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.

sourclams wrote:

Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:Except americans can suppress 4 units in range with one ranger combat squad with grenades. 2x combat squads and you now have 4 units with 2x suppression markers and a 66% chance of not doing anything if going second.

I did forget about splitting fire, that's actually a really good point. But they're still going to need to hit with all four of those attacks, and since grenades/UGL aren't sprays 4 shots at 4 separate units should really only reliably suppress 1-2.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Checkerboarding.... Intermingle 2x gorrilla units so that they give each other soft cover. That is stupid. terrain is optional?

How's that possible, though? Two units with 3 models each can only ever block 50%+ to one squad. You'd need either an additional unit or a cover piece to really make that happen.

RogueRegault wrote:
Cover is powerful, which on its own is fine, but correspondingly makes Burst weapons a little too powerful, since a single burst weapon in an attack removes the cover bonus entirely. It's probably better to fire a single UGL per Recon Squad attack just to get the "no cover" benefit than it is to fire all of them at once.

I think there's a problem with firing only one UGL at a time. It's the same issues that's been raised with the mortar and rockets on the Steal Rain. If you fire any reload weapon you get an Out-of-Ammo marker. A unit cannot fire reload weapons when they have an Out-of-Ammo marker. So firing one UGL means you still have to reload before firing another.

I also don't think that going first is a that big of an advantage. Sometimes having a few extra commands to use is worth going second. Especially if you use those commands to suppress units that no longer have the opportunity to get issued a re-group order.

Intentionally building a low model count army is also going to be a disadvantage. You'll get less support, which means less walkers. I've found walkers to be the best way to deal with units like the Hammers. Being able to suppress out to 24 or 36 inches is very powerful in this game. You can use commands to double fire those walkers(once in the command phase and again in the unit phase), allowing them to put out two suppression tokens a turn.

The game is new and people are finding the obvious tactics, but I'm confident that counters to much of these will be figured out. Give the meta-game a little time to get established.

I do appreciate your comments and clearing up my misconceptions, RogueRegault, and I've spent more time familiarizing myself with the rules.

On paper, it does seem that Allies have an advantage; their vehicles pack more anti-infantry shooting (and more shooting, period), Phasers vs Lasers, overall faster.

This seems to shift (IMO) the meta to Axis '3' infantry, especially the Gorillas and Pfliegerfausts, and anti-armor walkers. The difference between Allied anti-Infantry2 and anti-Infantry3 shooting is pretty material, almost 1/2 of effectiveness, and allied walkers aren't as reliable anti-armor platforms as axis walkers are.

Heavy infantry double dips on survivability because of 3 dice versus attacks and a higher profile versus attacks as well. It takes a lot of punishment to drag down pfliegerfausts in cover, and smaller force size makes axis more likely to have 1st turn.

Allied infantry2 vs axis infantry2 does look imbalanced. So does Allied vehicles vs infantry2 compared to Axis vehicles vs infantry2. I don't 'like' that, but it does seem very manageable if Axis goes to infantry3 and maintains vehicles in an anti-vehicle role.

So far the feed back from people that have played the game is very positive. You can meta any game to death but that will never tell you how it plays on the table or if you're going to have a good time. Rocket fists are good, but you only need 3 hits to take the unit out or 3 Suppression to make it run. Panzerfist units ignore Suppression and have other abilities to make up for the weaker fists. Both sides have their ups and downs but I don't think any thing is broken or usless. Its going to take people playing the game to figure out how to use each unit.

On the going first debate, it seems people are forgeting the "Regroup" order to remove the Suppression markers taken during the command phase. It can force the first player to fire on the same units again if they want those units to remain Suppressed instead other targets they may of had in mind during the Unit phase.

DW is a new game and any new game has some growing pains. I was on the play-test team and I have 4 other versions of rules so I can tell you there has been a lot of thought and editing. My own player group enjoyed each version, and they're all historical players who won't play 40k or Warmachine.

Give it a play, you might like it. Worst case, there are some great models for any game.

-K

Korthu wrote:DW is a new game and any new game has some growing pains. I was on the play-test team and I have 4 other versions of rules so I can tell you there has been a lot of thought and editing. My own player group enjoyed each version, and they're all historical players who won't play 40k or Warmachine.

I'd really like to hear your thoughts on the disparity in anti-infantry2 capability between the factions. What is the grand balance offset that Axis have to make up for what is basically an objective difference?

