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.

In a bit of agreement with CT. I'm not saying it'll flop like it, but while I enjoy Tactics I feel an "AT43" vibe from warfare. Neat game with some nifty ideas, but severely lacking in the hobby aspect

I think the main problem is though that FFG isnt really well known for miniature wargames. They're a board/RPG/Card game company first and foremost

Again, they are game pieces and they are extremely affordable. You can't expect perfection, seriously. Yes it is a miniatures game, but FFG is not saying that these are model kits. And Finecast was basically for point - in that it requires a lot of work to fix, etc. But this includes their normal kits where I have extensive green stuff application to make the model look passable.

In the end, it is not meant to be as extensive on the hobby portion as it is on gameplay. Keep in mind they are game pieces and that the price is very appropriate.

Again, they are game pieces and they are extremely affordable. You can't expect perfection, seriously. Yes it is a miniatures game, but FFG is not saying that these are model kits. And Finecast was basically for point - in that it requires a lot of work to fix, etc. But this includes their normal kits where I have extensive green stuff application to make the model look passable.

In the end, it is not meant to be as extensive on the hobby portion as it is on gameplay. Keep in mind they are game pieces and that the price is very appropriate.

I guess my point is that people that are rushing to proclaim this game an equal to 40k and tout it as a potential replacement for/ serious competitor to 40K need to think about the whole picture: and the quality of the miniatures isn't a minor factor imho.

Is it a miniatures game? FFG has it listed as such on their site, in fact the section of their forums it is discussed in, etc. is called "miniatures'.

So saying that the quality of the figs isn't important or downplaying issues with their quality seems odd. Also trying to argue that GW has just as many quality issues is a weak claim. GW has many problems, but overall quality of their models (particularly their plastic kits) is NOT one of them (finecast's rough start not-withstanding).

"Well GW has bad models too" isnt a selling point as far as Im concerned, and isnt a strong premise to base a new game on.

I always find the quality of miniatures in a miniatures game to be one of it not thee prime factor in my desire to play it and it also tends to be one of the prime factors in the long term survivability of a game.

Public perception plays a big role in how a game is perceived and eventually supported (or not).

People don't equate bendy miniatures with quality, in fact the first thing that comes to many people's mind are clicky games and toys... Not that either of these are bad per se, but if you really want to push this game as a serious alternative to GW/40K then the quality needs to be there.

The walkers have that quality. The infantry have a ways to go, and i hope that we see them moving closer to the walkers at some point, even if that requires added cost...
If this doesnt happen i dont forsee this game surviving longterm, much less dethroning GW/40K as the go to game...

The miniatures are of passable quality. I think Fantasy Flight is trying to give a little something to both the gamer and the hobbiest and still be affordable. It doesn't completely abandon the hobby aspects which is what might make it more survivable than AT-43 ended up being. Its' also more affordable than AT-43 was out of the gate.

Dust Warfare is a challenger to 40K on it's rules quality, complexity, and scale. And it is a good match for 40K in those things. I hope that game will turn out to have legs.

GW is doing a fine enough job dethroning itself.

CT GAMER wrote:

If this doesnt happen i dont forsee this game surviving longterm, much less dethroning GW/40K a the go to game...

No that will happen due to all they other game out there, if GW keep at it.

As for the models, convert them. Your a miniature table top player after all. I've will never understand the you must use the games models to play this game, concept. Is it just a GW only are models in are store hold over. The walkers are great, the men are ok. You don't like the men, it not hard to find WW2 models and the very few high-tech weapons need to do what TT miniature players enjoy, kitbashing.

CaulynDarr wrote:Dust Warfare is a challenger to 40K on it's rules quality, complexity, and scale.

The verdict is still out on all three of these as far as I'm concerned...

Lets see what issues if any pop up after the powergamers start regularly putting this game through it's paces in documented tournaments, etc.

We need a lot more data from the greater player population from various types of play (casual, tournament, etc.) before we can make those conclusions with certainty.

And my point still stands: terms like "passable", "good enough", etc. when describing a new product trying to crack a niche market populated by fickle consumers are not solid building blocks to overturn an empire...

When it comes to new miniatures games I want to see quality choices that can stand the test of time and go beyond initial buzz of the first 3-5 years that is typical for upstart miniatures games, and you don't get that taking shortcuts with the miniatures themselves imho. I hope I'm wrong...

