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

 Starfarer wrote:
Wow em_en_oh_pee, are you really going to try and spread this nonsense just because YOU didn't like that Battlefront wasn't moving at your pace? Look, it's one thing that you wanted to rage quit and shut down your DW forums for whatever perceived faults you have with Battlefront or whoever you blame for Dust Warfare. So far literally nothing has changed with the game you once championed aside from new unit cards. Seriously though if you have a problem with the game that's fine but you are really going to try and dissuade people from the game just because you stop liking it? You JUST wrote articles on BoLS about how great it was like a month ago!

I have no vested interest in Dust Warfare, so I don't care as much about the changes that may or may not be coming, but so far, the rules aren't even out for Dust Tactics 2.0 or Warfare 2.0 and aisde from you and a few others, everyone in the Dust community seems excited about it. Oddly enough the Dust forums have got A LOT less negative since you rage quit.

I'm not trying to pick a fight or start drama here, but seriously, if you don't like the game anymore just move on. There is no need to paint the game in a bad light because they are bringing out new rules we haven't even seen yet. That is basically what your sudden crusade against Dust boils down.

I didn't rage quit. The game went in a bad direction. The Achilles Beta robbed me of any faith I had in Battlefront. They didn't know rules and took a crap attitude when it was pointed out by others.The month-long Beta took months and a "shut up and wait attitude was all the players got. Also, the community is pretty toxic. I wrote the article for BoLS because I tried hard to keep things positive online to help bolster the game. I ran what I thought was a pretty helpful website for new and old players alike, helping to support the game with weekly articles, content, and forums. Despite that, the general divisiveness got to be a bit much.

Also, I didn't stop liking Warfare. I love the game - they are one of the better sets of rules I have played. The models are not bad and the fluff is fun Weird War stuff that I enjoy.

What I don't like is a creator who does not want to see the game I play continue to exist and a creative team that has zero idea what it is doing and in that, basically are homogenizing the games, despite them being balanced very differently. Achilles proved they were just lost when it came to Warfare and after that, along with the pervasive community negativity, I left.

It is hard for me to support a game and system given that circumstance. Why buy into Warfare if it is just going to go AT-43? Right now, it is tough to know how much support Warfare is going to get beyond just a few cards here and there, in essence maintaining that whole "other game" status that Warfare players hated. So why encourage people to jump in and potentially waste their money?

Just trying to give people a fair heads up.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
and offloading my army.

Just a note that this is the second time you offloaded your army. I have to agree with Starfarer though MNOP. Just because things aren't done your way doesn't give you the right to bash how things are done. It gives you the right to quit playing and go somewhere else though. So please head over to burger king and have it your way there. ...end rant...

 Moopy wrote:
I agree with Starfarer, you're going to have to back up your conjecture about the ".pdfs only" and "no support"

Because a company doesn't spend a lot of money to get a new release if there's no support. That makes zero business sense.

I did an interview with Steve from Battlefront for my now-closed website Dust-War.com and he stated that they would be going to a pdf format. Also, it is probably cheaper to do cards than sourcebooks, so it isn't like they are putting a lot into Warfare. They just distribute it generally, so tossing out some cards isn't that big of an investment, even if they have no long-term future for the game.

As for "no support" - I mean in the form of solid organized play and printed source material. All Warfare is looking to get is cards and tokens, two things so long overdue it is absurd and no-brainers, but hardly indicative of a strong future. But that is my opinion - but I am looking at the trend and attitude overall, so I am just calling it as I see it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pael wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
and offloading my army.

Just a note that this is the second time you offloaded your army. I have to agree with Starfarer though MNOP. Just because things aren't done your way doesn't give you the right to bash how things are done. It gives you the right to quit playing and go somewhere else though. So please head over to burger king and have it your way there. ...end rant...

No, the first time the deal fell through. Not that it is anyone's business.

