Peacekeeper_b said:

This. FFG saying DW is for FFG models and FFG models only is such a narrow and self limiting attitude. After years at this hobby I'm not a loyal gamer. I go where the fun is. FFG should be looking to pack more fun in the book, not limit it. I can buy the arguement to keep DT pure, but I believe that DW should loosen up the reins a bit.

rwwingate said:

Agreed.

Hey

on side note-There are only few company's making models

(and not every one is eagre to build them as they are harder than wargames standard to build)

in 1/48 and price is quite high in comparison so not really concurrence for FFG there .

Maybe just as reference in Dust:W book .

Cost problem with tanks. For Infantry 1 you need at least 8 soldiers per squad probably more for 10 points.

Basically scale between Infantry 1 and infantry 2 sets distance between Infantry and Walkers as well.

Infantry 1 for me right now - civilians , old ppl ,6 year old kids .

About Sotr there is no reason why you cannot play both... i dont like their mini designs, and art.

Hey

on side note-There are only few company's making models

(and not every one is eagre to build them as they are harder than wargames standard to build)

in 1/48 and price is quite high in comparison so not really concurrence for FFG there .

Maybe just as reference in Dust:W book .

Cost problem with tanks. For Infantry 1 you need at least 8 soldiers per squad probably more for 10 points.

Basically scale between Infantry 1 and infantry 2 sets distance between Infantry and Walkers as well.

Infantry 1 for me right now - civilians , old ppl ,6 year old kids .

About Sotr there is no reason why you cannot play both... i dont like their mini designs, and art.

Hey

on side note-There are only few company's making models

(and not every one is eagre to build them as they are harder than wargames standard to build)

in 1/48 and price is quite high in comparison so not really concurrence for FFG there .

Maybe just as reference in Dust:W book .

Cost problem with tanks. For Infantry 1 you need at least 8 soldiers per squad probably more for 10 points.

Basically scale between Infantry 1 and infantry 2 sets distance between Infantry and Walkers as well.

Infantry 1 for me right now - civilians , old ppl ,6 year old kids .

About Sotr there is no reason why you cannot play both... i dont like their mini designs, and art.

Peacekeeper_b

Dont get me wrong I wont set of basic stats for regular vehicles and classic tanks. They are present in Dust comics (sdkfz) .

Its probably something that whole community agrees!

I ll already have my Kommand groupe in shwimwagens and new Armored Transporters are in mail

(i use a rule that sdkfz replace mg in recon grenadiers).

Half of ppl that will be interested in Dust are already interested in WWW2 and WW2.

I think that Mr Parente understand this , charm of world of dust comes from historical roots. If ffg will abandon it it will be great mistake.

I think that there is this though about SF selling better than History... but on another hand we already have one giant on market with cheaper bastard brother on way (warpath) there is no reason to try to push between them

We need revised units background based on ww2 units, we wont to relive all battles of WW2 from el alamein to battle of bulge (with zombie and panzer walker this time)

I would love to see and play heroic struggle of Crommwels and Sherman trying to stop Panzer Walkers advance on Glasgow. Or Stalingrad with sturm zombies

Iam not really into Army Books model but Campaign model would be cool . You buy set of historical background weird war fluff , available units (old school as well)etc.

Also i said couple times that iam not fan of Heavy Armoured Troops (to space marin e in design no enough disel)

IGUG

i dont have Starship Troopers but i own Battlefield Evolution - this is how reaction works there .

I am new to the forums, to Fantasy Flight Games, and to Dust. Please bear with me if I say anything idiotic. I saw the game (actually the Dust:Tactics version) there at Gen Con last week and wished I knew about it but this was my first Gen Con appearance.

In response to seeing if they want to add real world units to the game, is there any hints of there possibly being some tanks in the game in other forms?

Hi Andy, thanks for spending some time with us.

Do you think we might see (Or will have rules for) units other than Troops, Walkers, and Aircraft? Thinks such as Jeeps with mounted Phasers and the like. While I understand that FFG would not want to make a normal vehicle model...what about weird WWII versions of them?

Take care,

-Jeff

I am very happy about getting TT rules and that its a book with possible ongoing expansions. My input for Andy, for what its worth, is that the walkers are the stars of the game. They are what sells it for me and most others. More detailed rules for them just makes sense to me and would add some flavor to the rules. I'm not saying they should be undisputed kings of the battlefield and make infantry irrelevant but I wouldnt mind at all if they got tougher to kill and more detailed ways of damaging them were introduced.

That being said I like my infantry guys too though and would expect the points cost for walker to go up along with any upgrades the new rules give them. As far as historical units goes I dont expect it. A burned out sherman tank on the battlefield for atmosphere maybe. I do like the idea of historical units though because it adds a huge amount of awesome units to the playlist and hope Mr. Chambers is involved in that as well down the road.