CaulynDarr wrote:Dust Warfare is a challenger to 40K on it's rules quality, complexity, and scale. And it is a good match for 40K in those things.

Man, I'm not DW biggest fan from a rules standpoint but that's just harsh! I'd rate them at least marginally better since I get to do something in my opponents turn other than chcuking dice!

CT GAMER wrote:
And my point still stands: terms like "passable", "good enough", etc. when describing a new product trying to crack a niche market populated by fickle consumers are not solid building blocks to overturn an empire...

Ford, Chevy, Mazda, Toyota, Honda, ext should all get out of the car market because they aren't selling cars as good as a Porsche.

Good enough is good enough if the price is right. I'd rather get passable minis at $15 than high grade at $30. Especially when I need to repeat that purchase a dozen times.

Ford, Chevy, Mazda, Toyota, Honda, ext should all get out of the car market because they aren't selling cars as good as a Porsche.

And they arent rolling out cars with warped wheels that wobble and telling the consumer "hey they are good enough and you can always fix it up yourself if you want it better" either...

A manufacturer should want to put out a quality/exceptional product whenever possible.

I dont think the infantry quality that FFG is currently putting out will satisfy enough of the miniature gaming population at present quality levels to see the game become dominant or survive long term.

I don't think fans of this game are doing it any favors by making excuses for quality concerns. IF it could be better we should hope and ask that it be made better for the good of the game and it's survival.

FFG themselves may or may not think they are "fine". And that is where we as consumers can make it known that we would prefer higher quality product. They can do with that info as they see fit and then live with the consequences...

CT GAMER wrote:
A manufacturer should want to put out a quality/exceptional product whenever possible.

You can turn that around and apply it to Games Workshop's rules quality just as equally.

CT GAMER wrote:

Ford, Chevy, Mazda, Toyota, Honda, ext should all get out of the car market because they aren't selling cars as good as a Porsche.

And they arent rolling out cars with warped wheels that wobble and telling the consumer "hey they are good enough and you can always fix it up yourself if you want it better" either...

Please, don't use this argument, GW still has not got Finecraft right yet, and charge a gak load for it. They need to stop selling Finecraft 'Ford" for the price of "Porsche', for that line of argument to hold up.

Noir wrote:
Please, don't use this argument, GW still has not got Finecraft right yet, and charge a gak load for it. They need to stop selling Finecraft 'Ford" for the price of "Porsche', for that line of argument to hold up.

I don't disagree.

finecast is awful.

That changes nothing about what is being discussed here.

Guys, you are all making absurd arguments. We can't compare this hobby to other companies outside of the market.

Let me set my definitions straight real fast - these are gaming pieces, which are also a type of miniature. What they are not is "model kits", which are what Games Workshop produces. There is a drastic difference and you shouldn't expect complex plastic kits - that is not what FFG is going for and if you want it, plenty of other games exist to sate your need.

With respect to quality issues - I have spent about $300 on models and have only a single bendy weapon. One. Out of the dozens and dozens of models I have purchased. So, maybe you should send FFG an e-mail and maybe they can replace it? Have you tried that yet? I haven't and very well might.

Also, as for the rules - I have played plenty of games thus far and I must say, it is an exceptional game. I am a competitive player who routinely goes to tournaments in my region and while this game might have a few issues of balance in some areas, I haven't stumbled upon any yet and trust me, I am looking.

Dust Warfare doesn't claim to be an end-all-be-all for hobbyists and is just a miniature wargame. It uses game pieces (not models) to represent units on table and has a great rules set that I think will give it the mileage over any issues with said miniatures.

Also, FFG is not taking "shortcuts" - they have made an amazingly accessible game for new players where the start-up isn't going to bankrupt you.

Honestly, if you don't like the models, buy some Wargames Factory greatcoat infantry or use some Pig Iron pieces. No one is stopping you from modelling to your heart's content, but don't complain about extremely affordable models not being on par with GW's kits that are often two or three times as expensive (or worse, thanks to the price gouge).

There, done ranting.

CT GAMER wrote:

Noir wrote:
Please, don't use this argument, GW still has not got Finecraft right yet, and charge a gak load for it. They need to stop selling Finecraft 'Ford" for the price of "Porsche', for that line of argument to hold up.

