and makes movement foolish.
Attacking vehicles is ludicrous. Let's take the big boys, with the Punisher and Konigsluther. They both get special abilities, with the Konigsluther cutting the Punisher down to four Armor (immediately increased back to five for fire from the front due to the Dozer Blade) to offset damage. The Punisher gets to hit on blanks instead of normal hits, doubling its average damage. So, the Konigsluther gets an average of two hits on a normal attack, which the Punisher reduces by an average of 1.67 hits with its armor roll. The Punisher gets four hits on average against the Konigsluther, which it gets to reduce by 2.33 hits on average. Each round of firing, the Punisher suffers 0.33 points of damage, while the Konigsluther suffers 1.67 points of damage. That's not an even trade, but then it gets better. The Konigsluther gets to roll two dice on the critical camage chart on average, even if all damage were negated. The Punisher gets to roll four. The Punisher has only a slightly worse chance to get a weapon destroyed result (9.9%) than the Konigsluther has of getting an external fire (11.1%). The Punisher will get a fire result 29.6% of the time. The Konigsluther has to roll above average to even have a chance to get to a weapon destroyed result.
Of course, the idea that a lucky armor roll could completely negate the damage from an attack, but that attack still cause an internal ammunition explosion is even worse, though the idea that a vehicle can suffer an internal ammunition explosion, yet still remain perfectly healthy, while troops around it get blown up, is so sad it's comical. Vehicle damage should relate to actual damage, though the way the armor mechanic has been set up, vehicles would be far too survivable without its silliness.
Skills are largely blase, with changes from Tactics sometimes needed, but Sniper is a ridiculous piece of work. Snipers in Tactics were exactly that: they picked off men and material that was significant, with a spotter making them better at it. For Warfare, they've become much more dangerous, with far longer range (hint: normal WW2 snipers didn't fire as far as modern snipers, not just because of equipment, but mostly due to training and tactics), and the ability to ignore armor and cover saves. Hurray! but wait, they can't actually snipe any more, and just do damage like any other weapon. Snipers were tactical assets in Tactics, so why not let them do what they are designed to do in Warfare?
Artillery indirect attacks no longer ignore cover as written, and neither do Spray weapons, though the Nebelwerfer shows something was missed as it says the opposite. How artillery interacts with targets inside buildings is not addressed, with even a Normandy bunker being meaningless as other than cover instead of something artillery can't handle.
Tank Killer weapons and the Allied Rocket Punch get stupid, with both gaining the ability to hit on blanks. The Axis higher tech panzer gloves couldn't figure that out, however. The Axis got Penetrator Weapons, but only for one gun, and it's far weaker than Tank Killer. The Axis got one Penetrator Weapon, one Tank Killer, and nerfed Damage Resilient. TheAllies got four vehicles with Tank Killer, and three squads and two heroes with Rocket Punches.
Jumping a bit, looking at fortifications: Something I didn't mention in the errata thread on Minefields is the requirement that a unit end a Move action in range of a Minefield marker. A unit moving fast enough to cross past the marker will never be attacked. Vehicles can also clear minefields, but most were not very good for it in WW2. Massive Artillery bombardment might clear a minefield, but it was also never guranteed. Minefields are also rarely as non-persistent as Warfare allows, though the cost for the area is very low.
Barbed Wire has ridiculous rules. Barbed wire does not kill people. It slows people down so weapons can kill them. Vehicles are also a standard way to clear barbed wire, because it can't slow down their mass. Electrified wire needs to be near heavy generator equipment to be dangerous as more than a shock. Making electrified wire this dangerous is less realistic than Monty Python's killer bunny.
Army Special upgrades show a really poor level of balance. Consider the two Preparatory/Nebelwerfer Barrages; the Axis suppress every soldier unit not more than 50% in some form of cover, while the Allies roll for every unit, with a 55% chance for every soldier unit, regardless of cover. That sounds reasonable, except that the rules specify the Allied player knows the Axis force composition before setup, and so can mitigate the automatic result, while the Axis is stuck with 55% of their soldier units suppressed on average.
The Allies get the option to buy an extra hero, while the Axis get an extra Panzer. Rather ironic, when the Allies had better vehicle production, and the Axis had a far better NCO & officer corps to draw from. The reverse would make far more sense.
Lightning War can currently only help the Axis in one specific scenario that is not in the tournament rules, as they have no units inherently capable of being Reserved. While they might get such units, the option should have been Reserved until those units were released.
The Axis getting Dug-in in another miss when it comes to the way Germany trained to fight. It would fit for the Soviets, but the Germans did not push defensive positions nearly as much as other armies. They trained for mobile warfare, and walkers would accentuate that concept.
Implaccable is another option that sounds good until it intersects with the Battle Builder. With the Allied player knowing the Axis has Implacable, they can threaten to put points into Conditions to force the Axis to counter Off Target Shelling, and so control the Battle Builder far more than they should. With that threat, the upgrade becomes worth far less.
The Allies' additional upgrades give them Air Drop, which I've noted as poorly worded or overpowered, a one time GB-9 air strike I can't picture any commander with sense spending points on with its cost, and Additional Resources to make their Long Toms (I still find that name detestable as a veteran) and Smoke Screens more probable. Spending 10 points to give the Long Toms a 55% chance to come in is probably one of the better bargains available.
Jumping back to the scenarios from the Battle Builder (though there are problems with the others), [sarcasm] I'm glad Mack likes 40K enough to bring over Unprepared. [/sarcasm] No modern army leads with its command elements like that. Support might bring up the rear, but that is combat support like offboard artillery. By the end of our WW2, all of the armies knew to lead with tanks in the open, infantry in towns, command always slightly to the rear, and everything close enough to support each other. The continued reference to 'battle lines' also shows a marked lack of understanding of realistic military tactics. Please try doing a little research other than through 40K or Flames of War.
Many of the units had changes from Tactics that made them make far less sense. Just because a gun can shoot far away does not make it an indirect artillery piece.
Smoke Screens are never planned to cover an entire battlefield. The small area option from Tactics made sense for how they are used. Turning the entire battlefield into a low visibility area only for infantry (except for burst and spray weapons that someone see in the murk) has nothing to do with how real battlefields use smoke. Smoke is not used when it will interfere with your unit's abilities unless they need it to survive immediately (ex: tank smoke launchers). It would also take far too much smoke material to cover a Warfare battlefield.
Platoon structure is another nightmare that looks like it was ported over from 40K. A platoon TO&E is a good place to start for building a realistic force. The platoon options given, however, are not functional TO&E's, but rather some strange amalgamation from the mind of someone with no understanding of military theory.
A quick example as I'm getting frustrated thinking about what Warfare could be versus what it is:
An Assault Platoon is a platoon assigned to assault a position and take it. One would expect that to be obvious. What does the Allied Assault Platoon have? A range of squad options with the possibility of extra snipers or observers by having them as other than support, and then the ability to take only light and heavy walkers.
Consider what some weapons were designed to do: Vehicle mounted flamethrowers (Hot Dog Medium Walker) were designed to attack fortifications during assaults. The Petard Mortar (Steel Rain Medium Walker) was designed to bust open bunkers for D-Day. Short barelled howitzers (Mickey Medium Walker) were designed to give quick support for assaulting infantry units. Three of the four medium walkers were designed with assault weapons, yet none of them are allowed in an ASSAULT platoon.
The platoon lists look more like someone wanted to spread the wealth, so people who have been collecting might have to still buy more for certain platoons, and new players would have to make larger bulk purchases whenever they wanted to field a new platoon. Actual tactical utilization of the various units was, at most, an afterthought.
I was looking forward to Warfare, because I have no problem with game complexity, and am willing to deal with a lot to have a solid, tactical game.
Warfare, instead, is looking like Dust 1940K instead of the solid game it could be. I had hopes when it went back for a re-write, but now there is so much invested in what I'm seeing as worthless drivel that I don't know if it can be saved. There are people enjoying it, and I hope they can continue to do so, for the sake of Tactics if nothing else, but instead of a more tactical game than Tactics, we have a terrible waste of Andy Chambers nice core system that is simply more complicated without adding any meat to it.
9697
Post by: MattRendar
finished my second game ! alot of fun . you should give it a try . has a cheap buy in cost and figs paint up great !
29878
Post by: Chowderhead
If you get me sucked into Dust, I will be forced to kill you.
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
That review oared was wholly rebuked by the posts that followed it, if I recall. It has gotten a ton of positive feedback and my two games have been a blast! I look forward to more expansions and support.
33816
Post by: Noir
em_en_oh_pee wrote:That review oared was wholly rebuked by the posts that followed it, if I recall. It has gotten a ton of positive feedback and my two games have been a blast! I look forward to more expansions and support.
And from the guys other post on the forum, I doubt Warfare had a chance with him. The fact he has not played it or plans to, is funny to me.
4306
Post by: Maxstreel
Wow... that very long-winded review from another forum felt like a big list of "let's figure out how every mechanic sucks." No explanation of the background fluff, the rules basics of IGO/UGO or reactive fire... just a bunch of "well, if you can do this, then you should do this as this is how it should be done per my opinion or the rules should be rewritten because infantry can't do that in real life I don't like this game..." Yeesh. Real life? These are games!
Am I the only one who expects a review to cover not just the cons but the pros of the game too? Something a bit more objective?
I haven't played the game. I'm going to in a few days with a friend of mine and we'll submit a batrep. I'll then be able to tell you whether I liked it or not due to the ease of the gameplay and if it was fun or not. If it's not fun, I won't play it again and definitely won't buy any more minis. If it's a blast, hook me up and take my money!
I like WW2. I like alternate WW2 storylines and now this appears to be an alternat WW2 game. Cool. I'll give it a shot and post what I think on the interwebz. If folks like it, great! If not and all of a sudden there are mobs with torches and pitchforks... well, thank goodness it's the internet.
27867
Post by: ddogwood
I haven't played Tactics or Warfare, but that "review" sounds like an awful lot of opinion-based nitpicking based on little more than an opinion of what is "realistic" in a game about WWII robots powered by alien technology.
I enjoy reading about what mechanics are unworkable from people who have never played a game.
12915
Post by: Kaptajn Congoboy
He loses a lot of points with me for insisting on "realism". Realism isn't important in the first impression in a wargame. Smoothness of play and rules that don't aquire a ton of errata is.
Theorygaming can work well if the rules are (as he claims) clunky. But it requires a very solid grasp of the rules. The 3" to-the-skies melee thing and what-no-bunkers makes me chuckle, though.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
CT GAMER wrote:I found this to be an interesting read (taken from another forum): Measuring of all distances is declared to only consider the horizontal component, but never the vertical. That sounds nice, and on a nice flat playing board, or on a table without much terrain, it stays workable, even if silly. As terrain is added, such a mechanic requires the use of a plumb bob if you want accurate ranges. Tactics accepted they were using separate ground and miniature scales, as most miniatures games do. They still acknowledged the problems inherent in firing at elevated targets, which any marksman will acknowledge exist. Since Warfare decided to go for a true line of sight mechanic, using line of sight ranges would be far simpler. It would also eliminate the ridiculous concept of an infantry unit charging up a 45 degree hill being able to move over 40% faster than they could on level ground (hills are not classed as difficult terrain). balancing that is the silliness that a normal infantry unit cannot climb more than one level of a building per turn, though that climb does not count as movement distance.
The worst point: close combat is a 3" ranged attack, so there is no reason to climb a building with close combat troops unless there's an objective up there. Move within 3" horizontally of a unit twenty stories up, and you can punch them in the face from the ground. No vertical distance considered as per the rules.
These should have been caught in testing an eliminated. Makes me wish I had joined the test group...  That said, most of the rest of that critique seems to be whining about game mechanics vs historical accuracy - like that stuff about the allies having greater tank production capabilities (is that DUST fluff or real life information... if it's the latter then why would it matter in a game of DUST?) - which makes no sense given that this is not a historical warfare game. It's a Weird War Two game.
27867
Post by: ddogwood
H.B.M.C. wrote:CT GAMER wrote:I found this to be an interesting read (taken from another forum):
Measuring of all distances is declared to only consider the horizontal component, but never the vertical. That sounds nice, and on a nice flat playing board, or on a table without much terrain, it stays workable, even if silly. As terrain is added, such a mechanic requires the use of a plumb bob if you want accurate ranges. Tactics accepted they were using separate ground and miniature scales, as most miniatures games do. They still acknowledged the problems inherent in firing at elevated targets, which any marksman will acknowledge exist. Since Warfare decided to go for a true line of sight mechanic, using line of sight ranges would be far simpler. It would also eliminate the ridiculous concept of an infantry unit charging up a 45 degree hill being able to move over 40% faster than they could on level ground (hills are not classed as difficult terrain). balancing that is the silliness that a normal infantry unit cannot climb more than one level of a building per turn, though that climb does not count as movement distance.
The worst point: close combat is a 3" ranged attack, so there is no reason to climb a building with close combat troops unless there's an objective up there. Move within 3" horizontally of a unit twenty stories up, and you can punch them in the face from the ground. No vertical distance considered as per the rules.
These should have been caught in testing an eliminated.
Makes me wish I had joined the test group...
That said, most of the rest of that critique seems to be whining about game mechanics vs historical accuracy - like that stuff about the allies having greater tank production capabilities (is that DUST fluff or real life information... if it's the latter then why would it matter in a game of DUST?) - which makes no sense given that this is not a historical warfare game. It's a Weird War Two game.
I haven't read the book, but I'm not sure how important this issue is. I mean, how many 28mm minis games use 20 storey buildings, or hills that are so big that a unit would gain more than an inch of movement from this rule. I can see some corner cases where this would cause weirdness, like a hand to hand combat between a unit on the second floor of a building and another unit on the ground floor, but that's easy to remedy in a friendly game and easier to avoid in a tournament.
When I'm reading a review, I try to ask myself if each feature of the game will make it more or less enjoyable. For just about every point in this review, I find myself saying "so what?". The problem with this review isn't that it's negative, because negative reviews are usually more helpful than positive ones. The problem is that it focuses on arguments that generally have nothing to do with whether the game is good or not.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Keep in mind I didnt post this as a review I endorse/support in whole, but simply because it is one of the first and few reviews I have seen that tries to actually dissect elements of the rules and isn't just "this rocks bring on the natzi zombies111" or that simply reads as someone desperately wanting to like the game because they feel burned by GW.
I have the rule rulebook and am still digesting it. I can't play until the SSU list is released...