Also, it was never about my way. It was about the game's overall direction looking less and less good as the months crawled on after the June switch, where we went what? 3 months without a single word on the game's future? Then we got Battlefront telling us to shut up and wait, then we got the craptastic Beta. What was there to be positive about? I was not the only one to ditch (such as the dozen or so locals who have since quit, for instance), nor should I feel obligated to just move along. I put more into promoting Warfare online than just about anyone, so do excuse me if I feel like expressing caution to those looking to get into it. Again, it is my opinion and everyone is entitled to one and I am more than free to express it.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
The Achilles Beta robbed me of any faith I had in Battlefront. They didn't know rules and took a crap attitude when it was pointed out by others.

Battlefront doesn't know rules.... right. That must be why Flames of War is a total failure.

People can also take a crap attitude when they think their "great suggestions" aren't automatically accepted by someone else.

 Moopy wrote:
[quote=em_en_oh_pee 325313 6677953 0220b39fc551015f924fdf49091d40c6.jpg The Achilles Beta robbed me of any faith I had in Battlefront. They didn't know rules and took a crap attitude when it was pointed out by others.

Battlefront doesn't know rules.... right. That must be why Flames of War is a total failure.

People can also take a crap attitude when they think their "great suggestions" aren't automatically accepted by someone else.

That could also be construed as the old guard does not like the new guard.

What this discussion really boils down to a matter of perception.

Your perception: things are not going well.
Others: NOPE, looks good.

If the rest of us don't speak up, then posts saying "RIP DUST" are going to poison people's perception of the future of the game. I've been looking through the a large amount of the FB group's posts and they're upbeat. The people that I play with aren't worried.

Ultimately it's premature to declare the decline of game before the full set of FINALIZED rules is our hands.

So the Dust Warfare game that is the tabletop minis game version is somewhat being sidelined? That is a bit surprising. If anything, I would have expected the board game one to be downplayed but that just be my own bias at play. I hadn't heard much about this and just expected it to go the way of Leviathans and AT-43... promising games with extensive good looking lineups that just didn't catch on. If I didn't swear to myself not to get more games that don't have local communities, I would have gotten it. I broke my rule for Robotech (on top of the always dead Heavy Gear) but, hey, there is some serious 80's nostalgia to contend with there. I should have stuck to my rule though...

 Moopy wrote:
That could also be construed as the old guard does not like the new guard.

What this discussion really boils down to a matter of perception.

Your perception: things are not going well.
Others: NOPE, looks good.

If the rest of us don't speak up, then posts saying "RIP DUST" are going to poison people's perception of the future of the game. I've been looking through the a large amount of the FB group's posts and they're upbeat. The people that I play with aren't worried.

Ultimately it's premature to declare the decline of game before the full set of FINALIZED rules is our hands.

I am not old guard. I don't do Tactics - never did. I am not saying RIP DUST, I am saying that the future of Warfare is uncertain or worse. Personally, I err towards worse.

Also, the FB groups have been purged of naysayers, from what I hear. Oh well, I got no real dog in that fight anyhow. Tactics was never my cup of tea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:
So the Dust Warfare game that is the tabletop minis game version is somewhat being sidelined? That is a bit surprising. If anything, I would have expected the board game one to be downplayed but that just be my own bias at play. I hadn't heard much about this and just expected it to go the way of Leviathans and AT-43... promising games with extensive good looking lineups that just didn't catch on. If I didn't swear to myself not to get more games that don't have local communities, I would have gotten it. I broke my rule for Robotech (on top of the always dead Heavy Gear) but, hey, there is some serious 80's nostalgia to contend with there. I should have stuck to my rule though...

The boardgame creator doesn't like the tabletop game and has said that for the health of the game as a whole (Tactics), he wants to see Warfare incorporated into Tactics - with options for gridded and tabletop available. Something akin to that. Not encouraging to Warfare players, since Tactics is pretty different.

And now I have said my piece and will go back to working on stuff for the games I do play.

Interesting input from everybody. Always good to hear from people on both sides.

 Moopy wrote:
That could also be construed as the old guard does not like the new guard.

What this discussion really boils down to a matter of perception.

Your perception: things are not going well.
Others: NOPE, looks good.