I don't disagree.

finecast is awful.

That changes nothing about what is being discussed here.

True, it dose change the soft models, but I can fix a warp in the metal of my "ford" with a hammer (hot and cold water) or spend money on some "tools" (green stuff) to fix my "ford priced as a Porsche". Or just you know convert them, like I due with 40K, plus with buying form other company you are likely to come in cheeper too. GW have not got a cent from me in like 18 month, becouse I can get the guys I want cheeper and with a couple minute work better looking and the right loadout.

CaulynDarr wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
A manufacturer should want to put out a quality/exceptional product whenever possible.

You can turn that around and apply it to Games Workshop's rules quality just as equally.

Agreed.

I'm not sure why what GW is doing or not doing is relevant. I'm not making any excuses for them.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Dust Warfare doesn't claim to be an end-all-be-all for hobbyists and is just a miniature wargame. It uses game pieces (not models) to represent units on table and has a great rules set that I think will give it the mileage over any issues with said miniatures.

You guys are the one's that keep bringing up GW.

I want quality product from FFG irregardless of what other companies are or are not doing. Another companies bad buisness practices/quality is not an excuse to engage in it yourself, so that train of thought makes no sense to me.

History is littered with the bones of many miniatures games that have failed. The quality of the product (miniatures) was surely a factor in some of them.

If we can agree that we want Warfare to do well and be around for the long haul then we should want to see FFG improve quality and do things that will draw in the most players, and generate the most sales.

Better miniatures would assist with this.

I'm not sure why pointing that out brings out a chorus of "But Gw..." and or "they are good enough..." Frankly I'm concerned they arent good enough.

I have already encountered people that I game with that have passed on the game due to miniature quality and their perception of the game and it's viability based upon this fact. Sometimes people are nervous buying into something they sense might be a flash in the pan. I have the miniatures from a number of dead games littering my shelves and so I am wary when it comes to dropping lots of cash on yet another game that I question the quality of. I don't think I'm alone...

IF the game is as good as some claim, wouldnt it be even better with high quality models to boot?

CT GAMER wrote:

CaulynDarr wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
A manufacturer should want to put out a quality/exceptional product whenever possible.

You can turn that around and apply it to Games Workshop's rules quality just as equally.

Agreed.

I'm not sure why what GW is doing or not doing is relevant. I'm not making any excuses for them.

Becouse of this the first post starting this course of talk.

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

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

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


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

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

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

You started the GW talk again in this thread.

Noir wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

CaulynDarr wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
A manufacturer should want to put out a quality/exceptional product whenever possible.

You can turn that around and apply it to Games Workshop's rules quality just as equally.

Agreed.

I'm not sure why what GW is doing or not doing is relevant. I'm not making any excuses for them.

Becouse of this the first post starting this course of talk.

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

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

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


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

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

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

You started the GW talk again in this thread.

The post you quoted states the high quality of the FFG walkers.

Nowhere do I give props to GW, claim them better to FFG, demand FFG emulate them or any other such.

The point of the post you quoted is that I see a disparity within the Warfare line: the walkers are extremely high quality and rival any of the best models for wargaming on the market (typically considered to be GW) yet the infantry do not use the same material and have bendy weapons etc.

Question being asked :If they can produce walkers to this standard with no bendy then why can they not do the same with the infantry? OR if they could why did they choose not to?

FFG has shown with their walkers that they can produce detailed and high quality models with no bendy issues. So why wouldnt they want the infantry to match this quality, particularly when i assume you are going to want your game to appeal to the core miniatures wargaming demographic as much as possible?

It that wasn't a goal then why a miniatures version of Dust at all since you already had tactics?

The models don't bother me. Sure I would rather all the guns were straight but it's nowhere near a dealbreaker for me. They still look great painted up.

I don't consider it a 40K replacement at all, it's "just another game" .. I'll be keeping my 40K stuff and playing that when I want to, and playing this too. To me it's like the difference between 40K and Warmachine, or 40K and Flames of War. 2 whole different games to have in your collection, not replace one or the other.

CT GAMER wrote:IF the game is as good as some claim, wouldnt it be even better with high quality models to boot?

No. What makes a good game is solid rules, exceptional support from the company, and a reasonable price-to-quality ratio. Now, that is my opinion, but I have watched Dust Warfare spread like a veritable wildfire in my area, simply because it is affordable and absolutely a blast to play. People watch the game and that day are buying into it. It has legs, as long as people keep a sense of proportion for it.

