Hi all, those nice folks at Fantasy Flight have given me permission to discuss the upcoming Dust Warfare rules here on the boards. I probably can't answer all of your questions as the game is still being worked on and the information is proprietary, but I can talk about the design philosophy behind it and its relations (or lack of them) to other rulesets. I can also admire your models, hear your concerns and perhaps speculate pleasantly with you about what the future may hold. Please keep in mind that any speculations, statements and opinions expressed by me are my own and not the official word from Fantasy Flight, and also that to keep things simple I'll only answer questions about Dust Warfare and not any of the other games I've worked on.

So, with that long paragraph of hedging, caveats and half-truths in place - what would you like to know?

Hi Andy, thanks for taking the time to answer questions.

Dust Warfare changes from the alternating activation system of Dust Tactics, but has a reaction system. How does this affect the flow of a game and what stops the inactive player from having nothing to do but make the tea?

Hello Andy, glad to have you aboard working on this project. I am a huge fan of your classic Skaven Army Book (wish it was still rule legal).

Is the game as you are working on it taking into consideration that Armor Class 1 and 4 Infantry (or 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 Tank and 1, 2, 3 Aircraft) will be available for players to field, or are they included just for scale? Will the basic rules have "stats" for general troops and vehicles?

My primary concern for any miniatures/war game is the ability to personalize warbands/armies/troops and so forth. Will that be an option, such as alternate weapons in different squads, unit/squad upgrades, experience from campaigns and so forth?

How much fluff will be in the core book?

Hi Andy

Fist I'd like to Echo Peacekeeper's question about other units. Like, will we be able to buy a 1/48 scale tiger tank from our local model shop, and use it in an axis army? I think it would be a great idea to add that, even if it's some kind of add-on supplement later on.

Right now we can buy a box of men and that's all we need from that unit. Will it still be that way for Dust warfare, or will we be able to add more men to our units? like, take a recon unit for this many points and they're equipped with these weapons. Add up to 5 extra men with this weapon for XX points each.

i got a chance to demo this at gencon, and very much enjoyed it. i know the rules are still being worked on, and that the demo was simplified somewhat, but the promise of what we saw was exciting. my only complaint was the template used for area weapons, but that's just because i dislike templates. i'm very much looking forward to playing this.

Hello,

I was at GenCon and watched (but was not able to play) one of the Dust Warfare Demos. I've got a few questions.

First, it was explained that the demos were a "beta" but I'm a bit surprised at how closely related the games are. I realize some people might enjoy this, but for my part, I was expecting something that was more of a departure from Dust Tactics. What I've seen so far, Dust Warfare looked a lot like Dust tactics with an alternate measuring system,and the addition of reactions (which I think are very cool). Is this similarity the result of it being a "Beta" or will it remain very closely tied to Dust Tactics as it seems to be?

Others have mentioned customizing your armies. While I think for a Board game having fixed units is ok, I'd expect much more from a full-table top game. I think part of the fun is creating an army from scratch--naturally from units available in the game.

I was also disappointed to see that the game retained the exclusive use of the Specialty Dice instead of a Number based (such as D10) die. I understand that some people like that, but I've been disappointed in this.

I'm willing to keep and open mind and wait for the actual product, but from what I've seen so far Dust Warfare looks way too similar to Dust Tactics, lacking many elements common in True Miniatures games. Again--that's fine for Dust Tactics, but I am looking for more in Dust Warfare.

To be honest, the promise of Dust Warfare (which wasn't named at that time) is why I got into Dust Tactics to begin with. Great Miniatures, Great Story, Great Packaging, great Concept, but gameplay that isn't really my number 1 preference.

In short, my overall question is this: Is the final Dust Warfare product going to be more independent of Dust Tactics in play/rules than was indicated in the Demos at GenCon. That's what I went to GenCon hoping to find, but as of this moment, it doesn't appear to be that.

I should state again--this is just my personal preference, and Dust Warfare might not be what I was looking for, but it can still be a very fun game, so I wish you best of luck in any case.

KAM

Hello Andy. I very much want to thank you for taking the time to post. It is a pleasure to see someone posting here in at least a semi-official capacity.

Most of my questions were asked above, but I would also like the answer as to whether the game will stick with Dust Tactics units only or if there will be a way to use classic WWII troops and vehicles in Dust Warfare.