33816
Post by: Noir
CT GAMER wrote:Keep in mind I didnt post this as a review I endorse/support in whole, but simply because it is one of the first and few reviews I have seen that tries to actually dissect elements of the rules and isn't just "this rocks bring on the natzi zombies" or that simply reads as someone desperately wantingto lime the game because they feel burned by GW.
I have the rule rulebook bug am still digesting it and can't play until the SSU list is released...
From Boradgamegeek, from the view of a Board Gamer so no GW issue (also not full of mistakes)...
Dust Warfare: Core Rulebook, a new set of tabletop rules for use with your Dust Tactics minis.
A really short way of describing it is:
"Dust Warfare is Dust Tactics that plays without an actual board and grid to move your units". However, Dust Warfare is much more than just Dust Tactics without a board...
Dust Warfare is very similar to Dust Tactics in many ways. You'll find your familiar weapons from Tactics, with number of dice to roll against different armour values, damage per hit and special abilities. You'll see the same symbology used for movement, armour and health.
But while all this will seem very familliar, you'll see that everything has been tweaked a little to work with the new activation system.
(Beginning of a game of Dust Warfare using very functional and non-expansive terrain)
The activation system is where the biggest difference with Dust Tactics reside. In Tactics, we rolled 3 dices, the one with the most "hits" on his dices got the initiative. He could decide who goes first, he or his opponent. Then players alternated activating unit until no more units were left on the board.
Dust Warfare replace this with something much more complex (and much more interesting in my opinion). A turn in Dust Warfare is split among 4 different phases:
- Initiative phase: Each player rolls a number of dices equal to the number of his units. The one with the fewest hits on his dice wins the initiative.
- Command phase: The player who won the initiative plays first. For each hit he scored in the initiative phase, he is allowed an action. Each unit within 12 inches of his command squad can do a single action to which his opponent cannot react. This is usually a move, attack or a special ability. If the player has a radioman, he can relay one of those orders to any unit on the table. Each unit that did an action during this phase gains a "reaction" marker.
Once the player has issued all of his orders, his opponent gets to do the same.
- Unit phase: The player who won the initiative goes first here too. He can complete all his actions remaining for all his units. Each unit gets two actions (move, attack or special action). A unit with a reaction marker gets one less action to perform.
During the unit phase, your opponent gets to react. If you moved within 12 inches of a unit, or declare your intention to attack him, the opposing unit can declare a "reaction" and do an action (move, shoot...). This would happen before you get to attack him. A unit cannot react if he has a reaction marker on him. Reacting will put a reaction marker on your unit too.
- End phase: We remove the reaction markers (and a suppression marker from each unit - more on this later) then we start over again for a new round.
A typical game last around 5 turns so this is a relatively quick game.
Now the second biggest change to Dust Tactics: the suppression.
When a unit gets shot at, the unit will gain a suppression marker. When a unit is supressed, he gets one less action during his activation. He will also gain a little bit more cover. It is possible to give yourself supression on purpose to gain the additional cover if you so wish.
And the third big change to Dust Tactics: armour. When a unit is hit, the defending unit rolls dices equal to the armour value of his unit. Each hit cancels a point of damage. This means that the heavy "armour 7" tanks are now real hard to put down...
The abilities have also all been tweaked to better reflect this new ruleset.
There are other elements that changed too. Such as a unit leader for each squad that has a few things to it, notably your squad will become crippled until you can find a replacement leader if you lose him.
The game also comes with a scenario generator, making each game different somewhat from the previous. It won't be simply "destroy your opponent until he's gone". In the above picture for example, each side started the game closer to one another than normal, reducing considerably the range between the opposing factions.
Now... what do all these change means in the gameplay?
- Tweaks here and there modify drastically the units from Dust Tactics:
For example, the hero Angela, which was good before in Dust Tactics, is a powerhouse in Dust Warfare. When she fires at an opponent, her sniper ability means the opponent does not get an armour roll, nor cover. If she's paired with another squad, this means all the weapons from the combined Angela/squad attack will completely bypass the armour. To reflect this, the cost of Angela is now very high, so she's not completely unbalanced, just different. The sniper also does not get to select the casualty... Overall, snipers are more powerful than ever in Dust Warfare.
Lasers, on the other hand, are less strong. You only get to reroll your hits once and not "until you no longer have hits".
Markus and the Apes can now climb over obstacles, phasers are more powerful and more changes like this means you'll have to re-learn the effectiveness of your forces.
- Warfare requires more miniatures to buy:
Technically, you don't need much more units than in Dust Tactics. However, the game goes to an extent to make you buy more. The way you can build your faction will almost require you to buy more. For example, a possible platoon in the axis forces has a special ability to turn recently killed soldiers into zombies. You therefore require the zombies if you want to play that platoons to it's fullest.
Another example: an allies platoon, an another axis one, can be led only by the command squads or some very particular hero that may not be found in the core sets.
- The game has a stronger focus on soldiers over vehicles:
When you build your forces, you can only put vehicles if you already have at least 2 squads of soldiers. Vehicles are relegated to "support units".
- The factions are much more diversified than before:
The axis can field more vehicles and the allies can field more heroes for example. The allies can have off-board artillery while the axis can raise the dead. Tons more little differences like that means more diversified forces, where both factions were pretty similar in Dust Tactics in how they played.
- The game is more complex and offer more strategy:
The reaction and suppression system is really great and offer lots of possibilities. For example, you might find yourself in a position where you cannot damage an advancing power-armoured squad. You now have the possibility to attack him nonetheless. Even if you don't do any damage, you can supress the unit, slowing him down significantly until your units that can deal with the thread arrive to help.
Where does this leaves me, a boardgamer, who never trully got into tabletop miniature gaming?
:I am missing deeply the Dust Tactics board. Line of sights are a pain to calculate, movement requiring a measuring tape is annoying as is calculating distances and trying to find the unit leaders in the squads.
:Constant rules reference. We don't have fancy unit cards like we do in Dust Tactics. This means we have to constantly refer to the rulebook to know what our units have as special abilities or guns. There is a table of weapons we can copy at the end of the rulebook. However, this requires you to memorize what unit has what weapons. Sure, you can SEE this walker has a big claw in his hand, but did you remember it's called a "Kampfzange" (or something like that)? After a while, say 5 or 6 games, you will know all of this and won't require the rulebook anymore, but expect the first few games to be constantly checking the rulebook.
:The typos. Oh the horrible typos. The rulebook is otherwise really well written and very clear, but the army lists near the end are full of errors. Sigrid is listed as having only one health where her description tells she has 4. OZZ 117 has a jump pack, but is listed as having only the movement of the other units not equipped with jump packs. Another squad has 4 UGL listed when less of the models are actually equipped with them... there's tons of those (though nothing that not obvious and easilly fixed that i have seen). I expect a FAQ will come sooner or later regarding those.
:confusion with Dust Tactics rules. The games are so similar yet so different at the same time that confusion can occur between the ruleset. For example in Dust Tactics, you can fire a weapon line at a single target unit and all miniatures in the squad will fire together. In Dust Warfare, each mini in a squad can fire at a different target unit. A small difference between the two system, but one easy to confuse. There are tons of possible confusions like that between the two games.
:The game has a MUCH more fun system. It's more complex, more engaging, offer more options and is otherwise more FUN than Dust Tactics. Why not have two games to play with your miniatures you bought?
Terrain:
Sure, you can be a dedicated tabletop miniature gamer and build an incredible scenery like we see here on BGG. You can also build a cheap, yet very functional, terrain for use with Dust Warfare. In this example:
The building that came with Dust Tactic's: Operation Cerberus box set, some trees bought at a dollar store, the tanks traps and ammo crates from the Dust Tactics core sets, Some walls repurposed from Heroscape Master Set: Rise of the Valkyrie and some paper walls and bunkers made for Dust Tactics that can be found in it's file section on BGG and voilà! non-expansive terrain that creates a very playable game.
The game requires a rather large playing surface however so plan for that... It is recommended a 4' x 6' table for medium sized battles (around 300 points of units).
What this leads me to:
I have converted Dust Warfare back to the Dust Tactics board. Almost all ranges are multiples of 6 of the Dust Tactics ranges. 6 inches in Dust Warfare is equal to 1 Dust Tactics square for all movement and most ranges.
Use the movement rules of Dust Tactics, divide the range of weapons by 6, use the Line of Sight rules from Dust Tactics... and voilà! You are playing Dust Warfare on a Dust Tactics board. The best of both worlds! The complex and more engaging ruleset of Warfare, along with no annoying distance to measure and no elaborate crafting to do for terrain.
It also fits really well and is not completely unbalanced... The only problem i ever faced with this convertion is for the vehicles backing up. In Warfare, it's only 3 inches that's allowed... which would mean half a square in Tactics. Well no matter... Vehicules can now back-up a tad further in my games. Not a game breaker by any means IMO.
So is Warfare fo you? I'd say it depends. It's definitely a better game than Tactics, but it does have it's flaws. The typos are easilly overlooked, but it's nature as a tabletop can be annoying to some (like me).
8932
Post by: Lanrak
Concidering the review is from a board gamer, then it is hardly suprising they prefer to use it as advanced rules for the DUST Tactics board game! 
Dust Warfare is not a detailed simulation of WWII.Or a massive leap from the Dust Tactics boardgame.
However, it is a fast fun tactical wargame that needs little investment to get a ton of fun out of.( IMO.)
The option to react , and simple supression mechanic allows for more tactical interaction.And the simple damage resolution means it takes very little time to get the hang of how the game works.
For a new player to try out table top wargaming, it makes a lot more sense than other some options!(Especialy if they have the Dust Tactics board game.)
Mind you I do REALY like the minatures too!
963
Post by: Mannahnin
The review CT posted definitely came across as nit-picky and coming from someone LOOKING to dislike it. But OTOH, a fair number of those criticisms really do seem legitimate.
The ones about "realism" are obviously the easiest to dismiss, although if you're working with a setting partially based on history, it does make sense to draw on the historical elements, as it lets people who know the history really connect with the material and "ooh" and "aah" over the places where history is represented.
It does look quite cool, and I enjoyed the half of a demo I got through recently before having to go home. The reaction mechanic definitely adds some interesting depth (I liked it in the Starship Troopers game too), as does the command mechanic. I definitely want to give it a proper try.
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
Mannahnin wrote:The review CT posted definitely came across as nit-picky and coming from someone LOOKING to dislike it. But OTOH, a fair number of those criticisms really do seem legitimate.
The ones about "realism" are obviously the easiest to dismiss, although if you're working with a setting partially based on history, it does make sense to draw on the historical elements, as it lets people who know the history really connect with the material and "ooh" and "aah" over the places where history is represented.
It does look quite cool, and I enjoyed the half of a demo I got through recently before having to go home. The reaction mechanic definitely adds some interesting depth (I liked it in the Starship Troopers game too), as does the command mechanic. I definitely want to give it a proper try.
I have been doing demo games at my local shop and I am in love with the game. The system is simple, but the game doesn't lack complexity. It is affordable and fun, which is win-win for me. Also, who doesn't love absurd Weird Wars 2 stuff?
The review, to me, was just someone hating to hate, without having really given the game a chance (or even seemingly wanting to, either). I honestly didn't see any of those issues as deal breakers, but maybe that is because I am used to the current GW rules, which are hand-wavy and often lacking in comprehension.
32977
Post by: Inquisitor_Dunn
After 2 games yeaterday a couple things concern me.
1. I hate premeasuring and reactive fire. You never get to do it as most stuf simply looks where 12.5 inches from your stuff is and mocve there.
2. going first is too powerfull. By going first, after the orders phase, you get 2 actions per unit that did not do an order. If your opponent reacts he gets a token and only one action in his half of the turn. You get to do 2 actions and react to him without penalty for your token because you already went. If used right you can have units shooting 3 times to his 2... Not always, but it really seemed that way in our 2 games.
3. The germans can game the scenario easier on first impression. Zombies and Gorrillas not getting suppressed is good with night fight and the one where suppression tokens are not removed. not major but I see potential for abuse.
4. snipers are OP. rocket gloves are way better than germans. and phasers are awesome compared to lasers.
Like I said, I only played 2 games. Has anyone else see any problems or is there easy fixes, IE tactics or units, that we just did usem or think of.
we played 300 points and 200 points.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
I haven't read the book, but I'm not sure how important this issue is. I mean, how many 28mm minis games use 20 storey buildings, or hills that are so big that a unit would gain more than an inch of movement from this rule.
We routinely use 3-4 story buildings in all our current 40K games. A rule (or rule oversight, to be more accurate) like this would be a quite a bad thing. Games (that aren’t board games) exist on 3 dimensions, and the rules should at least remember that. There are ways to simplify building movement (ie. you can move up/down = to how far you can move forwards or backwards) but you should never be able to fight someone sitting 4 stories above you just because the rules don’t cover how to measure literally.
1270
Post by: Osbad
Russ, Craig and Romeo have done a good review on the D6G.
Russ's score was 2+ with a reroll for those that like Army-scale games. Craig and Romeo's were less astoundingly favourable, but still had good things to say. Several weaknesses were also pointed out.
It was a (very) thorough walk-through of the rules which followed several of their own games plus a couple of intro games with Mack Martin, one of the FFG designers (and former podcaster from the old Dice Like Thunder podcast - the first ever 40k-specific podcast!)
More details can be found here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/447046.page
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
For anyone pointing out flaws, I do feel inclined to remind people it is a pre-FAQ, pre-errata first edition rulebook. Nothing is perfect out if the gate. I think one FAQ should round out any serious issues pretty easily.
33816
Post by: Noir
em_en_oh_pee wrote:For anyone pointing out flaws, I do feel inclined to remind people it is a pre-FAQ, pre-errata first edition rulebook. Nothing is perfect out if the gate. I think one FAQ should round out any serious issues pretty easily.
It;s more along the line of this is a FFG product. The FAQ should be out in a month tops, like every other game they make. Bad editing and typos, is a company wide thing not problem. Ofcouse there games almost always worth the effort, I own atleast 30% of all there board/card game for a reason. I can't aford more...
Now all they need to do is put out a good FAQ, so let hope. My biggest issue is the rumored 4 campaign books a year, 20 each is still 80 a year.
3806
Post by: Grot 6
I like the game, but haven't picked up any minis for it.
I am still kicking myself for the beginner set, then the change. I get a chance, I'll more then likely snatch one up if I see it again.