This is not a game that has put emphasis on the hobby aspects of the game - yes you can paint the miniatures, yes you can do modelling on them, but don't forget that the cost is low and the quality very much in line with said cost. If I wanted to spend a fortune, I would jump into other games for a heavier emphasis on the hobby elements, but that is not what Dust Warfare is about.

In fact, I play Warmahordes for a good balance of models and hobby, 40K and Fantasy more for the hobby than the balance or gameplay, and I play Dust Warfare very much so for its amazing design and gameplay. The miniatures are really somewhat secondary - but that doesn't mean they aren't awesome, either. Yes, a bendy gun can really ruin the look, but again - contact FFG and see what they can do for you. If enough people do it, maybe they will wise up to this small issue and remedy it.

As for it dying off - it may, but unlike some games where it is a brutal investment, Dust Warfare is extremely affordable. Especially with some retailers doing 35% off!

And yet again, I point to the Dust-Models.com website that sells blank bases for all your hobbyist needs, if you really truly want to run something unique to yourself.

Also, be sure and play the game. The models might not be up to the level of GW or PP, but damn the rules are solid and an absolute blast to play. I can't stress enough how much fun I have, even when losing. It is the design that I think will keep it going, above all else.

This is not a game that has put emphasis on the hobby aspects of the game - yes you can paint the miniatures, yes you can do modelling on them, but don't forget that the cost is low and the quality very much in line with said cost. If I wanted to spend a fortune, I would jump into other games for a heavier emphasis on the hobby elements, but that is not what Dust Warfare is about..

So what is it about?

Why a need to make a tabletop version with Warfare when Tactics already existed and had a following?

Tactics already allowed for fun/challenging gameplay in the dust setting with the same models and at the smae price point.

So what was the thought behind warfare exactly? What did FFG want to appeal to that they didnt/couldnt already? Isnt the hobby element one of the main new big factors when you move it to tabletop?

The point of warfare must have been motivated on some level by a desire to crack into the tabletop market and appeal to fans of table top wargaming of which GW consumers/collectors/hobbiests make up a decent percentage.

Even if it wasnt, when you move to the tabletop arena you attract the attentionof tabletop gamers, many of which are hobbiest-gamers. I don't imagine FFG thought their opinions of their product toally irrelevant (though I wonder if they underestimated the importance of model quality to this demographic)...

CT GAMER wrote:

Noir wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

CaulynDarr wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
A manufacturer should want to put out a quality/exceptional product whenever possible.

You can turn that around and apply it to Games Workshop's rules quality just as equally.

Agreed.

I'm not sure why what GW is doing or not doing is relevant. I'm not making any excuses for them.

Becouse of this the first post starting this course of talk.

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

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

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


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

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

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

You started the GW talk again in this thread.

The post you quoted states the high quality of the FFG walkers.

Nowhere do I give props to GW, claim them better to FFG, demand FFG emulate them or any other such.

You compared them to GW, read you words, why you did that is besides the point.

Anyways like I posted above and that guy post 2 above this one said. Convert your own, it's a game use the model you like. Leave behind that other company LAW about only there models can be used in there games.

P.S. and yes I tell that to all my friends when they don't like the models. "You play for the system, use the models you like."

Noir wrote:You compared them to GW, read you words, why you did that is besides the point.

I made the point that the majority of people will do so and so if a company wants to have success in the miniatures market they have to place a lot fo importance on quality of their models.

As to making my own: Yes I could if i chose to, I and many others may not desire to.

The only alternative to low quality doesnt have to be to make your own. Companies can and should work to improve quality so thaty a consumer can give them their money...

CT GAMER wrote:

So what is it about?

Why a need to make a tabletop version with Warfare when Tactics already existed and had a following?

Tactics already allowed for fun/challenging gameplay in the dust setting with the same models and at the smae price point.

So what was the thought behind warfare exactly? What did FFG want to appeal to that they didnt/couldnt already? Isnt the hobby element one of the main new big factors when you move it to tabletop?

The point of warfare must have been motivated on some level by a desire to crack into the tabletop market and appeal to fans of table top wargaming of which GW consumers/collectors/hobbiests make up a decent percentage.