If the rest of us don't speak up, then posts saying "RIP DUST" are going to poison people's perception of the future of the game. I've been looking through the a large amount of the FB group's posts and they're upbeat. The people that I play with aren't worried.

Ultimately it's premature to declare the decline of game before the full set of FINALIZED rules is our hands.

Exactly this.

 warboss wrote:
So the Dust Warfare game that is the tabletop minis game version is somewhat being sidelined? That is a bit surprising. If anything, I would have expected the board game one to be downplayed but that just be my own bias at play. I hadn't heard much about this and just expected it to go the way of Leviathans and AT-43... promising games with extensive good looking lineups that just didn't catch on. If I didn't swear to myself not to get more games that don't have local communities, I would have gotten it. I broke my rule for Robotech (on top of the always dead Heavy Gear) but, hey, there is some serious 80's nostalgia to contend with there. I should have stuck to my rule though...

This is not the case at all. To give you a brief rundown of the past few months, here basically what has happened. A few DW players felt marginalized because Dust Tactics was getting rules releases first. This is mainly because DT uses unit cards and expansion sets contain rules for new units that are released. There are not army books. These rules are also released for free in .pdf form if you don't want the expansion minis. DW has campaign books rather than the expansion boxes as they don't use the tiles or rules contained within. DW players were partially peeved because they would have to buy expansions for the character minis but didn't need the tiles or DT rules contained in the boxes. Additionally the DW campaign books come out a little bit after the DT expansions.

To remedy this, they released DW unit cards for all factions for $10 a set. Going forward this allows them to include cards for both DT and DW in the unit boxes and thus allow for simultaneous releases for both DT and DW. For whatever reason this is no good for a handful of DW players like MNOP either. They now complain that the new starter sets are only for DT because they contain the DT rules and DT dice, which has always been the case! Literally nothing has changed except DW now gets rules at the same time as DT, which is an improvement.

Also, DT is scheduled to get a new rulebook in a few months. MNOP and a few others are angry DW isn't getting new rules too, except they are, just after DT. So I guess he has decided to distort the situation and claim Battlefront is abandoning DW and take out of context quote from creator Paolo Parente to claim they are merging the games. This is quite easily disproven by the simple fact we now know DT is getting the points costs lowered by 2/3rds in the new rules and DW is staying with the same points system they've had. If they were moving closer in gameplay, you would think they would use similar points structures rather than moving further apart, no?

Lastly, MNOP is trying to paint the Dust community as somehow is turmoil or unhappy about the changes. Aside from himself and like 3 other guys on the Dust forums constantly complaining because BF doesn't give them daily updates, everyone is very excited about the upcoming changes. Sadly, he has decided to spread FUD about the game and make comparison to AT-43, partly, I think because BF didn't bend over backwards for him just because he ran a DW forum and he felt entitled to a say in the direction of the game.

Boardgame over Table Top Game pretty much seals it for me - DUST is a No-Go!

I don't understand that comment. The exact same game pieces are used in both games and there are rules/support for both, I don't see what the issue is.

I thought we had insider info that the Boardgame was being prioritized over the Table Top game, and that the mandate was to fold the Table Top version in the Boardgame version?

Wasn't that just a few posts up?

Alpharius, he is spreading misinformation because he is unhappy with the game. What is actually happening is that the Tactics 2.0 rules will have rules for both playing on a grid and without. Which is great, because the Tactics rules are very good. I feel some people like yourself are automatically put off thinking of it as a simple boardgame because of the tiles. I personally was skeptical coming from a tabletop background, but I love it! Basically don't knock it til you try it. Anyway, having the option to simply change from a grid to measurements will be an option in the new Tactics rules. So now you can play the boardgame without the board if you like.

However, Dust Warfare will STILL EXIST. they are different games and Battlefront has confirmed they will support both. Below I've added a quote from Andrew Haught from Battlefront Miniatures, who responded on the Dust forums directly, regarding this:

Andrew Haught wrote:We are supporting warfare, in our minds there are two games, tactics and warfare. There will be two ways to play tactics because it is as simple as swapping squares for measurements for those who want to play tactics on a war-gaming table.