Putting it on the tabletop was a good idea, considering the stuff that they are coming out with.
Now all you need is the board game, so you can map the World at War.
I can easily see campaigning with this game, and RPG's in the future, ( If they are not already out.)
I don't know enough about this game, and I'm regretting it. 
54357
Post by: comrade-k-rad
Does anyone know how the FFG models compare size-wise to the 1/48 models also available?
28787
Post by: FortheEmperor!
I have played 3 games of Dust Warfare. I think the game is elegant, full of depth, and very fun. There is a TON of strategy around when to issue orders and when to react and when to NOT react. I have found both Axis and Allied to be balanced. The 3" assault rule seems just fine to me. It makes this game very different to 40k (a game which I LOVE).
The complaints I have read about pre-measuring and gaming the suppression rules don't ring true to me. Weapon ranges are short, most infantry-carried weapons are 12" or 16" in range. In this game all units can travel 12" per game turn and many can go 18" or 24". You can easily close-in on the guy who stands 12.5 inches away.
I like the unique orders that different platoons get. I like the integrated turns. I like the simplicity of how medics and mechanics work. There is much depth to the vehicle rules which I have not had a chance to explore fully in my few games. The rules for vehicles over-running soldiers look exciting and promises to bring some pretty interesting "tank shocking" scenarios...
Overall I like the game a lot and I LOVE the models!
50446
Post by: Piston Honda
The game (dust warfare) was surprisingly good. Much better than I expect, then again I gave it very very low expectations because of how terrible Dust Tactics was (guilty by association FTW!  )
Only 1 game, but as far as rule mechanics go, i think it is natural for a gamer to nit pick certain aspects even if they not broken. Whether it be reminiscent of another war game, make it more realistic or a gamer thinks he has better ideas.
Very few questions were had in the game.
My issue with Dust is with some of the fluff. I wish it was more alternate history than weird war.
Gorillas, Zombies and Aliens just don't seem to mix very well for me. Seems to much from it's sister game AT-43 (or should I say the child of dust?)
8932
Post by: Lanrak
If you dont like the fluff, write your own!
(Like Patton decided to make a pre-emptive strike on the soviets, thus allowing the axis to recover enough , to pose a threat and prolong the war in europe for a few more years....)
If you dont like Zombies and Gorrillas, dont use them!
Asthetics are the easiest to change to suite yourself.
Finding a well defined intuitive and elegant rule set is much harder!
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
comrade-k-rad wrote:Does anyone know how the FFG models compare size-wise to the 1/48 models also available?
same scale.
54357
Post by: comrade-k-rad
CT GAMER wrote:comrade-k-rad wrote:Does anyone know how the FFG models compare size-wise to the 1/48 models also available?
same scale.
Thanks, that's pretty awesome.
32828
Post by: Some_Call_Me_Tim?
The review from the other forum was written by Gimp, who also posts on the Dust Tactics FFG forums. He always finds the same bone to pick with the entire Dust genre, which is this: it is not historically accurate enough. It seems as though he would be better off playing Advance Squad Leader, but he keeps torturing himself with Dust Tactics/Warfare. I really don't understand him. He seems to enjoy agonizing over the imperfections in the game system as if the Universe owes him a completely perfect, historically-accurate, Weird World War II game.
Plus, the fact that he admits he has never played the game while he is at the same time criticizing groaning about how crappy it is reminds me of Marvin the Paranoid Android. And when people point this essential fact out to him, he simply replies that he has 20 years of gaming experience under his belt and can therefore pass judgement on a ruleset after only reading it once or twice.
It almost seems like he derive some kinda sick pleasure from complaining about the game and then arguing with people about it. Heck, just reading one paragraph of his writing depresses me to no end.
Best,
_Tim?
49643
Post by: Sleep debt
Played my first game tonight and must say it was very fun. Models are nice and rules are simple to learn. As long as ff keeps the support up and adds new models it will be a stunning miniatures game.
50446
Post by: Piston Honda
Sleep debt wrote:Played my first game tonight and must say it was very fun. Models are nice and rules are simple to learn. As long as ff keeps the support up and adds new models it will be a stunning miniatures game.
As long as they make great affordable minis, improve the system when needed ffg should have regular releases.
Only long term threat I would ever see is if ffg loses the IP for whatever absurd or odd reason.
Though, I am curious to know if this will lead ffg to get more into minis games? they have been distributors of several.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:The review from the other forum was written by Gimp, who also posts on the Dust Tactics FFG forums. He always finds the same bone to pick with the entire Dust genre, which is this: it is not historically accurate enough. It seems as though he would be better off playing Advance Squad Leader, but he keeps torturing himself with Dust Tactics/Warfare. I really don't understand him. He seems to enjoy agonizing over the imperfections in the game system as if the Universe owes him a completely perfect, historically-accurate, Weird World War II game.
Plus, the fact that he admits he has never played the game while he is at the same time criticizing groaning about how crappy it is reminds me of Marvin the Paranoid Android. And when people point this essential fact out to him, he simply replies that he has 20 years of gaming experience under his belt and can therefore pass judgement on a ruleset after only reading it once or twice.
It almost seems like he derive some kinda sick pleasure from complaining about the game and then arguing with people about it. Heck, just reading one paragraph of his writing depresses me to no end.
Best,
_Tim?
i could care less about his beef with historical accuracy (or the lack of).
Some of the rules mechanics issues he brings up if true are a little concerning.
Yes a FAQ/errata can address some of them, but I hope this isn't a case of a second edition having to be announced before my pages even get worn in on the first rulebook.
This is what killed Dystopian wars for me...
FFG should do what PP did and release sticker text with the fixed/added rules section that people can stick into their books...
33816
Post by: Noir
CT GAMER wrote:i could care less about his beef with historical accuracy (or the lack of).
Some of the rules mechanics issues he brings up if true are a little concerning.
Yes a FAQ/errata can address some of them, but I hope this isn't a case of a second edition having to be announced before my pages even get worn in on the first rulebook.
This is what killed Dystopian wars for me...
FFG should do what PP did and release sticker text with the fixed/added rules section that people can stick into their books...
Nearly are his issues are wrong, do to not understanding how the rules interact. Thing like hitting unit 3 floor up, will be FAQ. It's not like every GW player dosen't need printed out FAQ pages for the main book and there codex/army book.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Noir wrote:It's not like every GW player dosen't need printed out FAQ pages for the main book and there codex/army book.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
It is usually best to look at what GW does and do the opposite. Warmahordes survived the early years because PP understood this and went above and beyond to endear themselves to those getting into the game...
Warfare will live or die based on their approach to problem solving and doing right by those that have dropped cash...
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
Soviets hit. Anyone had a chance to use them yet?
27867
Post by: ddogwood
CT GAMER wrote:Noir wrote:It's not like every GW player dosen't need printed out FAQ pages for the main book and there codex/army book.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
It is usually best to look at what GW does and do the opposite. Warmahordes survived the early years because PP understood this and went above and beyond to endear themselves to those getting into the game...
Warfare will live or die based on their approach to problem solving and doing right by those that have dropped cash...
To be fair, PP is on their third revision of the Warmachine rules and you still need the FAQ to play. It's not about whether you need the FAQ, it's about how long it takes to get one, and FFG has historically been at least as good as Privateer for this kind of thing.
45733
Post by: keisukekun
Ive heard good things about it. Probably pick it up when they release the japanese. Give me time to work on what i have.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
ddogwood wrote:
To be fair, PP is on their third revision of the Warmachine rules and you still need the FAQ to play. It's not about whether you need the FAQ, it's about how long it takes to get one, and FFG has historically been at least as good as Privateer for this kind of thing.
I don't care i they are on their 10th revision, it is how they have handled them that counts.
PP did open playtesting .
PP gave people stickers with corrected rules text that they could put in books that had errors in them.
etc.
Point being that the opinions of those buying the game should matter, and that the fanbois shouldnt rush to silence anyone that doesnt simply want to give the game a glowing review and each other internet high fives.
From discussion comes the potential for a better game in the long run...
As I stated I dont agree with everything Gimp stated.nor have I had the time to test it all out myself, but I think briging his gripes to the table for discussion is perfectly valid and I hope we see more of it...
33816
Post by: Noir
CT GAMER wrote:ddogwood wrote:
To be fair, PP is on their third revision of the Warmachine rules and you still need the FAQ to play. It's not about whether you need the FAQ, it's about how long it takes to get one, and FFG has historically been at least as good as Privateer for this kind of thing.
I don't care i they are on their 10th revision, it is how they have handled them that counts.
PP did open playtesting .
PP gave people stickers with corrected rules text that they could put in books that had errors in them.
etc.
Point being that the opinions of those buying the game should matter, and that the fanbois shouldnt rush to silence anyone that doesnt simply want to give the game a glowing review and each other internet high fives.
From discussion comes the potential for a better game in the long run...
As I stated I dont agree with everything Gimp stated.nor have I had the time to test it all out myself, but I think briging his gripes to the table for discussion is perfectly valid and I hope we see more of it...
Love the fanbois comment. What we are saying is, if he bothered to play the game, we bothered to give him the time of day. But, as it stands 90% of the things he has problems with, are not really problem when you hit the table. But, he already made his mind up before he even opened the book, don't belive my check out his other post. We want the FAQ just as bad as anyone else, we also know FFG is very good with support for there game. FAQ take about a month on average for FFG, so why not give them a chance, before bitching, you did for PP right? If they F' up the FAQ, then you see the hate. Or should they not get a chance like PP. Most of the problem have been talk about (by people who played the game) and submited to FFG, without trying to fan the flames of hate, to make use feel better about are view like Gimp.
27867
Post by: ddogwood
Noir wrote:CT GAMER wrote:ddogwood wrote:
To be fair, PP is on their third revision of the Warmachine rules and you still need the FAQ to play. It's not about whether you need the FAQ, it's about how long it takes to get one, and FFG has historically been at least as good as Privateer for this kind of thing.
I don't care i they are on their 10th revision, it is how they have handled them that counts.
PP did open playtesting .
PP gave people stickers with corrected rules text that they could put in books that had errors in them.
etc.
Point being that the opinions of those buying the game should matter, and that the fanbois shouldnt rush to silence anyone that doesnt simply want to give the game a glowing review and each other internet high fives.
From discussion comes the potential for a better game in the long run...
As I stated I dont agree with everything Gimp stated.nor have I had the time to test it all out myself, but I think briging his gripes to the table for discussion is perfectly valid and I hope we see more of it...
Love the fanbois comment. What we are saying is, if he bothered to play the game, we bothered to give him the time of day. But, as it stands 90% of the things he has problems with, are not really problem when you hit the table. But, he already made his mind up before he even opened the book, don't belive my check out his other post. We want the FAQ just as bad as anyone else, we also know FFG is very good with support for there game. FAQ take about a month on average for FFG, so why not give them a chance, before bitching, you did for PP right? If they F' up the FAQ, then you see the hate. Or should they not get a chance like PP. Most of the problem have been talk about (by people who played the game) and submited to FFG, without trying to fan the flames of hate, to make use feel better about are view like Gimp.
QFT. Privateer didn't do everything right out of the gate; it took a few years before they really hit their stride. This is FFG's first real minis wargame, so we need to give them a chance.
Accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a fanboy doesn't make you right.
58411
Post by: RogueRegault
CT GAMER wrote:
i could care less about his beef with historical accuracy (or the lack of).
Some of the rules mechanics issues he brings up if true are a little concerning.
Yes a FAQ/errata can address some of them, but I hope this isn't a case of a second edition having to be announced before my pages even get worn in on the first rulebook.
This is what killed Dystopian wars for me...
FFG should do what PP did and release sticker text with the fixed/added rules section that people can stick into their books...
Well you also have to realize he's an idiot with no reading comprehension. For instance, he complains about units granting themselves soft cover when the rules specifically state that models don't block or obscure line of sight to other models in the same unit. Even if they did, the way cover rules work would mean every soldier in the target unit would have to be in a single file line radiating from the attacking unit's leader before cover was granted.
A lot of other things are difficult to comprehend until you see them in play. For instance, to suppress a unit enough to force it into retreat requires several attacks from separate units. It isn't Warhammer 40k "every unit eventually breaks and retreats" meatgrinder style, it's a mechanism that forces back units that have put themselves far ahead of the remainder of their force.
Anyway, my current problems with the game are matters of point and unit balance(Some stuff is overpriced, some stuff is underpowered) and the fact that going first in a turn is way too powerful due to the way reaction and suppression takes place.
32977
Post by: Inquisitor_Dunn
they need to do something about checkerboarding units.
8023
Post by: knightdrake
I've logged in a few games and ran a couple demos so far. Honest assessment is the rules need a bit better clarification on items but that is a FAQ. I am a regular Warmachine player and find this game a pleasant break from it. It is simple but offers enough tactical flexibility to keep you engaged. Games so far have been groans and ahhhs as we have a good time working the scenario objective. Is this a revolutionary game system that trumps all others, no. But I find it offers an alternative to other systems that can be a breath of fresh air if one likes the WW weird type setting.
27867
Post by: ddogwood
RogueRegault wrote:
Well you also have to realize he's an idiot with no reading comprehension.
A bit harsh, don't you think? Especially considering that you, yourself, say that
A lot of other things are difficult to comprehend until you see them in play.
I didn't find the review helpful, because it's mostly comprised of exaggerated negative cases (you can punch a guy 20 storeys up!) and petty gripes about historical accuracy and corner-case game balance issues. But to call the guy an "idiot" for making a simple mistake is over the top.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:they need to do something about checkerboarding units.
Could you clarify this statement? The small unit (model count) sizes and ability of unit-clearing attacks like sprays to hit everyone in the unit, regardless positioning and ignoring cover, seems to make checkerboarding less of an issue. Automatically Appended Next Post: RogueRegault wrote:Anyway, my current problems with the game are matters of point and unit balance(Some stuff is overpriced, some stuff is underpowered) and the fact that going first in a turn is way too powerful due to the way reaction and suppression takes place.
Can you expand on this statement? Particularly the bolded bit. The You-go-I-go activation sequence seems to weight first turn with very little advantage, unlike the 40k first turn 'leaf blower' alpha strike.
