Hey Andy, welcome to the dust forum community!

I second the idea of publishing the answers in a diary of sorts, so everyone can see without need of delving into threads. =D

Some stuff has been said, but I´d like to know as much as is possible about LOS mechanics... I´m a big "true LOS"-hater!

See i like TLOS in theory. You just have to make some abstractions to make it believable. For example in 40k a tree is a tree, but if your infantry are in the tree template then they are in cover, however an actual tree model has to block LOS for a vehicle. We played with common sense until recently and it lost me a $50 gift certificate when I found this rule out from a player from a different area. We had always played(since the start of 5th) the trees are abstract and the whole template blocked LOS for the purposes of giving cover. In fact on some terrain pieces the trees are removable, so often we would remove them in order to position troops and vehicles in the template, because "Trees are abstract, the template itself is what matters. A woods obviously consists of more than just 3 or 4 trees." We can shoot over trees if the models are taller than the trees and can see their targets. This is the kind of common sense I would like to see applied to Dust:W.

Col. Dash said:

Agreed. Area terrain was one thing 40K did right.

Hi new to dust my box of joy only turned up this morning. But the reason i picked it up was because DW is on its way and that Andy was behind it . so new it would be in safe hands. I love the mechs and the troops, But with most people here i'd love to see standard shermans and panzer's and the odd half track. putting these in the game would bring added flavour to a game that ouzers goodness. Surely not all the Tanks would of disapered, and with them in the game it would make the mechs/walkers even more special. Any info on close combat. thanks for your time Andy cheers Nathan. can't wait.

Welcome! A lot of people have asked about normal vehicles. I doubt we will see them because walkers are the key point to the Dust world. I think it might be possible to see some Dust-type-vehicles. Things that were a stop-gap like the M3 Tank Destroyer was. Maybe a Half-Track with a Phaser mounted on it? Laser mounted Jeeps? Sd.Kfz 222 with twin Lasers?

See-ya around,

-Jeff

a half track and jeep with a laser would be cool, tanks with wierd mounted guns would be great. cheers jeff.

Mr Andy Chambers,

I read somewhere, cant remember where, that the ranges in Warfare are going to be a 6:1.
So every 1 range in Tactics will be 6" in Warfare.

Can you or anyone else confirm this??
It seems a bit much in my perspective. It would take a 4.5 foot by 4.5 foot area for Warfare to equal the Core set of Tactics at that point.

I understand Warfare is more a TT version of Tactics, but I would think the scale should stay the same distance wise. Otherwise whats the point?
Dont get me wrong, Im a big TT gamer, but I would want more than just a gridless warzone. Id like MORE area to battle in.

Makes more sense to me to do a 4:1 ratio. So 1 Tactics range is 4" in Warfare.
In a 4 foot by 4 foot Warfare area you get the same battle area as 4x4 tile Tactics area. Not only that, but any scenery you make for Tactics would easily switch over to Warfare at this scale. Only a ~ 1cm difference.

Is there any info or insight on this??

Thanks

Ropya said:

That is what was put out. And I dont see it being an issue. I dont see how it being 4.5 or 6 multiplier would affect terrain you make. I also think 6" is kind of a average. Sure the terrain squares in DT ate 4x4" but that is a range of inches, not an exact representation. For example, my grenadiers could be all the way to the left of square A and their target are all the way right of square B, makinf the distance between the two closer to 8" instead of 4 inches. Or the grenadiers could be all the way right in square A and the target all the way left in square B, making the actual distance between the models actually less then half an inch, but for DT purposes they are 1 square away.

And correct me if Im wrong, but would 4.5 foot by 4.5 foot be more are then 4 foot by 4 foot?

I think it is the right way to go, otherwise making it a range multiplication equal to the scale of DT squares would indeed just make it gridless Dust Tactics.

Good points Peace.

What I meant by 4.5 foot square being smaller than 4 foot square is in term of ranges.

In x6 stat ratio a weapon with a range of 6 has a 36" range.

Where as in x4 stat ratio a weapon with a range of 6 has a 24" range.

The 4.5 foot square came from the fact that the core set was 3 tiles across, each tile 3 squares. For a total of 9 squares.

At x6 stat, the 9 squares would be 54" across, or 4.5 feet. At x4 stat the same 'area' would only be 36" across.

Just figuring how to get more bang for your buck so to speak for the playing area available.

Average areas Ive seen people have available is 4'x4', 4'x6', or 4'x8'.

At x6 stat and a base playing area of 4 foot by 4 foot, the battle 'area' is smaller than the base playing 'area' of Tactics.

Make sense?

And yeah, I realize 4" for each square on Tactics tiles is a approximate. Its 9cm correct? Where 4 inches is just over 10cm.

Ive played a lot of Warhammer 40K (A LOT) and was always annoyed by the 24 inch range of most guns. 36 inches for standard range sounds awesome to me. It makes itself a larger battlefield in my opinion as it opens up the field of battle. It also makes terrain more useful and advantageous (line of sight is blocked, doesnt matter the range).

