Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/06 19:10:08
Subject: [Dust Warfare] Opinions on this game?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/08 12:48:25
Current Armies: Chaos Space Marines(Building), Orks(Completed), Vanilla Marines(Near Completion), Trollbloods(Completed), Axony (Building)
"Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more."
George S. Patton
“Courage isn't having the strength to go on - it is going on when you don't have strength.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/06 19:15:01
Subject: Dust Warfare
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
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
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/06 19:15:33
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/06 22:01:21
Subject: Re:Dust Warfare
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
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!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/06 23:57:44
Subject: Re:Dust Warfare
|
 |
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/07 01:08:38
Subject: Re:Dust Warfare
|
 |
Rough Rider with Boomstick
|
finished my second game ! alot of fun . you should give it a try . has a cheap buy in cost and figs paint up great !
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/07 01:52:19
Subject: Re:Dust Warfare
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
On a boat, Trying not to die.
|
If you get me sucked into Dust, I will be forced to kill you.
|
Every Normal Man Must Be Tempted At Times To Spit On His Hands, Hoist That Black Flag, And Begin Slitting Throats. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/07 02:08:45
Subject: Dust Warfare
|
 |
Moustache-twirling Princeps
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/07 02:13:04
Subject: Dust Warfare
|
 |
Zealous Sin-Eater
Chico, CA
|
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.
|
Peter: As we all know, Christmas is that mystical time of year when the ghost of Jesus rises from the grave to feast on the flesh of the living! So we all sing Christmas Carols to lull him back to sleep.
Bob: Outrageous, How dare he say such blasphemy. I've got to do something.
Man #1: Bob, there's nothing you can do.
Bob: Well, I guess I'll just have to develop a sense of humor. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/07 03:16:36
Subject: Dust Warfare
|
 |
Member of the Malleus
|
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/07 03:18:05
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/07 04:29:07
Subject: Dust Warfare
|
 |
Been Around the Block
|
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.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/07 05:31:05
Subject: Dust Warfare
|
 |
Umber Guard
|
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.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/07 07:17:10
Subject: Re:Dust Warfare
|
 |
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests
Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.
|
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.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/05/07 07:21:22
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/07 18:24:23
Subject: Re:Dust Warfare
|
 |
Been Around the Block
|
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.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/07 18:58:27
Subject: Re:Dust Warfare
|
 |
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos
|
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...
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/07 21:07:17
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/07 19:14:41
Subject: Re:Dust Warfare
|
 |
Zealous Sin-Eater
Chico, CA
|
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).
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/07 19:15:54
Peter: As we all know, Christmas is that mystical time of year when the ghost of Jesus rises from the grave to feast on the flesh of the living! So we all sing Christmas Carols to lull him back to sleep.
Bob: Outrageous, How dare he say such blasphemy. I've got to do something.
Man #1: Bob, there's nothing you can do.
Bob: Well, I guess I'll just have to develop a sense of humor. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/07 20:32:15
Subject: Re:Dust Warfare
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
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!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/07 23:39:15
Subject: Dust Warfare
|
 |
[DCM]
Tilter at Windmills
|
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.
|
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More 2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++
A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments
The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
Maelstrom's Edge! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/08 00:55:01
Subject: Dust Warfare
|
 |
Moustache-twirling Princeps
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/08 04:42:38
Subject: Dust Warfare
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
A cornfield somewhere in Iowa
|
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.
|
40k-
Bolt Action- German 9th SS
American Rangers |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/08 04:44:18
Subject: Dust Warfare
|
 |
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests
Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/08 12:23:16
Subject: Dust Warfare
|
 |
Stitch Counter
|
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
|
Cheers
Paul |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/08 14:43:12
Subject: [Dust Warfare] Opinions on this game?
|
 |
Moustache-twirling Princeps
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/08 16:20:02
Subject: [Dust Warfare] Opinions on this game?
|
 |
Zealous Sin-Eater
Chico, CA
|
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.
|
Peter: As we all know, Christmas is that mystical time of year when the ghost of Jesus rises from the grave to feast on the flesh of the living! So we all sing Christmas Carols to lull him back to sleep.
Bob: Outrageous, How dare he say such blasphemy. I've got to do something.
Man #1: Bob, there's nothing you can do.
Bob: Well, I guess I'll just have to develop a sense of humor. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/09 16:28:30
Subject: Re:[Dust Warfare] Opinions on this game?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
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.
|
At Games Workshop, we believe that how you behave does matter. We believe this so strongly that we have written it down in the Games Workshop Book. There is a section in the book where we talk about the values we expect all staff to demonstrate in their working lives. These values are Lawyers, Guns and Money. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/10 03:01:58
Subject: Re:[Dust Warfare] Opinions on this game?
|
 |
Whiteshield Conscript Trooper
Buffalo NY
|
Does anyone know how the FFG models compare size-wise to the 1/48 models also available?
|
The Emperor Protects. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/10 13:35:57
Subject: Re:[Dust Warfare] Opinions on this game?
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
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!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/10 15:49:02
Subject: Re:[Dust Warfare] Opinions on this game?
|
 |
Brutal Black Orc
The Empire State
|
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?)
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/10 16:46:15
Subject: Re:[Dust Warfare] Opinions on this game?
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
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!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/10 21:00:33
Subject: Re:[Dust Warfare] Opinions on this game?
|
 |
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos
|
comrade-k-rad wrote:Does anyone know how the FFG models compare size-wise to the 1/48 models also available?
same scale.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/10 21:30:20
Subject: Re:[Dust Warfare] Opinions on this game?
|
 |
Whiteshield Conscript Trooper
Buffalo NY
|
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.
|
The Emperor Protects. |
|
 |
 |
|
|