Is it the axis' longer ranges? Is it the apes/zombies? Something else?

CaulynDarr wrote:

I think there's a problem with firing only one UGL at a time. It's the same issues that's been raised with the mortar and rockets on the Steal Rain. If you fire any reload weapon you get an Out-of-Ammo marker. A unit cannot fire reload weapons when they have an Out-of-Ammo marker. So firing one UGL means you still have to reload before firing another.

I also don't think that going first is a that big of an advantage. Sometimes having a few extra commands to use is worth going second. Especially if you use those commands to suppress units that no longer have the opportunity to get issued a re-group order.

Except the Reload rules really aren't clear on that. Although if true it turns the Steel Rain from "hard to use" to "Completely worthless." I really want to know who decided to leave it at 24" when firing as Artillery. Nothing will ever be in range

And extra orders are never worth going second. You get one free order a turn from your command squad(Likely used on the squad's special ability.), and then can use one order with a radioman. To use anything beyond one or two orders rolled requires your army to lump up on your command squad, which is insane in a game with 16" standard ranges played on a 4' by 6' standard table. Orders are pretty much just for hiding overexposed units before the enemy's turn, and shooting exposed units before the enemy can hide them.

Simple fact of the matter is that first player units all get two full actions and a reaction. Second player gets all the suppression from the first player's turn, and if his units reacted to the opponent's turn they're down an action, meaning they can't March, Sustained Fire, or Reload and Fire.

Regroup only matters if the opponent focused down on suppressing a specific unit the previous turn. You can't use it outside the Command Phase, so you're still stuck with suppressed units as second player.

Unit balance...I think the lasers vs. phasers argument is a bit off since lasers were originally meant as a flamethrower+shotgun equivalent. I do think the heavier lasers (Schwer- and Light Walker) are underpowered versus infantry though. I also think the Axis is kind of let down by the Lothar and the Loth(Lothar can't use both his main weapons in the same attack, so really the clamp is just to discourage Rocket Punches and to make suicide runs on vehicles the flak gun can't scratch.) Of course, the Allies are likewise let down by their short-ranged artillery walker.

RogueRegault wrote:

And extra orders are never worth going second. You get one free order a turn from your command squad(Likely used on the squad's special ability.), and then can use one order with a radioman. To use anything beyond one or two orders rolled requires your army to lump up on your command squad, which is insane in a game with 16" standard ranges played on a 4' by 6' standard table. Orders are pretty much just for hiding overexposed units before the enemy's turn, and shooting exposed units before the enemy can hide them.

Is this based on your actual play experience? Because although I haven't played Dust: Warfare, I've played an awful lot of Warmachine/Hordes, which has 12-16" ranges on most weapons, is played on a 4x4' table, and requires most units to stay within 12-14" of the army commander for many benefits. I've never found this "insane".

I realize that this isn't apples to apples, but D:W allows a higher proportion of commanders, longer range orders, and smaller average unit sizes than Warmahordes. With careful positioning, it seems to me that it should be easy for a command section to have more order able units in command range than it has orders to spend. Of course, I haven't played so I can't say this for sure.

RogueRegault wrote:
Unit balance...I think the lasers vs. phasers argument is a bit off since lasers were originally meant as a flamethrower+shotgun equivalent. I do think the heavier lasers (Schwer- and Light Walker) are underpowered versus infantry though. I also think the Axis is kind of let down by the Lothar and the Loth(Lothar can't use both his main weapons in the same attack, so really the clamp is just to discourage Rocket Punches and to make suicide runs on vehicles the flak gun can't scratch.) Of course, the Allies are likewise let down by their short-ranged artillery walker.

I quite like the Lothar. Its gun is good at suppressing infantry at long range. Maybe it's a play style thing. I like using orders to double fire my walkers, and I primarily use my walkers to suppress infantry. This way extra orders translates directly to extra suppression I can assign to enemy squads while still being able to get my front line units out of Dodge it I need to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ddogwood wrote:
Is this based on your actual play experience? Because although I haven't played Dust: Warfare, I've played an awful lot of Warmachine/Hordes, which has 12-16" ranges on most weapons, is played on a 4x4' table, and requires most units to stay within 12-14" of the army commander for many benefits. I've never found this "insane".