P1 goes first, shoots, scores some hits, places 1 suppression marker
P2 goes second, activates shot-at unit, has a chance to remove the 1 suppression marker
7445
Post by: robertsjf
I believe that RogueRegault is concerned that going first allows a player to sneeze in the general direction of a unit, place a suppression marker and completely remove that unit's ability to react
43588
Post by: Anpu-adom
robertsjf wrote:I believe that RogueRegault is concerned that going first allows a player to sneeze in the general direction of a unit, place a suppression marker and completely remove that unit's ability to react
But that's not how it works. A single suppression marker brings the unit down to 1 action. Remember, odds are that the person going first has fewer units on the board, and so is less likely to be able to suppress a serious amount of the opponents army anyway.
55738
Post by: CaulynDarr
RogueRegault wrote: the fact that going first in a turn is way too powerful due to the way reaction and suppression takes place.
I think the command phase does a good job of balancing out the first turn advantage. Remember that the player with the fewest commands goes first. This, by definition, means that the second player will have more commands to position his units or lay down suppression.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Anpu-adom wrote:But that's not how it works. A single suppression marker brings the unit down to 1 action. Remember, odds are that the person going first has fewer units on the board, and so is less likely to be able to suppress a serious amount of the opponents army anyway.
And the squad, before it activates, has a chance to remove the suppression marker as well. So at most 1st turn advantage suppresses a single unit, that could remove the effect, and operate as normal.
First turn advantage/command disadvantage actually seems to do a very good job of balancing smaller, elite armies versus larger, 'spammy' armies.
32977
Post by: Inquisitor_Dunn
Except americans can suppress 4 units in range with one ranger combat squad with grenades. 2x combat squads and you now have 4 units with 2x suppression markers and a 66% chance of not doing anything if going second.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Checkerboarding.... Intermingle 2x gorrilla units so that they give each other soft cover. That is stupid. terrain is optional?
6872
Post by: sourclams
Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:Except americans can suppress 4 units in range with one ranger combat squad with grenades. 2x combat squads and you now have 4 units with 2x suppression markers and a 66% chance of not doing anything if going second.
I did forget about splitting fire, that's actually a really good point. But they're still going to need to hit with all four of those attacks, and since grenades/UGL aren't sprays 4 shots at 4 separate units should really only reliably suppress 1-2.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Checkerboarding.... Intermingle 2x gorrilla units so that they give each other soft cover. That is stupid. terrain is optional?
How's that possible, though? Two units with 3 models each can only ever block 50%+ to one squad. You'd need either an additional unit or a cover piece to really make that happen.
32977
Post by: Inquisitor_Dunn
grenades always give a counter even if you miss.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Has anyone seen any proper batreps yet that discuss actual gameplay and rules mechanics in a detailed and impartial way?
I'd be curious to see some.
7445
Post by: robertsjf
Anpu-adom wrote:robertsjf wrote:I believe that RogueRegault is concerned that going first allows a player to sneeze in the general direction of a unit, place a suppression marker and completely remove that unit's ability to react
But that's not how it works. A single suppression marker brings the unit down to 1 action. Remember, odds are that the person going first has fewer units on the board, and so is less likely to be able to suppress a serious amount of the opponents army anyway.
Uh, page 47 1st paragraph under Suppression and Reactions:
Suppressed units cannot make reactions.
Page 46 3rd paragraph under supression markers:
if a unit has one or more Suppression markers, it is considered to be suppressed
At the start of the activation, the unit has a chance to remove suppression markers by rolling a die for each one and praying for a hit thingy (page 46 right hand column 2nd para) . At the end phase, that's when one suppression marker is automatically pulled (page 46 right hand column 3rd para)
Have I been reading a different Dust Warfare book from everyone else?
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
CT GAMER wrote:Has anyone seen any proper batreps yet that discuss actual gameplay and rules mechanics in a detailed and impartial way?
I'd be curious to see some.
I might have one soon. Not sure it had enough depth. I will link it when its up.
58411
Post by: RogueRegault
sourclams wrote:
Can you expand on this statement? Particularly the bolded bit. The You-go-I-go activation sequence seems to weight first turn with very little advantage, unlike the 40k first turn 'leaf blower' alpha strike.
P1 goes first, shoots, scores some hits, places 1 suppression marker
P2 goes second, activates shot-at unit, has a chance to remove the 1 suppression marker
If you read the rules, there isn't You-go-I-go like in Mage Knight. It has the same turn structure as WH40k, with the additions of the order phase, the change in who goes first on a given turn, and unit reactions. http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/Dust-Warfare/Dust%20Warfare%20Previews/Dust%20Warfare%20Preview%204/DWF01-prev-32.pdf
The reason going first is powerful is that Reaction Markers and one Suppression Marker per unit are removed after the second player's turn. That means that the first player can perform full actions with his units and still get to react in the second player's unit phase. Meanwhile any of the second player's units that reacted to the first player have reduced actions for their turn. In addition, the first player needs to shoot a unit once to suppress it on the other player's next turn, while the second player needs to shoot a unit twice.
Going first is actually more powerful than getting orders, since using more than one or two orders a turn requires "Death Star" playstyles with mobs of units surrounding the command squad.
So, to sum up my pet peeves with the current rules:
Getting the first unit phase of a turn is too powerful.
Ranges are too short. Malifaux and Warmachine also have this issue, but those games are meant to be played in a smaller area with fewer figures.
A lot of units seem to have had their statlines and point values copied directly over from Tactics with no regard to changes in special abilities.(A common complaint on the FFG forums is that Damage Resilience and Laser weapons are much weaker than they were in Tactics, but the Axis units with these powers are the same relative cost.)
Cover is powerful, which on its own is fine, but correspondingly makes Burst weapons a little too powerful, since a single burst weapon in an attack removes the cover bonus entirely. It's probably better to fire a single UGL per Recon Squad attack just to get the "no cover" benefit than it is to fire all of them at once.
Niggling things per unit(The jetpack heroes should have a move of 12, not 6. The petard mortar should get a range boost when fired as Artillery. Axis vehicles are weaker for their cost than Allied vehicles.)
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
RogueRegault wrote:[
Ranges are too short.
This wwas my initial observation as well.
I'd add a minimum of 4" to everything probably more...
7445
Post by: robertsjf
The range thing, though wierd (model can punch 3" but only shoot a rifle 16"), can at least be justified as an abstraction that's used to force movement. not that I agree with it (more terrain would be better than shorter ranges) but it at least provides a methodology.
32977
Post by: Inquisitor_Dunn
sourclams wrote:Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:Except americans can suppress 4 units in range with one ranger combat squad with grenades. 2x combat squads and you now have 4 units with 2x suppression markers and a 66% chance of not doing anything if going second.
I did forget about splitting fire, that's actually a really good point. But they're still going to need to hit with all four of those attacks, and since grenades/UGL aren't sprays 4 shots at 4 separate units should really only reliably suppress 1-2.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Checkerboarding.... Intermingle 2x gorrilla units so that they give each other soft cover. That is stupid. terrain is optional?
How's that possible, though? Two units with 3 models each can only ever block 50%+ to one squad. You'd need either an additional unit or a cover piece to really make that happen.
Unit A= gorrillas
Unit B =gorrillas
Unit C= enemy firing
AAB <------------C
BBA
Tada! 2 units of 3 both giving each other cover! Automatically Appended Next Post: RogueRegault wrote:sourclams wrote:
Can you expand on this statement? Particularly the bolded bit. The You-go-I-go activation sequence seems to weight first turn with very little advantage, unlike the 40k first turn 'leaf blower' alpha strike.
P1 goes first, shoots, scores some hits, places 1 suppression marker
P2 goes second, activates shot-at unit, has a chance to remove the 1 suppression marker
If you read the rules, there isn't You-go-I-go like in Mage Knight. It has the same turn structure as WH40k, with the additions of the order phase, the change in who goes first on a given turn, and unit reactions. http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/Dust-Warfare/Dust%20Warfare%20Previews/Dust%20Warfare%20Preview%204/DWF01-prev-32.pdf
The reason going first is powerful is that Reaction Markers and one Suppression Marker per unit are removed after the second player's turn. That means that the first player can perform full actions with his units and still get to react in the second player's unit phase. Meanwhile any of the second player's units that reacted to the first player have reduced actions for their turn. In addition, the first player needs to shoot a unit once to suppress it on the other player's next turn, while the second player needs to shoot a unit twice.
Going first is actually more powerful than getting orders, since using more than one or two orders a turn requires "Death Star" playstyles with mobs of units surrounding the command squad.
So, to sum up my pet peeves with the current rules:
Getting the first unit phase of a turn is too powerful.
Ranges are too short. Malifaux and Warmachine also have this issue, but those games are meant to be played in a smaller area with fewer figures.
A lot of units seem to have had their statlines and point values copied directly over from Tactics with no regard to changes in special abilities.(A common complaint on the FFG forums is that Damage Resilience and Laser weapons are much weaker than they were in Tactics, but the Axis units with these powers are the same relative cost.)
Cover is powerful, which on its own is fine, but correspondingly makes Burst weapons a little too powerful, since a single burst weapon in an attack removes the cover bonus entirely. It's probably better to fire a single UGL per Recon Squad attack just to get the "no cover" benefit than it is to fire all of them at once.
Niggling things per unit(The jetpack heroes should have a move of 12, not 6. The petard mortar should get a range boost when fired as Artillery. Axis vehicles are weaker for their cost than Allied vehicles.)
@Rogue.... We noticed the same thing about going first in the two games we played. Going first can be manipulated to by building small, elite armies. I played a all jumper/paratrooper army. I went first 3 out of 4 turns. In the end it was a tie, but that was due to us trying differnet things. There was deffinate potential for abuse.
Units look horribly unbalanced. Right now my money is easily on the americans. Their is a potential Grey Knight style Daigowing list there. Lasers vs Phasers.....Yeah thats not balanced. Rocket gloves are stupid good. UGL are broken. Snipers, need I say more. The germans have some good units too, but americans have the better options IMO.
55738
Post by: CaulynDarr
RogueRegault wrote:
Cover is powerful, which on its own is fine, but correspondingly makes Burst weapons a little too powerful, since a single burst weapon in an attack removes the cover bonus entirely. It's probably better to fire a single UGL per Recon Squad attack just to get the "no cover" benefit than it is to fire all of them at once.
I think there's a problem with firing only one UGL at a time. It's the same issues that's been raised with the mortar and rockets on the Steal Rain. If you fire any reload weapon you get an Out-of-Ammo marker. A unit cannot fire reload weapons when they have an Out-of-Ammo marker. So firing one UGL means you still have to reload before firing another.
I also don't think that going first is a that big of an advantage. Sometimes having a few extra commands to use is worth going second. Especially if you use those commands to suppress units that no longer have the opportunity to get issued a re-group order.
Intentionally building a low model count army is also going to be a disadvantage. You'll get less support, which means less walkers. I've found walkers to be the best way to deal with units like the Hammers. Being able to suppress out to 24 or 36 inches is very powerful in this game. You can use commands to double fire those walkers(once in the command phase and again in the unit phase), allowing them to put out two suppression tokens a turn.
The game is new and people are finding the obvious tactics, but I'm confident that counters to much of these will be figured out. Give the meta-game a little time to get established.
6872
Post by: sourclams
I do appreciate your comments and clearing up my misconceptions, RogueRegault, and I've spent more time familiarizing myself with the rules.
On paper, it does seem that Allies have an advantage; their vehicles pack more anti-infantry shooting (and more shooting, period), Phasers vs Lasers, overall faster.
This seems to shift (IMO) the meta to Axis '3' infantry, especially the Gorillas and Pfliegerfausts, and anti-armor walkers. The difference between Allied anti-Infantry2 and anti-Infantry3 shooting is pretty material, almost 1/2 of effectiveness, and allied walkers aren't as reliable anti-armor platforms as axis walkers are.
Heavy infantry double dips on survivability because of 3 dice versus attacks and a higher profile versus attacks as well. It takes a lot of punishment to drag down pfliegerfausts in cover, and smaller force size makes axis more likely to have 1st turn.
Allied infantry2 vs axis infantry2 does look imbalanced. So does Allied vehicles vs infantry2 compared to Axis vehicles vs infantry2. I don't 'like' that, but it does seem very manageable if Axis goes to infantry3 and maintains vehicles in an anti-vehicle role.
6300
Post by: Korthu
So far the feed back from people that have played the game is very positive. You can meta any game to death but that will never tell you how it plays on the table or if you're going to have a good time. Rocket fists are good, but you only need 3 hits to take the unit out or 3 Suppression to make it run. Panzerfist units ignore Suppression and have other abilities to make up for the weaker fists. Both sides have their ups and downs but I don't think any thing is broken or usless. Its going to take people playing the game to figure out how to use each unit.
On the going first debate, it seems people are forgeting the "Regroup" order to remove the Suppression markers taken during the command phase. It can force the first player to fire on the same units again if they want those units to remain Suppressed instead other targets they may of had in mind during the Unit phase.
DW is a new game and any new game has some growing pains. I was on the play-test team and I have 4 other versions of rules so I can tell you there has been a lot of thought and editing. My own player group enjoyed each version, and they're all historical players who won't play 40k or Warmachine.
Give it a play, you might like it. Worst case, there are some great models for any game.
-K
6872
Post by: sourclams
Korthu wrote:DW is a new game and any new game has some growing pains. I was on the play-test team and I have 4 other versions of rules so I can tell you there has been a lot of thought and editing. My own player group enjoyed each version, and they're all historical players who won't play 40k or Warmachine.
I'd really like to hear your thoughts on the disparity in anti-infantry2 capability between the factions. What is the grand balance offset that Axis have to make up for what is basically an objective difference?
Is it the axis' longer ranges? Is it the apes/zombies? Something else?
58411
Post by: RogueRegault
CaulynDarr wrote:
I think there's a problem with firing only one UGL at a time. It's the same issues that's been raised with the mortar and rockets on the Steal Rain. If you fire any reload weapon you get an Out-of-Ammo marker. A unit cannot fire reload weapons when they have an Out-of-Ammo marker. So firing one UGL means you still have to reload before firing another.
I also don't think that going first is a that big of an advantage. Sometimes having a few extra commands to use is worth going second. Especially if you use those commands to suppress units that no longer have the opportunity to get issued a re-group order.
Except the Reload rules really aren't clear on that. Although if true it turns the Steel Rain from "hard to use" to "Completely worthless." I really want to know who decided to leave it at 24" when firing as Artillery. Nothing will ever be in range
And extra orders are never worth going second. You get one free order a turn from your command squad(Likely used on the squad's special ability.), and then can use one order with a radioman. To use anything beyond one or two orders rolled requires your army to lump up on your command squad, which is insane in a game with 16" standard ranges played on a 4' by 6' standard table. Orders are pretty much just for hiding overexposed units before the enemy's turn, and shooting exposed units before the enemy can hide them.
