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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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.

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...

Soviets hit. Anyone had a chance to use them yet?

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.

Ive heard good things about it. Probably pick it up when they release the japanese. Give me time to work on what i have.

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...

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.

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.

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.

they need to do something about checkerboarding units.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

grenades always give a counter even if you miss.

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.

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?

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.

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.)

RogueRegault wrote:[
Ranges are too short.

This wwas my initial observation as well.

I'd add a minimum of 4" to everything probably more...

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.