I realize that this isn't apples to apples, but D:W allows a higher proportion of commanders, longer range orders, and smaller average unit sizes than Warmahordes. With careful positioning, it seems to me that it should be easy for a command section to have more order able units in command range than it has orders to spend. Of course, I haven't played so I can't say this for sure.

I haven't had too much of a problem keeping things in command range either. In fact, it helps to think of a platoon a lot like a Warmachine battlegroup.

If you're mostly familiar with 40K or FoW style army scale games, then I can see how it may seem like a small area to play with. But a 12" radius bubble that only needs one model in with a extra command for someone outside of 12" in actuality is a pretty large area to play with. You can stretch models 48" across a table and still have every one in command using a 12" radius command and 6" radius coherency..

Ok so played another game yesterday. It was the corner deployment with the terrain objectives mission. This mission needs work! The fact we chose our 2 object terrain pieces were secret pretty much resaulted in a tie. We simply were to far away for each other in a 5 turn game and had to guess what the oponents objective was, made for a fun friendly game but this was sold as a tournament scenario.

In tournament play ties are not so great.

so far my record in Dust is 0-0-3. Assasination is another "roll dice and tie" mission. We played annihilation also but that I feel was the true fluke tie.

Anyone else getting alot of ties, or is this just too small a sample size for us to draw early conclusions?

Also I agree with Rogue on the going first. Saw the 3 to 2 action disparacy again last night with regards to first turns in the mid to late game. Also the I go second then first next turn problem of card initative games reared its head last night.

Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:Ok so played another game yesterday. It was the corner deployment with the terrain objectives mission. This mission needs work! The fact we chose our 2 object terrain pieces were secret pretty much resaulted in a tie. We simply were to far away for each other in a 5 turn game and had to guess what the oponents objective was, made for a fun friendly game but this was sold as a tournament scenario.

In tournament play ties are not so great.

so far my record in Dust is 0-0-3. Assasination is another "roll dice and tie" mission. We played annihilation also but that I feel was the true fluke tie.

Anyone else getting alot of ties, or is this just too small a sample size for us to draw early conclusions?

Also I agree with Rogue on the going first. Saw the 3 to 2 action disparacy again last night with regards to first turns in the mid to late game. Also the I go second then first next turn problem of card initative games reared its head last night.

I really think they need to errata the terrain objectives mission as currently there's nothing in the rules to stop you from picking two points in your deployment zone and turtling.

I would prefer to add "Objectives must be outside deployment and over 12" from each other." and "Double points for revealing the objective before the game starts" to the mission's rules.

So, not sure if this has been posted:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/Dust-Warfare/Support/Dust_Warfare_FAQ_High.pdf

Pretty awesome.

I got this game and played a round with the RCS box.

The mechanics seem to be very good. Everything went fairly well, and aside from a few little issues which were sorted with a more thorough reading of the book, it turned out alright.
Allies won, mostly because the Axis player was terrible.

The game seemed to reward moving forward and shooting far more than trying to turtle.

It does seem initially that there is a huge advantage to going first:
Command phase, player 1: no orders
Command phase, player 2: give orders to shoot: put a few suppression markers out
Unit phase, player 1: roll to remove suppression - move and shoot, suppressing a few units. Enemy units now have suppression and perhaps reaction markers
Unit phase, player 2: many units are suppressed or reacted or both. Units which can activate, shoot the enemy, who get to react.
Or more to the point: when going first, you encounter less return fire AND have the possibility of completing 3 actions per turn (action, action, reaction).

Other issues:
Ranges seem to be quite short. By the time you're in range to fire a basic rifle you're pretty much in assault range or flamethrower range of many units. However, I think this is a concious decision to encourage a more action-packed game: if you could keep the enemy suppressed at 24" the game could get pretty boring.

Some Axis abilities seem a little weak. Particularly the change to damage resilient, lasers, etc. as compared to the changes to rocket fists. We didn't play enough to get any sense of any balance issues, so maybe this is only a mathhammer issue, or at least one that can be easily rectified. The release of a high quality FAQ so quickly speaks a lot for FFG's investment in the game.

You need a command squad. Heroes just don't cut it.

@ checkerboarding: most games allow for this (or at least, don't explicitly prohibit it). 40k does, and it seems to be doing alright. Most people don't even attempt it.