Simple fact of the matter is that first player units all get two full actions and a reaction. Second player gets all the suppression from the first player's turn, and if his units reacted to the opponent's turn they're down an action, meaning they can't March, Sustained Fire, or Reload and Fire.
Regroup only matters if the opponent focused down on suppressing a specific unit the previous turn. You can't use it outside the Command Phase, so you're still stuck with suppressed units as second player.
Unit balance...I think the lasers vs. phasers argument is a bit off since lasers were originally meant as a flamethrower+shotgun equivalent. I do think the heavier lasers (Schwer- and Light Walker) are underpowered versus infantry though. I also think the Axis is kind of let down by the Lothar and the Loth(Lothar can't use both his main weapons in the same attack, so really the clamp is just to discourage Rocket Punches and to make suicide runs on vehicles the flak gun can't scratch.) Of course, the Allies are likewise let down by their short-ranged artillery walker.
27867
Post by: ddogwood
RogueRegault wrote:
And extra orders are never worth going second. You get one free order a turn from your command squad(Likely used on the squad's special ability.), and then can use one order with a radioman. To use anything beyond one or two orders rolled requires your army to lump up on your command squad, which is insane in a game with 16" standard ranges played on a 4' by 6' standard table. Orders are pretty much just for hiding overexposed units before the enemy's turn, and shooting exposed units before the enemy can hide them.
Is this based on your actual play experience? Because although I haven't played Dust: Warfare, I've played an awful lot of Warmachine/Hordes, which has 12-16" ranges on most weapons, is played on a 4x4' table, and requires most units to stay within 12-14" of the army commander for many benefits. I've never found this "insane".
I realize that this isn't apples to apples, but D:W allows a higher proportion of commanders, longer range orders, and smaller average unit sizes than Warmahordes. With careful positioning, it seems to me that it should be easy for a command section to have more order able units in command range than it has orders to spend. Of course, I haven't played so I can't say this for sure.
55738
Post by: CaulynDarr
RogueRegault wrote:
Unit balance...I think the lasers vs. phasers argument is a bit off since lasers were originally meant as a flamethrower+shotgun equivalent. I do think the heavier lasers (Schwer- and Light Walker) are underpowered versus infantry though. I also think the Axis is kind of let down by the Lothar and the Loth(Lothar can't use both his main weapons in the same attack, so really the clamp is just to discourage Rocket Punches and to make suicide runs on vehicles the flak gun can't scratch.) Of course, the Allies are likewise let down by their short-ranged artillery walker.
I quite like the Lothar. Its gun is good at suppressing infantry at long range. Maybe it's a play style thing. I like using orders to double fire my walkers, and I primarily use my walkers to suppress infantry. This way extra orders translates directly to extra suppression I can assign to enemy squads while still being able to get my front line units out of Dodge it I need to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ddogwood wrote:
Is this based on your actual play experience? Because although I haven't played Dust: Warfare, I've played an awful lot of Warmachine/Hordes, which has 12-16" ranges on most weapons, is played on a 4x4' table, and requires most units to stay within 12-14" of the army commander for many benefits. I've never found this "insane".
I realize that this isn't apples to apples, but D:W allows a higher proportion of commanders, longer range orders, and smaller average unit sizes than Warmahordes. With careful positioning, it seems to me that it should be easy for a command section to have more order able units in command range than it has orders to spend. Of course, I haven't played so I can't say this for sure.
I haven't had too much of a problem keeping things in command range either. In fact, it helps to think of a platoon a lot like a Warmachine battlegroup.
If you're mostly familiar with 40K or FoW style army scale games, then I can see how it may seem like a small area to play with. But a 12" radius bubble that only needs one model in with a extra command for someone outside of 12" in actuality is a pretty large area to play with. You can stretch models 48" across a table and still have every one in command using a 12" radius command and 6" radius coherency..
32977
Post by: Inquisitor_Dunn
Ok so played another game yesterday. It was the corner deployment with the terrain objectives mission. This mission needs work! The fact we chose our 2 object terrain pieces were secret pretty much resaulted in a tie. We simply were to far away for each other in a 5 turn game and had to guess what the oponents objective was, made for a fun friendly game but this was sold as a tournament scenario.
In tournament play ties are not so great.
so far my record in Dust is 0-0-3. Assasination is another "roll dice and tie" mission. We played annihilation also but that I feel was the true fluke tie.
Anyone else getting alot of ties, or is this just too small a sample size for us to draw early conclusions?
Also I agree with Rogue on the going first. Saw the 3 to 2 action disparacy again last night with regards to first turns in the mid to late game. Also the I go second then first next turn problem of card initative games reared its head last night.
58411
Post by: RogueRegault
Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:Ok so played another game yesterday. It was the corner deployment with the terrain objectives mission. This mission needs work! The fact we chose our 2 object terrain pieces were secret pretty much resaulted in a tie. We simply were to far away for each other in a 5 turn game and had to guess what the oponents objective was, made for a fun friendly game but this was sold as a tournament scenario.
In tournament play ties are not so great.
so far my record in Dust is 0-0-3. Assasination is another "roll dice and tie" mission. We played annihilation also but that I feel was the true fluke tie.
Anyone else getting alot of ties, or is this just too small a sample size for us to draw early conclusions?
Also I agree with Rogue on the going first. Saw the 3 to 2 action disparacy again last night with regards to first turns in the mid to late game. Also the I go second then first next turn problem of card initative games reared its head last night.
I really think they need to errata the terrain objectives mission as currently there's nothing in the rules to stop you from picking two points in your deployment zone and turtling.
I would prefer to add "Objectives must be outside deployment and over 12" from each other." and "Double points for revealing the objective before the game starts" to the mission's rules.
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
9230
Post by: Trasvi
I got this game and played a round with the RCS box.
The mechanics seem to be very good. Everything went fairly well, and aside from a few little issues which were sorted with a more thorough reading of the book, it turned out alright.
Allies won, mostly because the Axis player was terrible.
The game seemed to reward moving forward and shooting far more than trying to turtle.
It does seem initially that there is a huge advantage to going first:
Command phase, player 1: no orders
Command phase, player 2: give orders to shoot: put a few suppression markers out
Unit phase, player 1: roll to remove suppression - move and shoot, suppressing a few units. Enemy units now have suppression and perhaps reaction markers
Unit phase, player 2: many units are suppressed or reacted or both. Units which can activate, shoot the enemy, who get to react.
Or more to the point: when going first, you encounter less return fire AND have the possibility of completing 3 actions per turn (action, action, reaction).
Other issues:
Ranges seem to be quite short. By the time you're in range to fire a basic rifle you're pretty much in assault range or flamethrower range of many units. However, I think this is a concious decision to encourage a more action-packed game: if you could keep the enemy suppressed at 24" the game could get pretty boring.
Some Axis abilities seem a little weak. Particularly the change to damage resilient, lasers, etc. as compared to the changes to rocket fists. We didn't play enough to get any sense of any balance issues, so maybe this is only a mathhammer issue, or at least one that can be easily rectified. The release of a high quality FAQ so quickly speaks a lot for FFG's investment in the game.
You need a command squad. Heroes just don't cut it.
@ checkerboarding: most games allow for this (or at least, don't explicitly prohibit it). 40k does, and it seems to be doing alright. Most people don't even attempt it.
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
Go figure. I had an almost opposite experience last weekend when I played. Going second helped a lot so that Regroup orders wouldn't undo my Command-issued suppression. Also, being too aggressive will cost you, but depending on the mission, turtling can work. Lasers aren't the greatest, but Damage Resilient with Hard Cover is maddening.
6872
Post by: sourclams
em_en_oh_pee wrote: Lasers aren't the greatest, but Damage Resilient with Hard Cover is maddening.
Had the same experience. Allies Infantry2 can throw a lot more dice than Axis when they get in close, but Pfliegerfausts in hard cover are godawful infantry deterrents. 4 armor dice ignoring the first 2 hits off-the-top, and capable of bursting to get 9 dice against infantry2 from 16" away.
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
sourclams wrote:em_en_oh_pee wrote: Lasers aren't the greatest, but Damage Resilient with Hard Cover is maddening.
Had the same experience. Allies Infantry2 can throw a lot more dice than Axis when they get in close, but Pfliegerfausts in hard cover are godawful infantry deterrents. 4 armor dice ignoring the first 2 hits off-the-top, and capable of bursting to get 9 dice against infantry2 from 16" away.
Exactly what happened to me. And suppression-proof Apes and Zombies are a headache. Going to try using a pair of Heavy Walkers to see if that can mitigate that crazy anti-infantry nonsense and deliver my BBQ squads unmolested.
6872
Post by: sourclams
The fireball is an incredible assault platform. I dont' know about 2 in a list, but that napalm cannon is legitimately terrifying. Hard to get cover with, so the dedicated Axis anti-tank vehicles can light one up.
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
Yea, but unless I am staring down a Konigsluther, I think it should make it across the table and cause some havoc. And at 300pt, I can't imagine many enemies will be able to do much against them unless they dedicate the list to it.
Hell, when I give it a whirl, I will post a BatRep for it.
666
Post by: Necros
Just got ahold of the allied heavy walker.. anyone have any issues with the 50 cal gun that you stick on top? there's no hole for it anywhere.. like there should be a hole in the front part of the ring going around the top hatch, but there isn't. Guess I gotta drill my own...
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
Necros wrote:Just got ahold of the allied heavy walker.. anyone have any issues with the 50 cal gun that you stick on top? there's no hole for it anywhere.. like there should be a hole in the front part of the ring going around the top hatch, but there isn't. Guess I gotta drill my own...
I am just putting mine on the side of the ring, where the hole is.
6300
Post by: Korthu
Nope, you have to drill it. The holes on the side arn't deep enough. At least on mine.
-K
6872
Post by: sourclams
There are 3 holes on mine on the cupola ring where it can be mounted.
On some of the fine details, there's a bit of variation between models, I've noticed.
666
Post by: Necros
hmm.. yeah mine just has the 2 holes on the back part of the ring, none up front. No big deal though, I can just drill it myself.
I might have to magnetize the 2 gun barrels though, they don't fit very snugly and fall off pretty easily.
I haven't read all the rules yet, but are the cards that come with the models just for DT and pretty much useless for DW? I kinda liked the idea of having nice cards for everything.
55738
Post by: CaulynDarr
Necros wrote:hmm.. yeah mine just has the 2 holes on the back part of the ring, none up front. No big deal though, I can just drill it myself.
I might have to magnetize the 2 gun barrels though, they don't fit very snugly and fall off pretty easily.
I haven't read all the rules yet, but are the cards that come with the models just for DT and pretty much useless for DW? I kinda liked the idea of having nice cards for everything.
They changed the stats from DT, so the cards aren't compatible. Some people have been making some pretty nice custom ones. Check out this thread on FF forums.
20174
Post by: DoomOnYou72
Necros wrote:hmm.. yeah mine just has the 2 holes on the back part of the ring, none up front. No big deal though, I can just drill it myself.
I might have to magnetize the 2 gun barrels though, they don't fit very snugly and fall off pretty easily.
I haven't read all the rules yet, but are the cards that come with the models just for DT and pretty much useless for DW? I kinda liked the idea of having nice cards for everything.
There are three holes in the gun ring its just that for some reason the first hole (at least on the 3 I bought) was covered in a thin layer of paint. I just use a pin to poke it through and the gun fits fine.
666
Post by: Necros
oh ok.. I'll look for that
And those other card sheets are pretty nice, gonna grab them  I just wish they could have made the game compatible with the cards in the box. or at least have official PDF versions that you could download
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
I gotta say that I am having mixed feelings about collecting Warfare models thus far mostly due to non-gameplay issues with the products that are eliciting feelings of buyer's remorse.
I have had a friend hyping Tactics to me for a while and I just didnt have the time to get into it. I told him if they ever did a proper tabletop version and had a Russian faction i would give it a go. And so with Warfare and it's SSU I had no more excuses.
My first purchase as a newb was "Red Kosack" (Premium paint) and "Fury of Ivan"; based mostly on the looks of them.
They are awesome models w/ tons of detail and character and they "feel" like what I would expect a wargaming model to look/feel like in terms of heft/qulity/etc
I next bought the rulebook. It is a nice looking book. No complaints.
I next ordered bunch of SSU infantry with hopes of getting it painted prior to the Zverograd book hitting as I wnt to get playing games with painted stuff asap once the SSu rules/list is available.
I have to say that the infantry, while nicely detailed are sort of a letdown in a number of way from a modeling/hobbiest focused wargamer's-perspective:
1. soft bendy "rubbery" guns that bend easily to the touch and dont stay straightened when you try to fix them. This is ok for boardgame pieces but expect more for my wargaming models.
2. Limited poses/lack of variety of pre-assembled kits
3. The models on the box don't match the models pictured. The SSU "frontoviki" have two styles of MG but only one is pictured on the box
Again the most exciting model in this new purchase was Koshka's walker "Grand'Ma" which again rivals any GW model in terms of weight, feel and detail.
So from a hobiest/painters perspective I am let sort of feeling "meh..." at this point.
The models I like the most are unofficial or can only be fielded in limited quantities, and all those bent rifle barrels sort of kill the overall effect and make it is hard to get excited having to spend time painting bendy models...
In addition the walker models and infantry are worlds apart in terms of quality/components: the walkers rival anything GW is putting out, the infantry not so much and yet they are for the same game. Why bendy rubber for infantry and not harder plastic like the walkers...
I hope the gameply itself will be fun enough to make it worth dealing with the issues I have with the models, but I wont know until I can get my hands on the SSU rules...
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
Well, for me I just keep in mind that they are "game pieces" and not "models". That is one thing to remember when you factor in the price point of Dust Warfare stuff - it is cheap, because you aren't buying multi-piece plastic kits for modelling and painting. You are buying gaming pieces for use in their tabletop game, which I have found during gameplay to be an absolute joy.
If you do want some more modelling intensive stuff - go to Dust-Models.com and buy some blank bases and do up some of your own troops based on Tamiya kits or some such. Nothing stopping anyone from pushing the hobby further like that - just be sure you model everything appropriately and you should be golden, depending on how flexible your gaming group is.