We are coming out with warfare cards both in box sets and in all of our models moving forward. We plan on supporting future releases like we did before with Achilles using player supported playtesting, giving all players a chance to help make warfare great.

We love the passion players have for warfare and will continue to support it moving forward.

-Battlefront

Pretty cut and dry answer on the matter.

And as for the claims that Warfare players are unhappy about the new cards and releases, I've linked the newest 2 threads about Warfare from the Dust forums.

http://www.worldofdust.net/tabid/89/g/posts/t/587/Dust-Warfare-Decks.aspx

http://www.worldofdust.net/tabid/89/g/posts/t/587/Dust-Warfare-Decks.aspx

The community is not toxic as MNOP has suggested. The toxicity was only coming from him, and he's left now.

Basically this was just a case of a fan feeling entitled to tell the game makers how they should make the game, they did not implement that feedback and he quit the game and shut down his DW forum. Now he is trying to spread false claims to make people doubt the future of the game.

So Paulo responded like a pissy child to one disgruntled fan?

Separate issues. People had a freak out because Tactics got new dice, which are totally optional(just have new symbols on them). People liked there old dice and were mad about it. There was also some doom and gloom about this as it is one of BF first releases of new stuff and people fear change and freak out about very minor things.

I believe that is what Paolo was responding to. MNOP is mad because during the Achilles beta they didn't take his feedback into account for the final rules(that's my feeling anyway) and he quit the game and shut down his forums.

I don't frequent the Facebooks group, simply because I don't really use Facebook. I was more referring to the Dust forums, and the claims that it was toxic, when that is far from the case.

Moopy has said he is a member of the FB group, so maybe he can provide some more info on what is going on there.

 Starfarer wrote:

Andrew Haught wrote:We are supporting warfare, in our minds there are two games, tactics and warfare. There will be two ways to play tactics because it is as simple as swapping squares for measurements for those who want to play tactics on a war-gaming table.

Pretty cut and dry answer on the matter.

I agree that it is pretty cut and dry in your quote and post but I don't think I'm coming to the same conclusion judging from the overall opinion of your post. Taking a board game and just assigning inches to it based on the tiles doesn't make it a good wargame. The bolded part of the post above (obviously taken in exclusion but I don't think out of context) is quite worrisome. Again, my experience with this system is limited to watching a demo but in general what makes a good board game doesn't translate well over to making a good wargame. I don't think that was the point you were trying to drive home though.

I think it means that tactics can be played on a board or off, and then warfare will ALSO be a seperate game. But it's not super clear.

 warboss wrote:

I agree that it is pretty cut and dry in your quote and post but I don't think I'm coming to the same conclusion judging from the overall opinion of your post. Taking a board game and just assigning inches to it based on the tiles doesn't make it a good wargame. The bolded part of the post above (obviously taken in exclusion but I don't think out of context) is quite worrisome. Again, my experience with this system is limited to watching a demo but in general what makes a good board game doesn't translate well over to making a good wargame. I don't think that was the point you were trying to drive home though.

I think of Dust Tactics as a wargame played on a grid system. Yes it is a miniatures game played on I board, but it plays like a wargame in many respects. This is part of the reason I enjoy it, even though when my friends were trying to get me into it I was skeptical. I think the boardgame aspect throws a lot of people off, it did for me at first. That being said, I don't think switching from grids to measurements will translate poorly. The grids only determine movement and LOS, so removing them doesn't fundamentally change how it will play IMO. I guess we'll have wait and see when the new rules come out.

One thing that I think is often overlooked is that Dust tactics is a good way to get non-wargamers into wargaming. By then having an option to remove the grid, you get a little closer to a traditional wargame. Finally if you want more complex rules and a full wargame experience you can move over to Dust Warfare. It is also nice to just have 2 different games to play with the same miniatures. There will be 3 once the Dust tabletop RPG is released!

 plastictrees wrote:
I think it means that tactics can be played on a board or off, and then warfare will ALSO be a seperate game. But it's not super clear.