Go figure. I had an almost opposite experience last weekend when I played. Going second helped a lot so that Regroup orders wouldn't undo my Command-issued suppression. Also, being too aggressive will cost you, but depending on the mission, turtling can work. Lasers aren't the greatest, but Damage Resilient with Hard Cover is maddening.

em_en_oh_pee wrote: Lasers aren't the greatest, but Damage Resilient with Hard Cover is maddening.

Had the same experience. Allies Infantry2 can throw a lot more dice than Axis when they get in close, but Pfliegerfausts in hard cover are godawful infantry deterrents. 4 armor dice ignoring the first 2 hits off-the-top, and capable of bursting to get 9 dice against infantry2 from 16" away.

sourclams wrote:

em_en_oh_pee wrote: Lasers aren't the greatest, but Damage Resilient with Hard Cover is maddening.

Had the same experience. Allies Infantry2 can throw a lot more dice than Axis when they get in close, but Pfliegerfausts in hard cover are godawful infantry deterrents. 4 armor dice ignoring the first 2 hits off-the-top, and capable of bursting to get 9 dice against infantry2 from 16" away.

Exactly what happened to me. And suppression-proof Apes and Zombies are a headache. Going to try using a pair of Heavy Walkers to see if that can mitigate that crazy anti-infantry nonsense and deliver my BBQ squads unmolested.

The fireball is an incredible assault platform. I dont' know about 2 in a list, but that napalm cannon is legitimately terrifying. Hard to get cover with, so the dedicated Axis anti-tank vehicles can light one up.

Yea, but unless I am staring down a Konigsluther, I think it should make it across the table and cause some havoc. And at 300pt, I can't imagine many enemies will be able to do much against them unless they dedicate the list to it.

Hell, when I give it a whirl, I will post a BatRep for it.

Just got ahold of the allied heavy walker.. anyone have any issues with the 50 cal gun that you stick on top? there's no hole for it anywhere.. like there should be a hole in the front part of the ring going around the top hatch, but there isn't. Guess I gotta drill my own...

Necros wrote:Just got ahold of the allied heavy walker.. anyone have any issues with the 50 cal gun that you stick on top? there's no hole for it anywhere.. like there should be a hole in the front part of the ring going around the top hatch, but there isn't. Guess I gotta drill my own...

I am just putting mine on the side of the ring, where the hole is.

Nope, you have to drill it. The holes on the side arn't deep enough. At least on mine.

-K

There are 3 holes on mine on the cupola ring where it can be mounted.

On some of the fine details, there's a bit of variation between models, I've noticed.

hmm.. yeah mine just has the 2 holes on the back part of the ring, none up front. No big deal though, I can just drill it myself.

I might have to magnetize the 2 gun barrels though, they don't fit very snugly and fall off pretty easily.

I haven't read all the rules yet, but are the cards that come with the models just for DT and pretty much useless for DW? I kinda liked the idea of having nice cards for everything.

Necros wrote:hmm.. yeah mine just has the 2 holes on the back part of the ring, none up front. No big deal though, I can just drill it myself.

I might have to magnetize the 2 gun barrels though, they don't fit very snugly and fall off pretty easily.

I haven't read all the rules yet, but are the cards that come with the models just for DT and pretty much useless for DW? I kinda liked the idea of having nice cards for everything.

They changed the stats from DT, so the cards aren't compatible. Some people have been making some pretty nice custom ones. Check out this thread on FF forums.

Necros wrote:hmm.. yeah mine just has the 2 holes on the back part of the ring, none up front. No big deal though, I can just drill it myself.

I might have to magnetize the 2 gun barrels though, they don't fit very snugly and fall off pretty easily.

I haven't read all the rules yet, but are the cards that come with the models just for DT and pretty much useless for DW? I kinda liked the idea of having nice cards for everything.

There are three holes in the gun ring its just that for some reason the first hole (at least on the 3 I bought) was covered in a thin layer of paint. I just use a pin to poke it through and the gun fits fine.

oh ok.. I'll look for that

And those other card sheets are pretty nice, gonna grab them I just wish they could have made the game compatible with the cards in the box. or at least have official PDF versions that you could download

I gotta say that I am having mixed feelings about collecting Warfare models thus far mostly due to non-gameplay issues with the products that are eliciting feelings of buyer's remorse.

I have had a friend hyping Tactics to me for a while and I just didnt have the time to get into it. I told him if they ever did a proper tabletop version and had a Russian faction i would give it a go. And so with Warfare and it's SSU I had no more excuses.