Again, if you haven't played - don't let the remorse get to you just yet. Wait until you have had a handful of games and I think you will be fine. The game is elegant and fun, with a lower learning curve than many games, but with a huge amount of complexity.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Well, for me I just keep in mind that they are "game pieces" and not "models".
If that was the case I would agree, but Warfare is being pushed as a true Table top game and the fans are touting it as a replacement for 40K.
For me the hobby/modelling aspect is a key element of tabletop wargaming, and bent rifles and such are eyesores in this regard...
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
Then apply some hobby know-how and fix them with appropriate materials. There is nothing stopping you from simply replacing those barrels and painting over them to complete the model. Hell, I have to do that with a bunch of my 40k stuff anyhow and I spend a lot more on those models.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
em_en_oh_pee wrote: Hell, I have to do that with a bunch of my 40k stuff anyhow and I spend a lot more on those models.
I rarely get a GW plastic model that NEEDS any work to "fix" quality issues. I spend hours converting/kitbashing them, but that is a plus. So far I have purchased about 50 Warfare infantry and many of them have bent/warped parts to an unnacceptable ratio for my own interest/taste.
Yes I CAN chop them up/fix them/add parts to alter them, point is I shouldnt have to fix models that are supposed to be ready out of the box.
Rifle barrels should be straight. That is a basic thing that immediately makes a model look cheap and wonky if it isnt present.
If I have to cut them up and "fix" them to make them look like they should to begin with then they aren't much different than finecast at that point. I don't buy finecast either due to the ratio of bent/wonky models, so I don't think FFG should get a pass in this regard.
Models are the selling point of miniature wargames for many people.
FFG should want to make these as appealing to potential buyers (and converts from other miniature games) as possible if they want this game to have any legs or staying power. Rubbery "tokens" with bent rifles are NOT going to make a lasting mark on the market.
FFG needs to look at what is so great about their walker models and rethink the infantry imho. I'd give the walkers an A- rating overall at this points. The infantry a C+.
Some people are fine with rubbery models, but many miniature gamers I know will be turned off by this, and that is a shame because I assume we all want the game to take off and have the potential to grow right?
33033
Post by: kenshin620
In a bit of agreement with CT. I'm not saying it'll flop like it, but while I enjoy Tactics I feel an "AT43" vibe from warfare. Neat game with some nifty ideas, but severely lacking in the hobby aspect
I think the main problem is though that FFG isnt really well known for miniature wargames. They're a board/RPG/Card game company first and foremost
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
Again, they are game pieces and they are extremely affordable. You can't expect perfection, seriously. Yes it is a miniatures game, but FFG is not saying that these are model kits. And Finecast was basically for point - in that it requires a lot of work to fix, etc. But this includes their normal kits where I have extensive green stuff application to make the model look passable.
In the end, it is not meant to be as extensive on the hobby portion as it is on gameplay. Keep in mind they are game pieces and that the price is very appropriate.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Again, they are game pieces and they are extremely affordable. You can't expect perfection, seriously. Yes it is a miniatures game, but FFG is not saying that these are model kits. And Finecast was basically for point - in that it requires a lot of work to fix, etc. But this includes their normal kits where I have extensive green stuff application to make the model look passable.
In the end, it is not meant to be as extensive on the hobby portion as it is on gameplay. Keep in mind they are game pieces and that the price is very appropriate.
I guess my point is that people that are rushing to proclaim this game an equal to 40k and tout it as a potential replacement for/ serious competitor to 40K need to think about the whole picture: and the quality of the miniatures isn't a minor factor imho.
Is it a miniatures game? FFG has it listed as such on their site, in fact the section of their forums it is discussed in, etc. is called "miniatures'.
So saying that the quality of the figs isn't important or downplaying issues with their quality seems odd. Also trying to argue that GW has just as many quality issues is a weak claim. GW has many problems, but overall quality of their models (particularly their plastic kits) is NOT one of them (finecast's rough start not-withstanding).
"Well GW has bad models too" isnt a selling point as far as Im concerned, and isnt a strong premise to base a new game on.
I always find the quality of miniatures in a miniatures game to be one of it not thee prime factor in my desire to play it and it also tends to be one of the prime factors in the long term survivability of a game.
Public perception plays a big role in how a game is perceived and eventually supported (or not).
People don't equate bendy miniatures with quality, in fact the first thing that comes to many people's mind are clicky games and toys... Not that either of these are bad per se, but if you really want to push this game as a serious alternative to GW/ 40K then the quality needs to be there.
The walkers have that quality. The infantry have a ways to go, and i hope that we see them moving closer to the walkers at some point, even if that requires added cost...
If this doesnt happen i dont forsee this game surviving longterm, much less dethroning GW/ 40K as the go to game...
55738
Post by: CaulynDarr
The miniatures are of passable quality. I think Fantasy Flight is trying to give a little something to both the gamer and the hobbiest and still be affordable. It doesn't completely abandon the hobby aspects which is what might make it more survivable than AT-43 ended up being. Its' also more affordable than AT-43 was out of the gate.
Dust Warfare is a challenger to 40K on it's rules quality, complexity, and scale. And it is a good match for 40K in those things. I hope that game will turn out to have legs.
GW is doing a fine enough job dethroning itself.
33816
Post by: Noir
CT GAMER wrote:
If this doesnt happen i dont forsee this game surviving longterm, much less dethroning GW/40K a the go to game...
No that will happen due to all they other game out there, if GW keep at it.
As for the models, convert them. Your a miniature table top player after all. I've will never understand the you must use the games models to play this game, concept. Is it just a GW only are models in are store hold over. The walkers are great, the men are ok. You don't like the men, it not hard to find WW2 models and the very few high-tech weapons need to do what TT miniature players enjoy, kitbashing.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
CaulynDarr wrote:Dust Warfare is a challenger to 40K on it's rules quality, complexity, and scale.
The verdict is still out on all three of these as far as I'm concerned...
Lets see what issues if any pop up after the powergamers start regularly putting this game through it's paces in documented tournaments, etc.
We need a lot more data from the greater player population from various types of play (casual, tournament, etc.) before we can make those conclusions with certainty.
And my point still stands: terms like "passable", "good enough", etc. when describing a new product trying to crack a niche market populated by fickle consumers are not solid building blocks to overturn an empire...
When it comes to new miniatures games I want to see quality choices that can stand the test of time and go beyond initial buzz of the first 3-5 years that is typical for upstart miniatures games, and you don't get that taking shortcuts with the miniatures themselves imho. I hope I'm wrong...
7445
Post by: robertsjf
CaulynDarr wrote:Dust Warfare is a challenger to 40K on it's rules quality, complexity, and scale. And it is a good match for 40K in those things.
Man, I'm not DW biggest fan from a rules standpoint but that's just harsh! I'd rate them at least marginally better since I get to do something in my opponents turn other than chcuking dice!
55738
Post by: CaulynDarr
CT GAMER wrote:
And my point still stands: terms like "passable", "good enough", etc. when describing a new product trying to crack a niche market populated by fickle consumers are not solid building blocks to overturn an empire...
Ford, Chevy, Mazda, Toyota, Honda, ext should all get out of the car market because they aren't selling cars as good as a Porsche.
Good enough is good enough if the price is right. I'd rather get passable minis at $15 than high grade at $30. Especially when I need to repeat that purchase a dozen times.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Ford, Chevy, Mazda, Toyota, Honda, ext should all get out of the car market because they aren't selling cars as good as a Porsche.
And they arent rolling out cars with warped wheels that wobble and telling the consumer "hey they are good enough and you can always fix it up yourself if you want it better" either...
A manufacturer should want to put out a quality/exceptional product whenever possible.
I dont think the infantry quality that FFG is currently putting out will satisfy enough of the miniature gaming population at present quality levels to see the game become dominant or survive long term.
I don't think fans of this game are doing it any favors by making excuses for quality concerns. IF it could be better we should hope and ask that it be made better for the good of the game and it's survival.
FFG themselves may or may not think they are "fine". And that is where we as consumers can make it known that we would prefer higher quality product. They can do with that info as they see fit and then live with the consequences...
55738
Post by: CaulynDarr
CT GAMER wrote:
A manufacturer should want to put out a quality/exceptional product whenever possible.
You can turn that around and apply it to Games Workshop's rules quality just as equally.
33816
Post by: Noir
CT GAMER wrote:
Ford, Chevy, Mazda, Toyota, Honda, ext should all get out of the car market because they aren't selling cars as good as a Porsche.
And they arent rolling out cars with warped wheels that wobble and telling the consumer "hey they are good enough and you can always fix it up yourself if you want it better" either...
Please, don't use this argument, GW still has not got Finecraft right yet, and charge a gak load for it. They need to stop selling Finecraft 'Ford" for the price of "Porsche', for that line of argument to hold up.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Noir wrote:
Please, don't use this argument, GW still has not got Finecraft right yet, and charge a gak load for it. They need to stop selling Finecraft 'Ford" for the price of "Porsche', for that line of argument to hold up.
I don't disagree.
finecast is awful.
That changes nothing about what is being discussed here.
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
Guys, you are all making absurd arguments. We can't compare this hobby to other companies outside of the market. Let me set my definitions straight real fast - these are gaming pieces, which are also a type of miniature. What they are not is "model kits", which are what Games Workshop produces. There is a drastic difference and you shouldn't expect complex plastic kits - that is not what FFG is going for and if you want it, plenty of other games exist to sate your need. With respect to quality issues - I have spent about $300 on models and have only a single bendy weapon. One. Out of the dozens and dozens of models I have purchased. So, maybe you should send FFG an e-mail and maybe they can replace it? Have you tried that yet? I haven't and very well might. Also, as for the rules - I have played plenty of games thus far and I must say, it is an exceptional game. I am a competitive player who routinely goes to tournaments in my region and while this game might have a few issues of balance in some areas, I haven't stumbled upon any yet and trust me, I am looking. Dust Warfare doesn't claim to be an end-all-be-all for hobbyists and is just a miniature wargame. It uses game pieces (not models) to represent units on table and has a great rules set that I think will give it the mileage over any issues with said miniatures. Also, FFG is not taking "shortcuts" - they have made an amazingly accessible game for new players where the start-up isn't going to bankrupt you. Honestly, if you don't like the models, buy some Wargames Factory greatcoat infantry or use some Pig Iron pieces. No one is stopping you from modelling to your heart's content, but don't complain about extremely affordable models not being on par with GW's kits that are often two or three times as expensive (or worse, thanks to the price gouge). There, done ranting.
33816
Post by: Noir
CT GAMER wrote:Noir wrote:
Please, don't use this argument, GW still has not got Finecraft right yet, and charge a gak load for it. They need to stop selling Finecraft 'Ford" for the price of "Porsche', for that line of argument to hold up.
I don't disagree.
finecast is awful.
That changes nothing about what is being discussed here.
True, it dose change the soft models, but I can fix a warp in the metal of my "ford" with a hammer (hot and cold water) or spend money on some "tools" (green stuff) to fix my "ford priced as a Porsche". Or just you know convert them, like I due with 40K, plus with buying form other company you are likely to come in cheeper too. GW have not got a cent from me in like 18 month, becouse I can get the guys I want cheeper and with a couple minute work better looking and the right loadout.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
CaulynDarr wrote:CT GAMER wrote:
A manufacturer should want to put out a quality/exceptional product whenever possible.
You can turn that around and apply it to Games Workshop's rules quality just as equally.
Agreed.
I'm not sure why what GW is doing or not doing is relevant. I'm not making any excuses for them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Dust Warfare doesn't claim to be an end-all-be-all for hobbyists and is just a miniature wargame. It uses game pieces (not models) to represent units on table and has a great rules set that I think will give it the mileage over any issues with said miniatures.
You guys are the one's that keep bringing up GW.
I want quality product from FFG irregardless of what other companies are or are not doing. Another companies bad buisness practices/quality is not an excuse to engage in it yourself, so that train of thought makes no sense to me.
History is littered with the bones of many miniatures games that have failed. The quality of the product (miniatures) was surely a factor in some of them.
If we can agree that we want Warfare to do well and be around for the long haul then we should want to see FFG improve quality and do things that will draw in the most players, and generate the most sales.
Better miniatures would assist with this.
I'm not sure why pointing that out brings out a chorus of "But Gw..." and or "they are good enough..." Frankly I'm concerned they arent good enough.
I have already encountered people that I game with that have passed on the game due to miniature quality and their perception of the game and it's viability based upon this fact. Sometimes people are nervous buying into something they sense might be a flash in the pan. I have the miniatures from a number of dead games littering my shelves and so I am wary when it comes to dropping lots of cash on yet another game that I question the quality of. I don't think I'm alone...
IF the game is as good as some claim, wouldnt it be even better with high quality models to boot?
33816
Post by: Noir
CT GAMER wrote:CaulynDarr wrote:CT GAMER wrote:
A manufacturer should want to put out a quality/exceptional product whenever possible.
You can turn that around and apply it to Games Workshop's rules quality just as equally.
Agreed.
I'm not sure why what GW is doing or not doing is relevant. I'm not making any excuses for them.
Becouse of this the first post starting this course of talk.
CT GAMER wrote:
I have to say that the infantry, while nicely detailed are sort of a letdown in a number of way from a modeling/hobbiest focused wargamer's-perspective:
1. soft bendy "rubbery" guns that bend easily to the touch and dont stay straightened when you try to fix them. This is ok for boardgame pieces but expect more for my wargaming models.
2. Limited poses/lack of variety of pre-assembled kits
3. The models on the box don't match the models pictured. The SSU "frontoviki" have two styles of MG but only one is pictured on the box
Again the most exciting model in this new purchase was Koshka's walker "Grand'Ma" which again rivals any GW model in terms of weight, feel and detail.
So from a hobiest/painters perspective I am let sort of feeling "meh..." at this point.
The models I like the most are unofficial or can only be fielded in limited quantities, and all those bent rifle barrels sort of kill the overall effect and make it is hard to get excited having to spend time painting bendy models...
In addition the walker models and infantry are worlds apart in terms of quality/components: the walkers rival anything GW is putting out, the infantry not so much and yet they are for the same game. Why bendy rubber for infantry and not harder plastic like the walkers...
You started the GW talk again in this thread.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Noir wrote:CT GAMER wrote:CaulynDarr wrote:CT GAMER wrote:
A manufacturer should want to put out a quality/exceptional product whenever possible.
You can turn that around and apply it to Games Workshop's rules quality just as equally.
Agreed.