Yes, that is correct.

And for the record, this is one of the reasons I left that community. See how much was negativity has been attached to me by a single poster? All I said was I warned against Warfare because it has an uncertain future per the words of the game's creator (Paolo). It was recorded in an interview at the Dust World Expo, I believe, that he said for the health of the game (Tactics), he would be working to fold Warfare into Tactics. That doesn't bode well for a game already relegated to "that other game" by BF and Dust Studio. Nothing I am "spreading" is "misinformation" - it is news and rumors, which seem appropriately placed on this thread in this board, wouldn't you say?

On an aside, I ran a big website with weekly multi-thousand word articles on the game, lists, reviews, rules, etc. I did fan-fic, as well as weekly Dust-related gaming gallery images. I did custom unit rules, had game-aids and a forum that was a pretty good place and even started making video reviews before the BF switch. I did all of this and more for Warfare. That I am just a mad rage-quitter is a stretch, since I spent something like 10+ hours a week, sometimes up to 20, on the website (and associated websites) promoting Dust Warfare. I only left the game when the community became too negative and the game looked to be further and further marginalized by its creators and designers. Funny how fast people forget all the good Dust-War did for Warfare.

Please, Starfarer, do quit putting words into my mouth and attaching my name to claims you are making as though I am some ringleader of negativity. That little pissy tirade from Paolo came at least a month after I quit wholesale and abandoned all Dust-related websites. I can't imagine I am the only one with some complaints as to the direction of the game(s).

So much for that "I'm not trying to pick a fight or start drama here" claim - hard to do that when you basically drag my name through the mud.

Kinda getting back on track. Dust has always been a waiting game. It takes a bit longer but once releases come out they come in a massive flood. It has been a bit of a longer stretch lately with not as much released but that could be due to BF taking over.

One thing I don't quite understand is the lack of the newer factions. This is going to hurt Dust more than anything. People are only going to wait so long for rumored armies. I know a handful of guys who passed on Dust because they got tired of waiting for the alien faction talked about from the beginning of AEG days.

Variety will bring in more players than rules will any day.

All I have to say is that I'm very encouraged by the release of the Warfare cards. We should've had those from day one. The way FFG had organized the campaign books was rather a mess - the pages were misnumbered and special rules were scattered all over the place, so you had to stop everything for a good while if you needed to check the rules. Not good. The new cards completely fix that. Plus, $10 for a faction pack is a good price.

~Tim?

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
And for the record, this is one of the reasons I left that community. See how much was negativity has been attached to me by a single poster? All I said was I warned against Warfare because it has an uncertain future per the words of the game's creator (Paolo). It was recorded in an interview at the Dust World Expo, I believe, that he said for the health of the game (Tactics), he would be working to fold Warfare into Tactics. That doesn't bode well for a game already relegated to "that other game" by BF and Dust Studio. Nothing I am "spreading" is "misinformation" - it is news and rumors, which seem appropriately placed on this thread in this board, wouldn't you say?

On an aside, I ran a big website with weekly multi-thousand word articles on the game, lists, reviews, rules, etc. I did fan-fic, as well as weekly Dust-related gaming gallery images. I did custom unit rules, had game-aids and a forum that was a pretty good place and even started making video reviews before the BF switch. I did all of this and more for Warfare. That I am just a mad rage-quitter is a stretch, since I spent something like 10+ hours a week, sometimes up to 20, on the website (and associated websites) promoting Dust Warfare. I only left the game when the community became too negative and the game looked to be further and further marginalized by its creators and designers. Funny how fast people forget all the good Dust-War did for Warfare.

Please, Starfarer, do quit putting words into my mouth and attaching my name to claims you are making as though I am some ringleader of negativity. That little pissy tirade from Paolo came at least a month after I quit wholesale and abandoned all Dust-related websites. I can't imagine I am the only one with some complaints as to the direction of the game(s).

So much for that "I'm not trying to pick a fight or start drama here" claim - hard to do that when you basically drag my name through the mud.