Even if it wasnt, when you move to the tabletop arena you attract the attentionof tabletop gamers, many of which are hobbiest-gamers. I don't imagine FFG thought their opinions of their product toally irrelevant (though I wonder if they underestimated the importance of model quality to this demographic)...

What is it about? A new, better set of rules with a broader appeal. Why make a tabletop version of Dust? Because they could? Tactics had a small following and the freedom of an open tabletop game certainly has made an impact in my area, where not a single person played Dust Tactics, but suddenly we have 8+ Dust Warfare players in a month.

It is entirely your opinion that when a game moves to the tabletop that the hobby is a factor. Hell, I still have my Battletech stuff from ages past, when I used cardboard cutouts. It was all about the gameplay for me, not the models. So tabletop does not equate to modelling, painting, or any aspects of the hobby, really.

The motivations of Dust Warfare are something we can guess at forever - I personally don't care. What I do care about is that Andy Chambers (and crew) created a damned brilliant game that I can afford to play. Hobbyists can get their fix elsewhere, as I will be doing, but those of us who wanted a better set of rules can find that in Dust Warfare.

Not a single soul in my area has brought up this issue, by the way. In fact, I get a lot of folks who look at the models and expound on their coolness (and mine are all still unpainted). They do a double-take when I tell them the entry cost and then by the time they have watched a game, they are usually ready to invest in it themselves.

Again, if you are unsatisfied with the models, stick to 40K or Fantasy or Warmahordes or whatever for your hobby needs. Dust Warfare is a tabletop miniatures game made by a gaming company - not a game that exists to support the model kits of a model company.

CT GAMER wrote:

Noir wrote:You compared them to GW, read you words, why you did that is besides the point.

I made the point that the majority of people will do so and so if a company wants to have success in the miniatures market they have to place a lot fo importance on quality of their models.

As to making my own: Yes I could if i chose to, I and many others may not desire to.

The only alternative to low quality doesnt have to be to make your own. Companies can and should work to improve quality so thaty a consumer can give them their money...

Then the only thing to say is, you shouldn't of let yourself get talking in to a game you don't like that models of, if you aren't willing to put the working into making them what you want. Becouse I'm sure no TT gamer has ever had to put the work in, to even play other miniature games. If a TT miniature gamer is not willing to convert thats kind of sad (not saying your the type, but they seem to be the same people that like gray armys), if you a boardgamer then you don't have a problem as the models are better them most boardgames.

First of all, let me preface this with a brief bio. I've been playing wargames for 30 years, with experience in everything from Steve Jackson and Avalon Hill map and chit based games to miniatures games including Battletech, Star Fleet Battles and modern systems like Malifaux, Warmachine, Dark Age, Battlefleet Gothic, Firestorm Armada, and most systems that come along. I'm a game junkie. I've played 40K since the very beginning of 3rd edition.

I picked up Dust Tactics when it first came out, and the same with Dust Warfare. From a rules standpoint, I find Dust Warfare superior in almost every way to 40K. For what is essentially a v1 product the the Dust rules are tighter and leave less to interpretation than 40K today as v5 ruleset (let alone what 40K was in it's v1). The FFG staff have been quick to FAQ and support Dust Tactics, and I have no reason to expect that support will change for Warfare.

As for models, my experience with Dust pretty much mirrors CT's view; the Walker models are superior, and the infantry kind of average. Unlike CT, that doesn't dampen my enthusiasm for the game. After a decade of broken chain swords, gun barrels and Spiky Bits™, in a way I have come to appreciate the rubbery, resilient nature of the Dust infantry. It's not so important I have my pin vise and super glue to fix battlefield casualties with Dust infantry dudes, and believe it or not you CAN straighten out bent barrels with hot water or a hair dryer if it bothers you. From a few feet away on the battlefield they certainly look the business, especially if painted. Oh, and they come already built. I can pull them right off the shelf, open the box, and plunk them down. Not pretty, but ready to fight.

The last bit of my reason for loving Dust is the creator, Paolo Parente. The man has soul and a passion for the product, and that goes a long way. Compared to the soulless publicly traded company that is GW this would be enough for me. Add Zombies and walking tanks and it's a no brainer.