I'm not sure why what GW is doing or not doing is relevant. I'm not making any excuses for them.
Becouse of this the first post starting this course of talk.
CT GAMER wrote:
I have to say that the infantry, while nicely detailed are sort of a letdown in a number of way from a modeling/hobbiest focused wargamer's-perspective:
1. soft bendy "rubbery" guns that bend easily to the touch and dont stay straightened when you try to fix them. This is ok for boardgame pieces but expect more for my wargaming models.
2. Limited poses/lack of variety of pre-assembled kits
3. The models on the box don't match the models pictured. The SSU "frontoviki" have two styles of MG but only one is pictured on the box
Again the most exciting model in this new purchase was Koshka's walker "Grand'Ma" which again rivals any GW model in terms of weight, feel and detail.
So from a hobiest/painters perspective I am let sort of feeling "meh..." at this point.
The models I like the most are unofficial or can only be fielded in limited quantities, and all those bent rifle barrels sort of kill the overall effect and make it is hard to get excited having to spend time painting bendy models...
In addition the walker models and infantry are worlds apart in terms of quality/components: the walkers rival anything GW is putting out, the infantry not so much and yet they are for the same game. Why bendy rubber for infantry and not harder plastic like the walkers...
You started the GW talk again in this thread.
The post you quoted states the high quality of the FFG walkers.
Nowhere do I give props to GW, claim them better to FFG, demand FFG emulate them or any other such.
The point of the post you quoted is that I see a disparity within the Warfare line: the walkers are extremely high quality and rival any of the best models for wargaming on the market (typically considered to be GW) yet the infantry do not use the same material and have bendy weapons etc.
Question being asked :If they can produce walkers to this standard with no bendy then why can they not do the same with the infantry? OR if they could why did they choose not to?
FFG has shown with their walkers that they can produce detailed and high quality models with no bendy issues. So why wouldnt they want the infantry to match this quality, particularly when i assume you are going to want your game to appeal to the core miniatures wargaming demographic as much as possible?
It that wasn't a goal then why a miniatures version of Dust at all since you already had tactics?
666
Post by: Necros
The models don't bother me. Sure I would rather all the guns were straight but it's nowhere near a dealbreaker for me. They still look great painted up.
I don't consider it a 40K replacement at all, it's "just another game" .. I'll be keeping my 40K stuff and playing that when I want to, and playing this too. To me it's like the difference between 40K and Warmachine, or 40K and Flames of War. 2 whole different games to have in your collection, not replace one or the other.
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
CT GAMER wrote:IF the game is as good as some claim, wouldnt it be even better with high quality models to boot?
No. What makes a good game is solid rules, exceptional support from the company, and a reasonable price-to-quality ratio. Now, that is my opinion, but I have watched Dust Warfare spread like a veritable wildfire in my area, simply because it is affordable and absolutely a blast to play. People watch the game and that day are buying into it. It has legs, as long as people keep a sense of proportion for it.
This is not a game that has put emphasis on the hobby aspects of the game - yes you can paint the miniatures, yes you can do modelling on them, but don't forget that the cost is low and the quality very much in line with said cost. If I wanted to spend a fortune, I would jump into other games for a heavier emphasis on the hobby elements, but that is not what Dust Warfare is about.
In fact, I play Warmahordes for a good balance of models and hobby, 40K and Fantasy more for the hobby than the balance or gameplay, and I play Dust Warfare very much so for its amazing design and gameplay. The miniatures are really somewhat secondary - but that doesn't mean they aren't awesome, either. Yes, a bendy gun can really ruin the look, but again - contact FFG and see what they can do for you. If enough people do it, maybe they will wise up to this small issue and remedy it.
As for it dying off - it may, but unlike some games where it is a brutal investment, Dust Warfare is extremely affordable. Especially with some retailers doing 35% off!
And yet again, I point to the Dust-Models.com website that sells blank bases for all your hobbyist needs, if you really truly want to run something unique to yourself.
Also, be sure and play the game. The models might not be up to the level of GW or PP, but damn the rules are solid and an absolute blast to play. I can't stress enough how much fun I have, even when losing. It is the design that I think will keep it going, above all else.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
This is not a game that has put emphasis on the hobby aspects of the game - yes you can paint the miniatures, yes you can do modelling on them, but don't forget that the cost is low and the quality very much in line with said cost. If I wanted to spend a fortune, I would jump into other games for a heavier emphasis on the hobby elements, but that is not what Dust Warfare is about..
So what is it about?
Why a need to make a tabletop version with Warfare when Tactics already existed and had a following?
Tactics already allowed for fun/challenging gameplay in the dust setting with the same models and at the smae price point.
So what was the thought behind warfare exactly? What did FFG want to appeal to that they didnt/couldnt already? Isnt the hobby element one of the main new big factors when you move it to tabletop?
The point of warfare must have been motivated on some level by a desire to crack into the tabletop market and appeal to fans of table top wargaming of which GW consumers/collectors/hobbiests make up a decent percentage.
Even if it wasnt, when you move to the tabletop arena you attract the attentionof tabletop gamers, many of which are hobbiest-gamers. I don't imagine FFG thought their opinions of their product toally irrelevant (though I wonder if they underestimated the importance of model quality to this demographic)...
33816
Post by: Noir
CT GAMER wrote:Noir wrote:CT GAMER wrote:CaulynDarr wrote:CT GAMER wrote:
A manufacturer should want to put out a quality/exceptional product whenever possible.
You can turn that around and apply it to Games Workshop's rules quality just as equally.
Agreed.
I'm not sure why what GW is doing or not doing is relevant. I'm not making any excuses for them.
Becouse of this the first post starting this course of talk.
CT GAMER wrote:
I have to say that the infantry, while nicely detailed are sort of a letdown in a number of way from a modeling/hobbiest focused wargamer's-perspective:
1. soft bendy "rubbery" guns that bend easily to the touch and dont stay straightened when you try to fix them. This is ok for boardgame pieces but expect more for my wargaming models.
2. Limited poses/lack of variety of pre-assembled kits
3. The models on the box don't match the models pictured. The SSU "frontoviki" have two styles of MG but only one is pictured on the box
Again the most exciting model in this new purchase was Koshka's walker "Grand'Ma" which again rivals any GW model in terms of weight, feel and detail.
So from a hobiest/painters perspective I am let sort of feeling "meh..." at this point.
The models I like the most are unofficial or can only be fielded in limited quantities, and all those bent rifle barrels sort of kill the overall effect and make it is hard to get excited having to spend time painting bendy models...
In addition the walker models and infantry are worlds apart in terms of quality/components: the walkers rival anything GW is putting out, the infantry not so much and yet they are for the same game. Why bendy rubber for infantry and not harder plastic like the walkers...
You started the GW talk again in this thread.
The post you quoted states the high quality of the FFG walkers.
Nowhere do I give props to GW, claim them better to FFG, demand FFG emulate them or any other such.
You compared them to GW, read you words, why you did that is besides the point.
Anyways like I posted above and that guy post 2 above this one said. Convert your own, it's a game use the model you like. Leave behind that other company LAW about only there models can be used in there games.
P.S. and yes I tell that to all my friends when they don't like the models. "You play for the system, use the models you like."
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Noir wrote:You compared them to GW, read you words, why you did that is besides the point.
I made the point that the majority of people will do so and so if a company wants to have success in the miniatures market they have to place a lot fo importance on quality of their models.
As to making my own: Yes I could if i chose to, I and many others may not desire to.
The only alternative to low quality doesnt have to be to make your own. Companies can and should work to improve quality so thaty a consumer can give them their money...
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
CT GAMER wrote:
So what is it about?
Why a need to make a tabletop version with Warfare when Tactics already existed and had a following?
Tactics already allowed for fun/challenging gameplay in the dust setting with the same models and at the smae price point.
So what was the thought behind warfare exactly? What did FFG want to appeal to that they didnt/couldnt already? Isnt the hobby element one of the main new big factors when you move it to tabletop?
The point of warfare must have been motivated on some level by a desire to crack into the tabletop market and appeal to fans of table top wargaming of which GW consumers/collectors/hobbiests make up a decent percentage.
Even if it wasnt, when you move to the tabletop arena you attract the attentionof tabletop gamers, many of which are hobbiest-gamers. I don't imagine FFG thought their opinions of their product toally irrelevant (though I wonder if they underestimated the importance of model quality to this demographic)...
What is it about? A new, better set of rules with a broader appeal. Why make a tabletop version of Dust? Because they could? Tactics had a small following and the freedom of an open tabletop game certainly has made an impact in my area, where not a single person played Dust Tactics, but suddenly we have 8+ Dust Warfare players in a month.
It is entirely your opinion that when a game moves to the tabletop that the hobby is a factor. Hell, I still have my Battletech stuff from ages past, when I used cardboard cutouts. It was all about the gameplay for me, not the models. So tabletop does not equate to modelling, painting, or any aspects of the hobby, really.
The motivations of Dust Warfare are something we can guess at forever - I personally don't care. What I do care about is that Andy Chambers (and crew) created a damned brilliant game that I can afford to play. Hobbyists can get their fix elsewhere, as I will be doing, but those of us who wanted a better set of rules can find that in Dust Warfare.
Not a single soul in my area has brought up this issue, by the way. In fact, I get a lot of folks who look at the models and expound on their coolness (and mine are all still unpainted). They do a double-take when I tell them the entry cost and then by the time they have watched a game, they are usually ready to invest in it themselves.
Again, if you are unsatisfied with the models, stick to 40K or Fantasy or Warmahordes or whatever for your hobby needs. Dust Warfare is a tabletop miniatures game made by a gaming company - not a game that exists to support the model kits of a model company.
33816
Post by: Noir
CT GAMER wrote:Noir wrote:You compared them to GW, read you words, why you did that is besides the point.
I made the point that the majority of people will do so and so if a company wants to have success in the miniatures market they have to place a lot fo importance on quality of their models.
As to making my own: Yes I could if i chose to, I and many others may not desire to.
The only alternative to low quality doesnt have to be to make your own. Companies can and should work to improve quality so thaty a consumer can give them their money...
Then the only thing to say is, you shouldn't of let yourself get talking in to a game you don't like that models of, if you aren't willing to put the working into making them what you want. Becouse I'm sure no TT gamer has ever had to put the work in, to even play other miniature games. If a TT miniature gamer is not willing to convert thats kind of sad (not saying your the type, but they seem to be the same people that like gray armys), if you a boardgamer then you don't have a problem as the models are better them most boardgames.
5516
Post by: Major Malfunction
First of all, let me preface this with a brief bio. I've been playing wargames for 30 years, with experience in everything from Steve Jackson and Avalon Hill map and chit based games to miniatures games including Battletech, Star Fleet Battles and modern systems like Malifaux, Warmachine, Dark Age, Battlefleet Gothic, Firestorm Armada, and most systems that come along. I'm a game junkie. I've played 40K since the very beginning of 3rd edition.
I picked up Dust Tactics when it first came out, and the same with Dust Warfare. From a rules standpoint, I find Dust Warfare superior in almost every way to 40K. For what is essentially a v1 product the the Dust rules are tighter and leave less to interpretation than 40K today as v5 ruleset (let alone what 40K was in it's v1). The FFG staff have been quick to FAQ and support Dust Tactics, and I have no reason to expect that support will change for Warfare.
As for models, my experience with Dust pretty much mirrors CT's view; the Walker models are superior, and the infantry kind of average. Unlike CT, that doesn't dampen my enthusiasm for the game. After a decade of broken chain swords, gun barrels and Spiky Bits™, in a way I have come to appreciate the rubbery, resilient nature of the Dust infantry. It's not so important I have my pin vise and super glue to fix battlefield casualties with Dust infantry dudes, and believe it or not you CAN straighten out bent barrels with hot water or a hair dryer if it bothers you. From a few feet away on the battlefield they certainly look the business, especially if painted. Oh, and they come already built. I can pull them right off the shelf, open the box, and plunk them down. Not pretty, but ready to fight.
The last bit of my reason for loving Dust is the creator, Paolo Parente. The man has soul and a passion for the product, and that goes a long way. Compared to the soulless publicly traded company that is GW this would be enough for me. Add Zombies and walking tanks and it's a no brainer.
55704
Post by: Fire Broadside!
CT Gamer, you mention cutting them up/adding parts to fix them but all you really need is a pot of hot water (almost boiling) and another of iced water. Dip the bent minis in the hot water (preferably using tongs) and bend the offending part straight - although most of the time it'll straighten out by itself as it gets heated - the when it's done put it the ice water for a minute to "harden" it. I've done this many times on board game miniatures that are much more bendy than Dust Warfare models and it works great. I've so far done it on one of my SSU machineguns and it's straight as an arrow!
Just a tip.
32977
Post by: Inquisitor_Dunn
em_en_oh_pee wrote:.
Also, as for the rules - I have played plenty of games thus far and I must say, it is an exceptional game. I am a competitive player who routinely goes to tournaments in my region and while this game might have a few issues of balance in some areas, I haven't stumbled upon any yet and trust me, I am looking.
:
You must play Allies then because the balance issues are there. Their is also the exploitable turn sequence while going first, and the "roll dice and tie" style missions. This game has so much potential, but I get the feeling like they copped out at the finish line.
54357
Post by: comrade-k-rad
To fix the bendy weapons all you have to do is add a thin line of thick super glue to either side and hold it straight till it sets a bit(or use accelerator). This will fix the bendy issue and also add some extra rigidity. The models, aside from bendy weapons, are pretty nice. They allow a decent amount of customization. Reposing is easy with the soft plastic, though they should have some extra equipment. Overall they are still quality miniatures, I certainly like them and prefer them to finecast. If you put as much time into a Dust squad as you do into a squad from any GW system you'll certainly end up with as good of an end result.
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:em_en_oh_pee wrote:.
Also, as for the rules - I have played plenty of games thus far and I must say, it is an exceptional game. I am a competitive player who routinely goes to tournaments in my region and while this game might have a few issues of balance in some areas, I haven't stumbled upon any yet and trust me, I am looking.
:
You must play Allies then because the balance issues are there. Their is also the exploitable turn sequence while going first, and the "roll dice and tie" style missions. This game has so much potential, but I get the feeling like they copped out at the finish line.
I do play Allies and I see no balance issues.
Also, ties don't happen since there is a tiebreaker method included in the rules. Also, going first is nit the ens all, as often going second has some serious benefits. Play against a Schwer Platoon and tell me going first is good. And as there is no way to manipulate getting first it isn't that big of an exploitable thing.