Second, in a thread on the Dust Tactics forum, there was a report from a Gencon attendee that participated in the Dust Warfare demo and stated that Dust warfare would be "armor heavy". I believe his point was that the proposed new damage system for vehicles would make them much more survivalbe for the points spent. What will be the balance of Dust Warfare? Will infantry still have an important roll or will they be fillers?

Again, thanks for posting.

Happy to help out by talking about stuff, I should underline again that I'm not even semi-official here. I'm just another forum user that happens to know more than you - and can't say everything! Anyway, but here's my thoughts.

Reactions/ turn sequence:

I'll be honest - I'm not a big fan of alternating activation systems personally. I feel as if when you get more than a handful of activations (i.e. three or so units) it produces a sort of fractured game flow where each player naturally gets drawn into thinking only about the next activation. I like games where units can coordinate their efforts and the controlling player can work to an overall plan. Reactions keep the opposing player involved, and rather elegantly handle the kinds of interplay that can be gained from straight up alternating activation systems. There is also nothing at all wrong with having the time to make a cup of tea.

Army lists:

Flexible army lists and a degree of customization are something that I think miniatures gamers tend to expect from their rules and are some of the most fun parts to write. Army lists can also have a key function in keeping forces balanced through other means than raw points values so that the tank thruinge doesn't become the only viable option. I've been working closely with FF on this particular topic in relation to the currently available Dust Tactics models and what's coming up for the future so that hopefully we can put some lists in the core rules. Personally I'm also hoping to see some dedicated army list books in the future as more factions become available (SSU!) but that is entirely a pleasant pipe-dream on my part at present.

Background:

I've been working closely with Paolo Parente (who is a lovely, lovely man btw) on the background material produced for Dust Warfare and he seems very happy. For the core rulebook most of what's been added is what you might expect - world war overviews, weapons and unit descriptions etc. How much of this FF can actually fit into the finished core rulebook I don't know, but having worked with them before I know they like their background.

Relation to Dust Tactics:

One thing I should make clear is that the decision to follow Dust tactics so closely comes from me, it's not like its something being imposed by FF or anything. Looking at the core mechanics of DT I saw something that was well fleshed out, nuanced and distinctive, so much so that I liked the idea of developing it up into a tabletop game that was the same-but-different. Dust Warfare adds a fair bit granularity to the DT formula and completely changes the turn sequence meta-game, so I wouldn't say they are the same game by any stretch of the imagination. I can't help but think that the benefits that could be gained by breaking the two into very different games are outweighed by having a set of core mechanics that are already known and understood. Widening the pool of potential players is a huge benefit and it pays well to never, ever understimate how important that is to ensuring a game takes off. Quite aside from all this, it means we'll never be in a situation where a released model can't be used in DW.

Real world tanks:

This comes up a lot, I've taken a look at the player generated cards for DT that are hosted here and noodled around with a few stats for things. It's something I'll pursue with FF but I'd be surprised if stats for Shermans make it into the core rulebook, probably more of a web site thing if at all. Keep in mind that from from the perspective of running a business that sells models this is, strictly speaking, a bad idea. There's plenty of hobby-based arguments for it, certainly, and we'll be talking about it, but no one should be surprised if FF don't bite. If the worst comes to the worst I'll be happy to help out with establishing some fan-based unofficial stats somewhere that we (and when I say we I mean I) can agree on

That's all for now, folks, hope that helps.

While not everything I was hoping for, those are some pretty good and well thought out answers Andy.

There does seem to be a rather large fan push for Normal Units for Dust (be it Tactics or Warfare). We just want to remind people of that, as often as possible.

Oh and my mantra of GIVE HEROES COVER!

Andy Chambers said:

Hi, Andy, and thank you very much for coming to meet us.

Well, I have to say I disagree that releasing stats for tanks is a bad idea in term of business for Dust. A lot of players are waiting for them. Making your customers happy by delivering what they ask for so they will continue to play the game, support it and buy more stuff is always a good idea in term of business. The best idea would be for FFG and DG to release the said tanks or historical vehicles, with the same business model as there soldiers and walkers (I mean preprimed and assembled, or premium). I am sure they would sell like crazy. A WW2 game, even Weird, without historical vehicles is just... weird.