CT Gamer, you mention cutting them up/adding parts to fix them but all you really need is a pot of hot water (almost boiling) and another of iced water. Dip the bent minis in the hot water (preferably using tongs) and bend the offending part straight - although most of the time it'll straighten out by itself as it gets heated - the when it's done put it the ice water for a minute to "harden" it. I've done this many times on board game miniatures that are much more bendy than Dust Warfare models and it works great. I've so far done it on one of my SSU machineguns and it's straight as an arrow!

Just a tip.

em_en_oh_pee wrote:.

Also, as for the rules - I have played plenty of games thus far and I must say, it is an exceptional game. I am a competitive player who routinely goes to tournaments in my region and while this game might have a few issues of balance in some areas, I haven't stumbled upon any yet and trust me, I am looking.

:

You must play Allies then because the balance issues are there. Their is also the exploitable turn sequence while going first, and the "roll dice and tie" style missions. This game has so much potential, but I get the feeling like they copped out at the finish line.

To fix the bendy weapons all you have to do is add a thin line of thick super glue to either side and hold it straight till it sets a bit(or use accelerator). This will fix the bendy issue and also add some extra rigidity. The models, aside from bendy weapons, are pretty nice. They allow a decent amount of customization. Reposing is easy with the soft plastic, though they should have some extra equipment. Overall they are still quality miniatures, I certainly like them and prefer them to finecast. If you put as much time into a Dust squad as you do into a squad from any GW system you'll certainly end up with as good of an end result.

Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:

em_en_oh_pee wrote:.

Also, as for the rules - I have played plenty of games thus far and I must say, it is an exceptional game. I am a competitive player who routinely goes to tournaments in my region and while this game might have a few issues of balance in some areas, I haven't stumbled upon any yet and trust me, I am looking.

:

You must play Allies then because the balance issues are there. Their is also the exploitable turn sequence while going first, and the "roll dice and tie" style missions. This game has so much potential, but I get the feeling like they copped out at the finish line.

I do play Allies and I see no balance issues.

Also, ties don't happen since there is a tiebreaker method included in the rules. Also, going first is nit the ens all, as often going second has some serious benefits. Play against a Schwer Platoon and tell me going first is good. And as there is no way to manipulate getting first it isn't that big of an exploitable thing.

On Bendy Models:

Dust models seem to have pretty good memory. I bought a box of Axis Heavy Recon Grenadiers--dudes with double barreled MGs and combat knives--and each model had a bendy issue. Every single one. Was kinda bummed. But I left them in my truck cab for about 5 hours, guessing it got to maybe 110 degrees inside, and when I picked up the models again every single one had noticeably reverted to its 'mold' form. I fiddled with the barrels and knives a little bit on the spot and by the time I left my truck cab they looked like the box art (unpainted, of course). Compared to endless mold line shaving, assembly, and painting, Dust is definitely easier to deal with than GW, but with far less customizability naturally.

On game depth/mechanics: Dust, with its handful of releases, limited metagame, and lack of refinement is a far more tactical and engaging game than 40k. I say this as a guy who played 40k for years and left it for Warmachine/Hordes. Dust actually has a little more depth, in certain specific aspects, than WM/H, and that is saying a LOT for a game with a 50 page ruleset versus a 2nd gen game with a 150 page ruleset and 13 supplement books.

In a lot of ways Dust seems to occupy a happy middleground between 40k and WM/H in that the gameplay is a little 'looser', like 40k, but the factions thus far are pretty balanced and unrewarding of spam, like WM/H, and while HQ units and unit leaders are incredibly pivotal and important like WM/H and unlike 40k, losing one model doesn't lose you the game unlike WM/H and like 40k. There is a noticeable power difference between Allied offense and Axis offense (in terms of volumes of hits generated vs a variety of targets) but it's eminently manageable through other mechanics like range and suppression and orders--in which Axis have an advantage.

I think it's nonsense to compare Dust Warfare to GW or PP games right now, because we have the equivalent of 3 HQs, a Tactical squad, an Assault squad, shooty and fighty Terminators, and 3 different configurations of Predator with a Dreadnought and Land Raider for Blue Marines and Grey Marines with which to play the game right now. 'AHMGAWD Blue Marines are negligibly better than Grey Marines and there are only liek FIEV different units!!!11' -- well duh, it's a first gen game system. Going entirely by the merits of the rules set, I think Dust is superior in balance and clarity to GW and far more playable than PP for entry-level gamers.