6872
Post by: sourclams
On Bendy Models:
Dust models seem to have pretty good memory. I bought a box of Axis Heavy Recon Grenadiers--dudes with double barreled MGs and combat knives--and each model had a bendy issue. Every single one. Was kinda bummed. But I left them in my truck cab for about 5 hours, guessing it got to maybe 110 degrees inside, and when I picked up the models again every single one had noticeably reverted to its 'mold' form. I fiddled with the barrels and knives a little bit on the spot and by the time I left my truck cab they looked like the box art (unpainted, of course). Compared to endless mold line shaving, assembly, and painting, Dust is definitely easier to deal with than GW, but with far less customizability naturally.
On game depth/mechanics: Dust, with its handful of releases, limited metagame, and lack of refinement is a far more tactical and engaging game than 40k. I say this as a guy who played 40k for years and left it for Warmachine/Hordes. Dust actually has a little more depth, in certain specific aspects, than WM/H, and that is saying a LOT for a game with a 50 page ruleset versus a 2nd gen game with a 150 page ruleset and 13 supplement books.
In a lot of ways Dust seems to occupy a happy middleground between 40k and WM/H in that the gameplay is a little 'looser', like 40k, but the factions thus far are pretty balanced and unrewarding of spam, like WM/H, and while HQ units and unit leaders are incredibly pivotal and important like WM/H and unlike 40k, losing one model doesn't lose you the game unlike WM/H and like 40k. There is a noticeable power difference between Allied offense and Axis offense (in terms of volumes of hits generated vs a variety of targets) but it's eminently manageable through other mechanics like range and suppression and orders--in which Axis have an advantage.
I think it's nonsense to compare Dust Warfare to GW or PP games right now, because we have the equivalent of 3 HQs, a Tactical squad, an Assault squad, shooty and fighty Terminators, and 3 different configurations of Predator with a Dreadnought and Land Raider for Blue Marines and Grey Marines with which to play the game right now. 'AHMGAWD Blue Marines are negligibly better than Grey Marines and there are only liek FIEV different units!!!11' -- well duh, it's a first gen game system. Going entirely by the merits of the rules set, I think Dust is superior in balance and clarity to GW and far more playable than PP for entry-level gamers.
44831
Post by: YakManDoo
kenshin620 wrote:In a bit of agreement with CT. I'm not saying it'll flop like it, but while I enjoy Tactics I feel an "AT43" vibe from warfare. Neat game with some nifty ideas, but severely lacking in the hobby aspect
I think the main problem is though that FFG isnt really well known for miniature wargames. They're a board/RPG/Card game company first and foremost
As to the hobby aspect I gotta say that I disagree. I have just finished painting my first unit of 3 tank buster jet pack infantry. I'll post a pic later. For me the minis were great to paint. No assembly, good poses, and bloody fast for what I consider to be my tabletop painting. Ironically, the new Citadel line makes this 40k replacement hobby even better. Wash, layer, drybrush, base and varnish. As someone with less and less time due to family, the construction, complicated list building, magnetizing, priming and base coating of my SM army was taking forever. I realize there's a lack of choices regarding war gear, but...these models get be painting much, much faster.
I will say that I wish the plastic was harder. Mold line removal kinda sucks. Love the sculpts though, and for me this take on the hobby couldn't be more helpful to my schedule.
The ruleset is really, really elegant IMHO...the reaction system, the suppression system, the ability to retreat without getting totally mown down. I really hope they integrate 1/35 tank models...I'd love to see mixed armor.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
I like the concept here, but overall in terms of marketing, strategy, etc. I have a feeling that this game is going to end up being the next Starship Troopers, not a real competitor to 40k or Warmahordes. I hope I'm wrong and it succeeds, though, since in general adding strong systems and greater competition is good for the hobby as a whole.
44831
Post by: YakManDoo
Couple of differences from Starship Toorpers...first, three factions as of right now. ST only had two. Second, Dust Tactics is already a reasonably successful little game so that limits some of the financial stress of launching a new system. Third, the damn game is sold out of the rule book, and anecdotally selling really well per guys on their forums looking for models. The D6 Generation review was stellar, and that's what got me to get Core Revised.
It's a really elegant ruleset...for nothing else, spend $20 grab the PDF and give it a read...I'm just loving the tactical possibilities alongside the super easy combat resolution system.
33033
Post by: kenshin620
YakManDoo wrote:Couple of differences from Starship Toorpers...first, three factions as of right now. ST only had two.
Say what
The playable races of Starship Troopers include the United Citizens Federation (UCF), the Arachnid Empire ('The Bugs') and the Skinnie Hegemony (or just 'Skinnies'). Each of these races, besides the Arachnids, is further divided into different playable armies:
Mobile Infantry commanders, for example, can choose from a wide variety of different platoons. These include Light Armoured Mobile Infantry (as seen in the film adaptation), Marauders (large bipedal vehicles), Power Armour platoons (as seen in the Roughnecks cartoon), Pathfinders (elite commandos loosely based on the PC game) and Exosuits (based on the original book by Robert A. Heinlein).
Skinnies are based on a tribal society, and so the abilities and choices available to a Skinnie army depend greatly on the choice of tribe leader. Arachnid armies are extremely versatile; all Arachnid units are usable and are limited only by the hive's ability to breed them. In this way, the player develops their own personalised colony.
44831
Post by: YakManDoo
kenshin620 wrote:YakManDoo wrote:Couple of differences from Starship Toorpers...first, three factions as of right now. ST only had two.
Say what
The playable races of Starship Troopers include the United Citizens Federation (UCF), the Arachnid Empire ('The Bugs') and the Skinnie Hegemony (or just 'Skinnies'). Each of these races, besides the Arachnids, is further divided into different playable armies:
Mobile Infantry commanders, for example, can choose from a wide variety of different platoons. These include Light Armoured Mobile Infantry (as seen in the film adaptation), Marauders (large bipedal vehicles), Power Armour platoons (as seen in the Roughnecks cartoon), Pathfinders (elite commandos loosely based on the PC game) and Exosuits (based on the original book by Robert A. Heinlein).
Skinnies are based on a tribal society, and so the abilities and choices available to a Skinnie army depend greatly on the choice of tribe leader. Arachnid armies are extremely versatile; all Arachnid units are usable and are limited only by the hive's ability to breed them. In this way, the player develops their own personalised colony.
Sorry, meant at launch...I could def be wrong and probably am. I thought they only had 2... DW has 3 basically at launch....apologies.
7445
Post by: robertsjf
I only show stats for two factions in my rulebook. I know they have the third faction, but it's not in DW yet.
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
robertsjf wrote:I only show stats for two factions in my rulebook. I know they have the third faction, but it's not in DW yet.
Yea, the SSU drops a whole month or two after its initial release. 
Pretty excited to see how the SSU shakes things up.
54307
Post by: Psykostevo
Dust Warfare kicks major butt. Very solid feel.
Play it a few times and it become second nature. Great hobby too, and love the models for their funky WWII / Scifi vibe.
20174
Post by: DoomOnYou72
YakManDoo wrote:Couple of differences from Starship Toorpers...first, three factions as of right now. ST only had two. Second, Dust Tactics is already a reasonably successful little game so that limits some of the financial stress of launching a new system. Third, the damn game is sold out of the rule book, and anecdotally selling really well per guys on their forums looking for models. The D6 Generation review was stellar, and that's what got me to get Core Revised.
It's a really elegant ruleset...for nothing else, spend $20 grab the PDF and give it a read...I'm just loving the tactical possibilities alongside the super easy combat resolution system.
You forgot to add that its not made by Mongoose who has a pretty much proven track record that they never have a problem snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory when it comes to mini games.
54307
Post by: Psykostevo
Not everyone is going to like this game. But those who do are ape over it. Most people I know locally and on forums own all three armies. Can't say I see most people owning all armies from other systems. They might want to but Dust is somewhat affordable still.
Just because it's cheap doesn't mean it's lousy. I avoided it for almost a year because of the preprinted models and the cheap price point. Once I got the models I actually couldn't believe how good they look. I was expecting board game quality, not wargame quality.
45541
Post by: BattleBrotherBob
I've beenfollowing this thread for a while now and wish to chime in now that I have read the rules and got a game in.
First I think it is a very fun game. A lot of subtle tactical challanges to it. The rules really dont show that. They come through on playing. It "punishes" stupid moves very hard and rewards "correct" military tactics. The rules are very well laid out and most every question we came across was easily found in the rulebook. The couple of questions we did have were over terrain which were soved by d6ing it. played it at 180 points, because that is what we had, and left me wanting more. The rules were logical when models hit the table and felt right. A good feel of what 40K could be if released from its current restraints. Like the reaction system. One reaction per unit makes it controlable, unlike Force on Force (which I like also) where the chain of reactions can get a bit unwieldy. The command phase is a unique feature of this game which I also like. Several times it helped make things a bit easier during my turn. It allowed me to pull units out of dangerously overextended positions or allowed a shot by a sniper to push my adversary into unteniable positions. Very smooth game and quick also, which for me with my limited time, makes it very attravtive.
Now the bad. It does promote a rush to the middle. Similar to 3rd ed. 40K, without the beating each other swords though. This opion may change once I get a few more game in and some of the scenarios disprove it. The ranges help promote this feeling, being very short compared to board size. One thing is that snipers seem very overpowered. The range, ingnoring cover, ignoring armor, and having a built in unit leader all seem a bit much. NO list should be without one, and an early loss of one can hamper your plans. Heros seem to be underwhelming. THis may be intentional though. They seem to be little more than extra wounds for a unit, especially for the 3 man units. Add on hero and bam the unit goes from 3 wounds to 7, more than double. A platoon lead by a hero will be in a bad way. Especially since they wont have a radio. I also think that teams having their own unit leaders seems a bit wrong. SOme scenarios require you to have unit leaders in contact with things to get points to win. With the small 2 man teams with leaders essentially allow them to grab and objective and hide the retof the game and help win it for you or at least force a tie. This happened in my first game where my objectives were held by a sniper team and a radio team. His objctives were held by a radio team and a ranger section. It felt a bit gamey to me. Those teams are for support, not to hold things. OF course this feeling may change as the points go up and there mare units to play with.
I like radios, and will always try and upgrade a platoon with improved comms ability. For 5 points is get a second radio in my command group. Being able to give orders to 2 units without worring about bunching around the command group is very good. NOw with the small points we played it did not make a huge difference, but in larger games it will become much more potent.
As to the question of the inititave phase and going first or second. In this game it did not have an overwhelming twist to the game. In fact there was a couple times where I wanted more orders to give and was willing to give up on going first in the move phase. More orders allowed me to position units to take advantage of things later in the turn or allowed me to mess up his plans. Plus it makes snipers even deadlier. Fire in the command phase, kill something adn place a suppresion marker. First activation of my turn and fire again and mess with another unit. I think that most people who argue about the inititave pahse and going first discount the rules of suppresion and dont realize how disruptive they can be. Just my opion there but being an old Epic:Armogedon player, i see possablity with that mechanic which MAY not be seen by others.
So to sum up this rather long review. I like this game. I can see a lot of GW heritage in it and like the changes made to it. Andy CHambers has done a good job of takeing the best of 40K, SST, E:A and has produced a very nice ruleset. It is tight and plays well on the table. While there are a few stumbles, snipers and the 2 man support teams, on the whole it is a very enjoyable game that plays fast and rewards good, tactical play. It joins a very few games in my inventory which will get a fully painted force fairly quickly.
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
Have you had the pleasure of meeting Axis Gorillas with Markus yet? Those will make your snipers cringe. I play 300AP games and with the volume of units at that point value, I think Snipers might get bum-rushed pretty rapidly, especially in some deployments where the aforementioned gorilla unit's 21" threat range will get you just about anywhere.
45541
Post by: BattleBrotherBob
em_en_oh_pee wrote:Have you had the pleasure of meeting Axis Gorillas with Markus yet? Those will make your snipers cringe. I play 300AP games and with the volume of units at that point value, I think Snipers might get bum-rushed pretty rapidly, especially in some deployments where the aforementioned gorilla unit's 21" threat range will get you just about anywhere.
Not personally no Im sure there are counters to a lot of things. I was just giving some of my thoughts of my first impressions of my first game. From just reading I knew gorillas with the hero would be tough. Most soldier 3 with a hero in the same armor are going to be tough for any single sniper. But combine some supporting fire with the snipershots will stop slow them down.
Still cant wait to play some more and check out more theroies.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
em_en_oh_pee wrote:Have you had the pleasure of meeting Axis Gorillas with Markus yet? Those will make your snipers cringe. I play 300AP games and with the volume of units at that point value, I think Snipers might get bum-rushed pretty rapidly, especially in some deployments where the aforementioned gorilla unit's 21" threat range will get you just about anywhere.
I hope there are more things to balance out snipers then one particuar unit combo only available to one particular army...
33816
Post by: Noir
CT GAMER wrote:em_en_oh_pee wrote:Have you had the pleasure of meeting Axis Gorillas with Markus yet? Those will make your snipers cringe. I play 300AP games and with the volume of units at that point value, I think Snipers might get bum-rushed pretty rapidly, especially in some deployments where the aforementioned gorilla unit's 21" threat range will get you just about anywhere.
I hope there are more things to balance out snipers then one particuar unit combo only available to one particular army...
Well yeah there are... he was pointing out that snipers if not used right will die quickly and looks like he trying to have a little fun why pointing it out (the guy even responded in kind). Play the game get stomped, learn form mistakes, and plan better next game. Then you wouldn't even have to ask that question.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Noir wrote:[ Play the game get stomped, learn form mistakes, and plan better next game. Then you wouldn't even have to ask that question.
Or... we could acknowledge that this is a discussion forum and utilize for it's intended purpose: to discuss games and related. Then you wouldnt have to make posts like above.
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
Yea, Markus is one example. Another would be any concentrated firepower or Air Drop elements, for example.
Plenty of balance in the game, just takes time. For a game so knew, I have yet to encounter anything that has proved too game breaking.
50446
Post by: Piston Honda
I did not want to create a new thread so I will post here on another opinion of the game regarding company support.
I bought a German mech on ebay (used) it game with a busted machine gun.
FFG replace the machine gun for FREE!
no cost, no shipping charges.
Just sent it to me.
I heart you FFG 
51715
Post by: YELLOWBLADES
It seeems cool
|
|