Also, I have to say I am very pleased you tried to stay close to the Dust Tactics rules, even if I'm a bit worried about the I go You go activation. In my opinion, it's a thing of the past in wargaming. You may think it's better than alternate activation and I respect your opinion and will give it a try, but from my experience, just sitting there and looking at the other player playing his turn (sometimes for 15 to 20 minutes) and destroying your squads one by one is just plain boring (one cup of tea is fine, two or three just get on my nerves ). I discovered alternate activation while playing Warzone (RIP) 15 years ago and I think it's by far the best system to keep both players alerts and keep the game entertaining all the time.

Now I will try the Reactions System. I remember the challenge of putting Terminators in Overwatch in the original Space Hulk and I hope the Reactions system in DW will be varied enough to keep the "passive" player entertained.

It's a chance to have to you here. Having the opportunity to discuss with you before the release of the game is just great. Thanks again.

Double post sorry...

Having tried the demo at GenCon I'm intrigued.

The Dust Tatctics boardgame rules left me mostly cold, so it was interesting to see how much of DT has wandered into DW. So far, I'm liking it. The increase in survivability on tanks is nice (esp the crit hit chart), as well as some of the other options the demo guy (sorry) hinted might make it into the game.

We love Dust, we love the models, we don't love Tactics, so hopefully Warfare will do what should have been done (in our play group's opinion) with the game from day one. Thanks, Andy.

Grenadier XYZ said:

I've been very pleased with how well the reaction system in Dust Warfare works to keep the other player engaged when its not their turn. The interaction between reactions, suppression and the command phase all combine to give games a really interesting and 'authentic' feel of WW2 battle.

Reaction mechanics in general have come a long way from Terminators going on overwatch. There were a few neat ideas in Starship Troopers that were very successfully developed in other games. I feel like the iteration of reactions we've been playing with in Dust Warfare really helps to keep the game fun for both players at all times.

Mr Chambers, Thanks for posting here and taking time to post up answers to the various questions. You, Sir, are a geniune legend!

I did have a couple to ask, but they seem to have been covered in your answers to other questions. One thing I would like to ask is whether the focus of the armies in Warfare is going to be on Tanks/Walkers with Infantry support, Infantry with Tank/Walker support or a mix of the two?

Cheers

A few more questions:

Dust Tactics (DT) determines line of sight (LoS) and cover using the grid, so a unit is either entirely in or entirely out of LoS/cover. How does Dust Warfare (DW) determine LoS and cover and could you have a situation where some parts of a unit are in cover and others not?

Does DW use "true" LoS?

Does DW have any special consideration of 3D terrain elements, especially elevation?

Roughly how long does a game of DW take in comparison to DT with the same sized army?

Do you see DW typically using similar size armies as DT does now, roughly 200-300 points, or a different level?

What do you feel the lower and upper bounds of DW armies might be? Will DW scale down well to something as small as the revised core set (130 points)? Could it reasonably run much bigger battles? Apocalyptic ones?

Do you think DW would play well with two teams of players?

Could DW handle a three or four sided battle with IGOUGO + reactions?

Andy, thanks for the responses.

I'm ok with sticking close to the DT rules. I'll most likely be swithcing back and forth so hopefully it will mean less things to keep straight. As others have said I'm over IGOUGO but will keep an open mind and give the rules a test run.

I'm probably preaching to the chior on the classic WWII stuff, but I believe that FFG is taking the wrong attitude. It is the same attitude they have toward the models from the Dust Games website.

Dust Warfare won't be the only Weird WWII mass tabletop game out there. I've got West Winds Secrets of the Third Reich and Two hour Wargames "Nuts: War Without End" in my collection. Both have pros and cons but both let you bring just about any vehicle into the game. There's also Gear Krieg and AE-WWII on the market as well. Having Dust Warfare be a closed system game will turn off some gamers on that attitude alone. The question is, what is DW's market? Is it just DT fans or do they want to expand to the general tabletop market?

Thanks for the great responses. I am so excited about the prospect of army books! With you backing the idea I think there is a solid chance, still probably a few years out though.

Andy Chambers here?!?! Now this is something really surprising and welcome!