You have made numerous unfounded claims in this thread and backed it up with no sources or links to these quotes. Please link the Paolo interview where he said any of that. If it is just News and Rumors, then you are advising people to "run from DW as fast as you can" based on rumors, despite direct statements from Battlefront that contradict what you are claiming. I heard 40k 7th edition is coming, better quit now cause things might change! That is essentially what you are telling people. You are spreading FUD(fear, uncertainty, doubt) because of your personal issues with Dust and Battlefront. In my mind you are misinforming people based on unsubstantiated rumors and encouraging them to leave the game.

You are more than welcome to have your own opinion about the direction of the game. I am sure there is not a game out there that did not cause people to leave because of change the company has made. However, the difference here is that it is for now the same game. The Dust Warfare rules are the same rules they have always been. A ruleset you championed as one of the best tabletop games out there. So the fact that you now say it is no good, coincidentally after an open beta for which you stated Battlefront was not as open to your feedback as FFG was, seems to indicate your issue is not so much with the game being marginalized, but that the new company didn't value your input as much as the old one did. Hard to claim they aren't doing anything for the game when they have open betas, listen and respond to community feedback on the forums and make official statement on there plans for the game, and preview releases for the community so they know what is coming in the future!

If there is any negativity from me, it is because you are presenting a very different version of the community and company than what it actually is. I'm not dragging your name through the mud, I'm just drawing conclusions of your motives based on your own statements. I'm not discounting what your site and articles did to promote Warfare. What I am having a hard time believing is that your doubts about the future of the game are based on a genuine belief the game is headed in a bad direction, and more that is is just headed in a direction you don't like.

All that being said, I'm sorry if my comments came across as personal attacks, I'm really not trying to make this a personal thing. I just strongly disagree with your assessment of where things are headed. You are of course entitled to your opinion, so I suppose we should just leave it at that.

 Pael wrote:
Kinda getting back on track. Dust has always been a waiting game. It takes a bit longer but once releases come out they come in a massive flood. It has been a bit of a longer stretch lately with not as much released but that could be due to BF taking over.

One thing I don't quite understand is the lack of the newer factions. This is going to hurt Dust more than anything. People are only going to wait so long for rumored armies. I know a handful of guys who passed on Dust because they got tired of waiting for the alien faction talked about from the beginning of AEG days.

Variety will bring in more players than rules will any day.

Well they have stated they plan to release a new faction each year and will have 5-6 factions total. Don't get me wrong, I agree they need more factions. The Japanese are coming this year, and they've previewed concept art for one of the characters. I will be starting a Japanese army as soon as they are available. Unfortunately, The Vril (aliens) aren't scheduled for release until 2015 from what they've said. They also talked about an Indian faction after that, but that is not official, just an idea they were considering.

That's new info where did they say the yearly faction release and when is the Japanese slated to arrive?

It was discussed back on page 47 but the rumors came from Dust Day Italy. Link here: http://www.unitforward.com/news/dust-rumours-from-dust-day-italy/

A friend of mine went to Gencon last year and spoke directly with Paolo Parente who told him Japan in early 2014, Vril in early 2015. Most of those rumors above have panned out, just a few months later than originally planned I guess. I'm sure this is because everything was delayed a few month with the switch from FFG to BF, so I would guess we will see the Japanese after Operation Babylon, which is right around the corner. Wouldn't be surprised to seen the Japanese showcased at Gencon this year.

As for the Japanese art, here is the link. It's a Chinese agent working for the Japanese, but looks very cool! http://www.unitforward.com/news/elite-members-rewarded-with-shadow-of-death/

 warboss wrote:

 Starfarer wrote:

Andrew Haught wrote:We are supporting warfare, in our minds there are two games, tactics and warfare. There will be two ways to play tactics because it is as simple as swapping squares for measurements for those who want to play tactics on a war-gaming table.

Pretty cut and dry answer on the matter.