Poo

Hi Andy thanks for coming on and sharing your ideas and some insights. A few people have posted some overviews of Dust Warfare and it looks pretty cool and after reading your notes I do have a couple rules related questions still.

How are Range C weapons handled in DW? Currently with the exception of attacks being simultaneous and going after all other weapons they are still range 1 (I understand this is a limitation of the tile system). Do they still have a 6" range in Warfare or CC now better defined?

On the subject of Artillery weapons are the minimum range rules being altered? If the current rules are used with the x6" multiplier then Arty has a minimum of 4 meaning you couldnt shoot within 24".

What is the average gaming area the game is designed to be played on? 4x4, 4x6, or something else?

Thanks.

In an earlier post 4x4 was mentioned which actually gives you a smaller table being 8x8 6" units than 9x9 squares, but like anything else you can use whatever size table you have.

Major Mishap said:

Thanks. The only reason I was wondering about average size was for legue/ or tourney play to make a level playing field. For most of our personnal mini games we tend to go bigger 4x8 or 4x16 and prefer scenario driven vs. bash each other kind of games.

I also think comparing it to squares is slightly off as there are more limitations with a board game. I.E. a unit can always move one square but on a tabletop terrain (Walls, hedges, rubble, moving between floors in a building, etc) tend to usually limit movement more. So that one square move on a board might only be 3" on the tabletop depending on the terrain.

So I guess that brings up one more question for Andy or anyone else that was a the demo. What effect does terrain have on gameplay?

Hi Andy .. another question, sorry if it was answered already and I missed it

How many models will we need for an "average game" of Dust Warfare? Like, generally speaking, will you usually have about the same units as an average game of Dust Tactics, or will it be more along the lines of games like 40K where you need 100 men on the board?

To build off of Necross' question:

Will the battles be restricted just by point caps or are there other limiting factors?

And what type of point/unit cap would an average (medium) game be?

-Jeff

A question: I watched some demos at GenCon. The rules seem pretty good, and I really liked the reaction rule. But I think I see (admittedly, I don't have the full rules, so maybe there's more to it) some problems with the command phase. Basically, you get a command die for each unit on the table in your army not retreating. Both players roll their dice, and for each hit, they get to activate a unit in the command phase, in addition to activating their units in the unit phase. It would seem that if I rolled poorly and my opponent rolled well, it could really sway the game. Especially if I start losing units- then my opponent keeps getting "extra" actions and I get progressively fewer, getting me killed even faster. Are there any rules to help balance that out? It would be even worse in large games- if we have 8-10 units out, my opponent getting 7-8 extra actions on a good roll and me getting 1 or 2 on a bad roll could really swing that game in his favor.

Thanks for the questions guys, right now I'm working on some designer diaries with FF so I can post answers and keep them more visible. Please keep those questions coming!

Andy Chambers: No questions at the moment, just wanted to say thank you for your due dilligence.

I am curious as to what purpose the command step accomplishes.

Im concerned that with so few statistics that most units will be differentiated based solely on how much damage they do or can take, not what they can do on the field of combat as far as manuevering, communicating and maintaining/breaking morale.

Will the game use some common sense as opposed to some other games? If I have an infantry squad with a rocket launcher and 4 guys with assault rifles. Common sense says the the rocket will fire at a vehicle while the rifles shoot at other infantry. Warzone(Ultimate WZ was perhaps the greatest tabletop game of all time, just a bad company ran it into the ground) allowed for this and the game was not imbalanced at all. It is afterall what real infantry would do, I know, i have been there in that exact situation.

Also will there be a action for taking cover and shooting from a covered position? 40k has it but the system it uses is retarded. I can understand going to ground screwing with a unit's movement, but going to ground in cover should provide better defended firing postions, not impede firing.

Editing as I think of things until my post gets too far behind.

Col. Dash said:

Well, in Dust Tactics, different weapon lines can fire at differen targets. So thats a start.

Yeah, alwasy ahted going to ground (well since the added it at least) in 40K. We have always played it that if you dont move and you go to ground, you get better cover by 1 stel (4+ to 3+ and so on) but you coldnt move or assault. But then again I have also been trying to let troops in cover gt thier cover save in addition to their notmal save and even in the first round of a assault (sometimes the powerfist kills you, other times it hits that tree just a tad bit to your right!) and that pinning weapons shouldnt have to cause a wound to pin.

Are the new heavy walkers a representation of standard heavy walkers? I would rather they be super-heavy. It seems like there is a rather large gap between the Medium Walkers and these "Heavies".

-Jeff

Did The designer step out?

-Jeff

Probably got assaulted by FFG and the NDA! Poor guy. He wants so much to get our opinions an daddress our concerns, but that isnt what FFG is always about.

Im glad they got him though.