So some of the questions I had have been answered yet... like the "normal" units presence. I really hope there will be space for the common grunts in Dust, it would be very fun to see advanced units attacking a garrison manned only by soldiers that have their M1 Garands and Shermans to defend!

Also, what can you tell us about your ideas for campaign games? Do you think there will be rules for "managing" the frontline like supply lines, C&C lines and modifiers that will affect in some manner the linked games? Or you think more about "railroaded" campaign books?

In the core box of DT there is the "Operation Blue Thunder" campaign that has a fixed developing not dependant by whoever wins or loses the last scenario.

So, I mean, if Axis wins the Americans are going anyway to blowup the Axis base.

Do you think is possible, if not in the Core rulebook of DW, to see a campaign system that will be really flexible?

How many factions you would like to see or add in future? Have you thought yet to some possibilities or wishes that you will talk about with FFG staff?

You would like to add some new dimensions to the game (even if I think is a little early to talk about the factibility), like naval or air sides of the game? Do you think it would be possible in future army books/codexes/faction guides to add different arm branches to choose from?

There will ever be some space action in the World of Dust? Some fight on the Moon for an exemple?

Do you and Paolo think the background story will advance with time (like Battletech does) or it will remain substantially stuck in the '40s mantaining a sort of perennial rework of the same background without add something really new (like Warhammer 40K)?

Thanks a lot to be here, it is very exciting to talk directly with the designer of a game you are looking forward to.

I'd love to see Dust Warfare go far. I think the models and designs are fantastic and I've been hot for a world war 2 game with weird science for a very long time. One of the things I find most attractive about Dust Tactics/Warfare is that it has a big 'tail' of ongoing releases for it so there's plenty of material for future expansions (I think its fairly common knowledge that the Dust universe has more factions than just the Axis and Allies). Campaigns, air combat, naval combat, going to the moon and everything else would be very cool, and I hope that I get to work on some or all of the above.

As regards the core rules, LOS uses model heights in comparison to terrain height (i.e. my tank is taller than the hedge so I can fire over it) rather than 'true' LOS as that can get pretty cumbersome. Obscured LOS (i.e. you can see past it but something is in the way) gives cover for soldiers but not for tanks - they have to be actually touching terrain to get cover.

For armies the game is designed to be scaleable to anything from core set contents up to pretty big games, in theory there wouldn't be an upper limit. No reason you couldn't have multiple players although each side though you would need an overall commander for the Command Phase. Three or four sided games would be....interesting and I haven't tested with that. In theory it should work out but I'd have to try it out.

Tanks and soldiers both make viable choices in Dust Warfare, although woe betide the infantry commander that comes to a battle without sufficient anti-tank weapons. The limited range on most infantry anti tank weapons does mean that soldiers are reliant on using terrain to their advantage if they want to hunt tanks much as in Dust Tactics.

Do you think, Chris, that there is the "danger" that DW could become a game where some "tournament" gamers will try to exploit the best units combos? And succeed in it? Or you think the game mechanics could encourage to avoid this approach that, on the long distance, can ruin the fun?

I understand both perspectives on the other WWII vehicles however, I was strongly hoping for rules for these vehicles as I am very into WWII. At least rules for Halftracks, Jeeps, Bikes... Can't FFG release models for the common WWII vehicles if they are worried about losing revenue? Or perhaps include them as rare choices sense the new tech makes them mostly obsolete?

This kind of exclusion could make or break whether I buy the book. I feel like it could be the same for other players as DT and DW are not just attractive to FFG fans but to WWII and Weird WWII enthusiasts as well.

It makes sense for both FFG and Dust Studios not to delve in that area much though. Again, there are going to be unofficial rules aplenty for it (and it sounds like Andy might do a "Chapter Approved" for them somewhere down the line, man I miss Andy's Chapter Approveds). There are tons of other Weird War games and WWII games that do delve into the pure vehicle rules and models, I personally want Dust and FFG to keep researching and developing more unique units than those types that already abound in other game systems and model lines.

Hello,

Andy Chambers said:

I'm not in charge of a game company that seems to be dominating the market, so I'll speak to this point as a customer.