I think x6 is fine.

True. 24" average in 40k was kind of a pain.

And longer ranges would make terrain much more important.

In hindsight though, looking over the stats, even at x6 stat, the average Infantry range is still going to be 18-24". And the average walker range being 36"

Plus the 6" move of course.

My thought behind it all was simply for Warfare to be larger battles.

At x6 stats, it will be the same size battle area, roughly, as Tactics.

Suppose Ill have to wait and play it to really know.

True, range still will be arounf 24". But if they used x4 it would only be 16" and that seems kind of really pathetic for sci-fi alien tech armed commandoes. Hopefully the x6 range will reflect a average/medium range with options for up to X7 or x8. Like half as many shots at ranges past x6 but up to x8 or even x10, so you could fire your rifles up to 40 inches byt lose half your dice (round down) or hits are rerolled and only those hits that score a second hit actually hit.

Reactive fire should only be usable at x6 regardless though.

Peacekeeper_b said:

That is one of the reasons I started playing other games [infinity for example] as it had ranges like the 104" ranged Sniper rifle! I want a game where the weapons shoot a decent range!

'And the average walker range being 36"'

Most walkers have an U range, no? Only machine guns break this rule. Maybe they've altered how U-range works?

I agree, though. But range is off in most tabletop systems. 28mm models are roughly 1:64. This means that one centimeter in the game is 64 centimeters in reality. (Have you noticed how much Imperial and US customary units suck?)

Thus, 24" (~60cm), is 3840 cm: 38,4 meters.

When I did my military service, effective range for a standard assault rifle was measured to between 300 and 500 meters. I.e., about ten times as far as the soldiers can shoot here.

But this is a problem that exists in every tabletop system I've seen to date. It's a little less weird in smaller-scale games like Flames of War, but considering that a howitzer can lob its shells several miles, the mere fact that artillery has range values at all is pretty weird...

Reletive short range is not a problem as such, just a game mechanic to keep it playable, would make for a rather boring game if all armies did was stay st the base line and shoot.

Major Mishap said:

It would. But battles aren't fought for kills, in reality. They're fought over terrain features, strategic structures (bridges, etc.), production assets, high ground and similar objectives. The killing is a consequence: not a goal.

Would be an interesting angle to get some of that thinking into tabletop miniatures games, as well.

Devain said:

Holding objectives/rescuing POWs/Recovering stolen tech/stopping the missile launch are thinkgs you cant necessarily do from teh base line. The use of cover and terrain along with movement and manuever to capture objectives should be enough motivation to keep from fighting Trench Warfare.

Personally, i wonder why not go with metric measures?

10cm is roughly 4".

Making a multiplication of range by 10 is certainly much easier than by 4 or 6. Just add a zero next to all range and movement.

deedob said:

I know a lot of guys who wouldnt play AT-43 because it was in metric LOL.

Inches in general is the standard for miniature games. Even 40K/WFB which are English products use inches.

deedob said:

Ha, then I could just use the seven or eight AT-43 tape measures I have laying around (They are marked just the way you described).

That idea suits me fine, but as with Peacekeeper, I ran into snobs that had metric-phobia for some reason.

Actually most of the comic have actual WW2 vehicles in them. a C-47, M5 Stuart, Jeeps, Trucks. Not to mention that a few of those things apear in the photos of operation Sealowe so I certainly hope we'll see some rules for them.

Actually most of the comic have actual WW2 vehicles in them. a C-47, M5 Stuart, Jeeps, Trucks. Not to mention that a few of those things apear in the photos of operation Sealowe so I certainly hope we'll see some rules for them.

Hi Andy,

My design question is, what mechanics will make Dust Warfare FUN to play as a game?

Many tabletop games may have a cool setting and great models, but the rules are just a way to resolve moving and attacking with them. There is nothing inherently fun in the rules of the game, or in the act of playing them out.

But as a positive example, take a game like Warmachine. Sure it has rules to move and shoot with your models. But beyond that, the Focus mechanic means that every round, you are faced with challenging descisions on how to best use your limited resources in the current situation. Also, the ability to boost your important dice rolls makes your brilliant plans less dependent on random chance. Lastly, there are not just rules to shoot the enemy models, but to trample through them, slam them across the board, or even pick them up and throw them at each other. This would be fun even without cool mini's.

So, what makes Dust Warfare a fun GAME instead of just a way to resolve movement and shooting?

Coming from an historical WWII persepective I'm very glad your dumping alternative activations. The general effect is to have all other units/players standing around doing nothing while the entire focus is on one unit (which then goes dormant). It kills both combined arms tactics and multiplayer games. I acutally prefer Side A moves; Side B moves. Simultneous Fire. Morale. New Turn.

I'm also delighted you seem to be adding some Command Control which is what all real world generals insist is the essence of a general (or colonel's) job.

Would also like to see "standard" WWII stuff added but realize from a marketing perspective the company does not want to sell other people's miniatuers.

Wish you had gotten rid of the "wierd d6" but you can't have everything.

Looking forward to the game...

TomT