My first purchase as a newb was "Red Kosack" (Premium paint) and "Fury of Ivan"; based mostly on the looks of them.

They are awesome models w/ tons of detail and character and they "feel" like what I would expect a wargaming model to look/feel like in terms of heft/qulity/etc

I next bought the rulebook. It is a nice looking book. No complaints.

I next ordered bunch of SSU infantry with hopes of getting it painted prior to the Zverograd book hitting as I wnt to get playing games with painted stuff asap once the SSu rules/list is available.

I have to say that the infantry, while nicely detailed are sort of a letdown in a number of way from a modeling/hobbiest focused wargamer's-perspective:

1. soft bendy "rubbery" guns that bend easily to the touch and dont stay straightened when you try to fix them. This is ok for boardgame pieces but expect more for my wargaming models.
2. Limited poses/lack of variety of pre-assembled kits
3. The models on the box don't match the models pictured. The SSU "frontoviki" have two styles of MG but only one is pictured on the box

Again the most exciting model in this new purchase was Koshka's walker "Grand'Ma" which again rivals any GW model in terms of weight, feel and detail.


So from a hobiest/painters perspective I am let sort of feeling "meh..." at this point.

The models I like the most are unofficial or can only be fielded in limited quantities, and all those bent rifle barrels sort of kill the overall effect and make it is hard to get excited having to spend time painting bendy models...

In addition the walker models and infantry are worlds apart in terms of quality/components: the walkers rival anything GW is putting out, the infantry not so much and yet they are for the same game. Why bendy rubber for infantry and not harder plastic like the walkers...

I hope the gameply itself will be fun enough to make it worth dealing with the issues I have with the models, but I wont know until I can get my hands on the SSU rules...

Well, for me I just keep in mind that they are "game pieces" and not "models". That is one thing to remember when you factor in the price point of Dust Warfare stuff - it is cheap, because you aren't buying multi-piece plastic kits for modelling and painting. You are buying gaming pieces for use in their tabletop game, which I have found during gameplay to be an absolute joy.

If you do want some more modelling intensive stuff - go to Dust-Models.com and buy some blank bases and do up some of your own troops based on Tamiya kits or some such. Nothing stopping anyone from pushing the hobby further like that - just be sure you model everything appropriately and you should be golden, depending on how flexible your gaming group is.

Again, if you haven't played - don't let the remorse get to you just yet. Wait until you have had a handful of games and I think you will be fine. The game is elegant and fun, with a lower learning curve than many games, but with a huge amount of complexity.

Well, for me I just keep in mind that they are "game pieces" and not "models".

If that was the case I would agree, but Warfare is being pushed as a true Table top game and the fans are touting it as a replacement for 40K.

For me the hobby/modelling aspect is a key element of tabletop wargaming, and bent rifles and such are eyesores in this regard...

Then apply some hobby know-how and fix them with appropriate materials. There is nothing stopping you from simply replacing those barrels and painting over them to complete the model. Hell, I have to do that with a bunch of my 40k stuff anyhow and I spend a lot more on those models.

em_en_oh_pee wrote: Hell, I have to do that with a bunch of my 40k stuff anyhow and I spend a lot more on those models.

I rarely get a GW plastic model that NEEDS any work to "fix" quality issues. I spend hours converting/kitbashing them, but that is a plus. So far I have purchased about 50 Warfare infantry and many of them have bent/warped parts to an unnacceptable ratio for my own interest/taste.

Yes I CAN chop them up/fix them/add parts to alter them, point is I shouldnt have to fix models that are supposed to be ready out of the box.

Rifle barrels should be straight. That is a basic thing that immediately makes a model look cheap and wonky if it isnt present.

If I have to cut them up and "fix" them to make them look like they should to begin with then they aren't much different than finecast at that point. I don't buy finecast either due to the ratio of bent/wonky models, so I don't think FFG should get a pass in this regard.

Models are the selling point of miniature wargames for many people.

FFG should want to make these as appealing to potential buyers (and converts from other miniature games) as possible if they want this game to have any legs or staying power. Rubbery "tokens" with bent rifles are NOT going to make a lasting mark on the market.

FFG needs to look at what is so great about their walker models and rethink the infantry imho. I'd give the walkers an A- rating overall at this points. The infantry a C+.

Some people are fine with rubbery models, but many miniature gamers I know will be turned off by this, and that is a shame because I assume we all want the game to take off and have the potential to grow right?