If I like the world of Dust as a theme and story, yet I'm not thrilled with Dust Tactics rules/play, then Dust Warfare does nothing to change that. It maintains the same elements that I dislike. You then have two games that don't appeal to me (the theoretical customer)

If Dust Warfare provides an alternate rules system that appeals to a different type of customer, then you GAIN that customer. This is a simple matter of "something for everyone" rather than two things for the same group of fans. No matter which version of Dust one likes (Tactics or Warfare), FFG gets miniature sales. Both games share common product, so adding new customers is presumably preferable to selling an additional book to existing customers

For the record, I don't think that Dust Tactics is a BAD game, but I think it has less dimensions, because of is core mechanics than other tabletop games. From what I've seen, Dust Warfare has some interesting elements, but I don't see how it broadens the overall appeal.

The "benefit" of having a core mechanic that is already known, is acknowledging that you are just re-targeting the current players, NOT new players (who wouldn't know the mechanic--because they aren't current customers). So, this seems contradictory.

You "Broaden" a player base by gaining NEW customers, who by definition don't already "know and understand" the current core mechanics, because they aren't current customers.

KAM

Grenadier XYZ said:

Well, I agree with you 100% regarding the one-side activation. EDITED: I must be wrong about the Alternating Activation, I THOUGHT I saw. I must have seen a bit where there was some sort of reaction that LOOKED like alternating activation.

If Dust Warfare keeps the core Dust mechanic, but eliminates alternating activation, that is a major lose-lose in my view.

Other people I've tried to introduce Dust Tactics to were REALLY turned off by the slaughter that can happen when you're the first to stick your head out (I know that's not quite accurate once you get the swing of things), but imagine the game stall that can occur knowing that you will be subjected not to just one units blistering attack, but multiple units.

Imagine how fun Chess would be if one player got to move all their pieces, before their opponent got to move their's.

Alternating activation DOES NOT mean that you think only about your next activation. You've got to anticipate what your opponent might do with their activations, and in what order and determine how best to PLAY your units and in what order. In my opinion, it makes games more dynamic, rather than turning each player into a spectator for half the game.

Again, just my opinion, but Alternating activation is a must.

KAM

KAM said:

KAM said:

I do agree partially here. If the game is just Dust Tactics with new rules for ranges, movement an dline of sight (all based on inches instead of squares and thats the biggest difference) with some reaction based and morale based mechanics, you might as well as just call it Advanced Dust Tactics or Dust Tactics Second Edition.

My biggest fault with Dust Tactics will remain in Dust Warfare, and that is the fact that troops are defined by their guns not their skill. While to Roll Hit/Roll Damage games have their faults, I feel that you get more variety in troops. Draftees armed with the same rifle as hardened veterans do the same damage, if they hit, which they do at different skills.

But that overall is a very minor issue that I can get over to enjoy the game. It can even be incorporated in the game quite easily with the "reverse" die result which essentially takes the "I hit" roll need from a 5 or 6 to a 3, 4, 5 or 6.

But even the idea of a "book" only release with Dust Tactics Revised Core Set being the "starter set" for the game makes it a double dip game, where I have to buy another game to play this game. Sure, its worth it for the minis, but outside players who are yet to play Dust may find it a put off.

The same argument goes for normal troops and vehicles, in my opinion. Yes there are other games where I can run amuck with troops and vehicles, but I dont play those games and see no reason why I should have to invest in a different game to get my Dust setting kicks. FFG has the resources to make generic Armor Class 1 figures and vehicles and have a serious habit of making license agreements with other companies to turn their IP into a game. There is no real reason why FFG couldnt enter into a contract with a little known model company or even a popular one and have those guys market their figs as "officially sanctioned for Fantasy Flight Games Dust Tactics/Dust Warfare figures" or even let Dust Models get on with that market.

Dust is WW2 based, it is Sci-Fi and Pulp and Steam Punk and Cold War all in one. To say I have to play Secrets of the Thrid Reich or another WW2 game from another company to play "normal/basic" troops or vehicles is ridiculous and weak. And its a market FFG could profit off.

And to say there will be plenty of Fan Made cards and troops and stats is also weak, as I would prefer rules made by the game for the game not by a fan who may have a bias toward one side or the other or for one item over the other. And then why would my friends/opponents agree to let me play something that is not official. I can see it now. "You only won cause you used those unofficial troops!"