I agree that it is pretty cut and dry in your quote and post but I don't think I'm coming to the same conclusion judging from the overall opinion of your post. Taking a board game and just assigning inches to it based on the tiles doesn't make it a good wargame. The bolded part of the post above (obviously taken in exclusion but I don't think out of context) is quite worrisome. Again, my experience with this system is limited to watching a demo but in general what makes a good board game doesn't translate well over to making a good wargame. I don't think that was the point you were trying to drive home though.

Ummm... I sure the point was poeple saw the part you qouted, and complete missed the part Tactic and Warfare are stay different rules set. But, like Battletech you can play the board game (Tactics) with or without the board, as like Battletech they giving you rule to do that.

 Pael wrote:
Dust has always been a waiting game.

There is some delicious irony in that sentence.

 Starfarer wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
And for the record, this is one of the reasons I left that community. See how much was negativity has been attached to me by a single poster? All I said was I warned against Warfare because it has an uncertain future per the words of the game's creator (Paolo). It was recorded in an interview at the Dust World Expo, I believe, that he said for the health of the game (Tactics), he would be working to fold Warfare into Tactics. That doesn't bode well for a game already relegated to "that other game" by BF and Dust Studio. Nothing I am "spreading" is "misinformation" - it is news and rumors, which seem appropriately placed on this thread in this board, wouldn't you say?

On an aside, I ran a big website with weekly multi-thousand word articles on the game, lists, reviews, rules, etc. I did fan-fic, as well as weekly Dust-related gaming gallery images. I did custom unit rules, had game-aids and a forum that was a pretty good place and even started making video reviews before the BF switch. I did all of this and more for Warfare. That I am just a mad rage-quitter is a stretch, since I spent something like 10+ hours a week, sometimes up to 20, on the website (and associated websites) promoting Dust Warfare. I only left the game when the community became too negative and the game looked to be further and further marginalized by its creators and designers. Funny how fast people forget all the good Dust-War did for Warfare.

Please, Starfarer, do quit putting words into my mouth and attaching my name to claims you are making as though I am some ringleader of negativity. That little pissy tirade from Paolo came at least a month after I quit wholesale and abandoned all Dust-related websites. I can't imagine I am the only one with some complaints as to the direction of the game(s).

So much for that "I'm not trying to pick a fight or start drama here" claim - hard to do that when you basically drag my name through the mud.

You have made numerous unfounded claims in this thread and backed it up with no sources or links to these quotes. Please link the Paolo interview where he said any of that. If it is just News and Rumors, then you are advising people to "run from DW as fast as you can" based on rumors, despite direct statements from Battlefront that contradict what you are claiming. I heard 40k 7th edition is coming, better quit now cause things might change! That is essentially what you are telling people. You are spreading FUD(fear, uncertainty, doubt) because of your personal issues with Dust and Battlefront. In my mind you are misinforming people based on unsubstantiated rumors and encouraging them to leave the game.

You are more than welcome to have your own opinion about the direction of the game. I am sure there is not a game out there that did not cause people to leave because of change the company has made. However, the difference here is that it is for now the same game. The Dust Warfare rules are the same rules they have always been. A ruleset you championed as one of the best tabletop games out there. So the fact that you now say it is no good, coincidentally after an open beta for which you stated Battlefront was not as open to your feedback as FFG was, seems to indicate your issue is not so much with the game being marginalized, but that the new company didn't value your input as much as the old one did. Hard to claim they aren't doing anything for the game when they have open betas, listen and respond to community feedback on the forums and make official statement on there plans for the game, and preview releases for the community so they know what is coming in the future!

If there is any negativity from me, it is because you are presenting a very different version of the community and company than what it actually is. I'm not dragging your name through the mud, I'm just drawing conclusions of your motives based on your own statements. I'm not discounting what your site and articles did to promote Warfare. What I am having a hard time believing is that your doubts about the future of the game are based on a genuine belief the game is headed in a bad direction, and more that is is just headed in a direction you don't like.

All that being said, I'm sorry if my comments came across as personal attacks, I'm really not trying to make this a personal thing. I just strongly disagree with your assessment of where things are headed. You are of course entitled to your opinion, so I suppose we should just leave it at that.

You infer incorrectly as to my motives. I truly think the game is going to get phased out, as well as my dislike of the direction it was heading. The other stuff just made it a no-brainer for me to leave. I have a finite hobby budget an can't afford to stay in games that don't look promising. I have my 40k and Warmahordes stuff I would rather expand than continue down a road towards a "gridless Tactics" as my only future avenue for playing what was once Warfare. I feel that is the inevitable course and I do not like that one bit, because it basically cuts out the meat of what I liked about the Warfare rules in the first place.

All I am doing is presenting the community as I and others have seen it. I personally have watched people sell their Dust collections due to the actions of the DDI, for instance. As well as plenty who just couldn't take the silent waiting we did for months between the FFG / BF change. As well as those who saw how BF was doing it and chose to leave then.

And sorry, it was Phil Yates, not Paolo who said the following about possible gridless Tactics:

Q: Could you please explain the reasoning behind the changes from the Original Dust Tactics Rules with cover, cover saves, and the distinction between soft cover and hard cover, to the New Dust Tactics Rules that makes all cover save like hard cover and Infantry in the open having an automatic soft cover save?

A: One of the things in the new rulebook is the rules to play Dust Tactics on a wargames table. When testing this, we found the lethality of the old Dust did not make for a good game, so we added Infantry Saves. When we came back to doing the Dust Tactics rules, we had a look at what bringing the Infantry Saves to Dust would do for the game and liked the result. Having brought in Infantry Saves, it made sense to simplify Cover Saves down to one type of cover rather than two. Again, on trying this, we felt it improved the game, so went with it.

This has been interpreted as a move away from Warfare and towards a homogeneous system that is Tactics & Gridless Tactics (and is from the DDI site, for reference).

Here is another quote, but this one from Paolo:

l must also say that the discrepancies between DW and DT seriously bother me, since they make my universe inconsistent . Why a weapon can be powerful in DT and the same weapon is kind of useless in DW?? etc.... For the future of my company and my universe l truly believe that one common rule and one type of card for both grid and tabletop players is the best. And l am thankful to the kind people at Battlefront who make this possible. Obviously we all expect for the gridless rules to be deeper and more complete, and this is what l promise you

And that is from the Dust Facebook group. So is this (right below the prior comment and in reply to asking about the use of Warfare cards for Tactics):

Warfare for most aspects is a great game and many amongst you want to keep playing no matter what.

No matter what? Uh-oh.

So, I fully expect Warfare to be slowly phased out instead of ever seeing a 2.0 happen. That the rules are expected and that he thanks Battlefront in the first quote. It is hard for me to see a future with Warfare in it.

Anyhow, how is that? I backed up my claims with some quotes for you.

Thanks for the quotes.

So you quit the game based on inference took from some quotes saying weapons should work the same in both games, but flat out ignore the ones that say Tactics and Warfare are to remain separate games. Seems reasonable.

Anyway, going off what we have proof of, Tactics and Warfare are moving to completely different point systems on their new cards. If they were merging the games it seems unlikely they would make the points system less like one another. Then again this is the same logic that new cards releases for a game that gives the Warfare players the equal support they were asking also somehow means they are not supporting it.

 Starfarer wrote:
Thanks for the quotes.

So you quit the game based on inference took from some quotes saying weapons should work the same in both games, but flat out ignore the ones that say Tactics and Warfare are to remain separate games. Seems reasonable.

Anyway, going off what we have proof of, Tactics and Warfare are moving to completely different point systems on their new cards. If they were merging the games it seems unlikely they would make the points system less like one another. Then again this is the same logic that new cards releases for a game that gives the Warfare players the equal support they were asking also somehow means they are not supporting it.

No, I quit for a lot of reasons. Not sure you read the quote, but those pretty much make it clear Warfare will, at some point, be folded into Tactics (to some degree). Printing some Warfare cards now is cheap and easy way to keep people playing until then. I just won't be holding my breath for a Warfare 2.0 ever, nor do I have much faith in the direction the game is going. Feel free to stick it out, just don't be shocked if it goes the way of AT-43.