blkdymnd said:

So to get the figures and feel of the game I want to play for Dust, I should go to another gaming company and play their game? Yeah, great marketing strategy for FFG there.

I know this is only the internet community, but there has been a lot of voices from fans saying they want this. Even if FFG only sold game cards for these "troops/vehicles" for official stats and still stated that only official dust figures can be used in official tournaments, they would still make money.

Peacekeeper_b said:

yes, because so far that is not in their plans. I don't go to AE-WWII's website and demand that they release rules for giant walkers because thats not part of their plan for their game. If I want giant walkers, I would have to pick up Dust or Secrets of the Third Reich, etc. But I am also a person that doesn't use models from other sources to play a different game unless it's a conversion of some kind, so if they went the route of making cards for models they didn't make, I wouldn't really be their target anyway. There just isn't many companies out there (large ones like GW, PP, FFG, etc) that make rules for models they don't plan on producing themselves and it's their right to not make those rulesjust because a vocal few people want them. There will be plenty of homemade rules for those, and again, Andy said at some point he might be even willing to help produce some unofficial rules for them. Thats more than you would get a whole lot other places.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Yes, if this is little more than advanced options, then it isn't what I'm looking for. Dust Tactics has already added a lot of new options.

I've got to be honest...I've been waiting on the Tabletop rules since I started with Dust Tactics, because DT just doesn't measure up to a full-blown table top game. I can't be sure, but what I'm hearing about DW...it doesn't either.

If DW doesn't use Alternating activations, then this game quickly becomes the worst of both worlds. Also...if there is such a benefit from using the existing mechanic, then how do you justify this change?

When I saw the Banner for Dust Warfare, I almost jumped out of my seat, and pounded out e-mails to my friends (who aren't hot on DT).

I went to GenCon and was not at all thrilled with what I saw--keeping all the elements of Dust tactics that I find to be...less than ideal, and now I hear (and apparently somehow missed) that this game is dumping one of the GOOD mechanics (alternating activation) in favor of an outdated one that REQUIRES special rules (reactions--which in themselves are cool) just to make up for the change.

In the span of one week this game went from a "Must have" to what's quickly looking like a "won't buy." It might not be wise, but I've stuck with Dust tactics (buying every product) because of the promise of new tabletop rules. If that's a no-go for me, then I'm likely to drop the product altogether. Great miniatures, and really cool story, but not enough to justify buying a game that I really don't love.

We will see, but I'm going to carefully review Dust Warfare before buying it, and I'll probably put all of my Future Dust purchases on hold until this is resolved.

KAM

Sometimes you also have to be honest with yourself. If you're playing a game that just doesn't have enough to make you happy just to play it, then maybe you need to play something else. Infinity was like that for me. Models are fantastic, background is really cool, I just could not get to enjoy the rule system at all. For me it was overcomplicated and just complex for complexity sake. After trying it a bit, I finally just realized that the game wasn't for me and I haven't played it since. Dust Tactics in it's current form, and sounds like Dust Warfare, has everything that I enjoy in a game right now and in the year since the last Gencon when we picked up the advanced copy of the original core set, I have played little else other than Dust Tactics. Again, there are other games that have lots of "normal" troops and vehicles. This game focuses on the more supernatural side of Weird War, and not the normal side.

And remember (for those that played) that the normal troops in AT43 were the armor 2 troops (the more line troops of the game), and even the very expendable Red Blok/Russian troops were Armor 2. The only Armor 1 models in the entire game that I remember were the small Therian spider bombs, and they were very small. I could almost assume that the Armor 1 troop models in this game might be some type of remote/slight in stature Vrill fighter. There are still a few similarities between the two game systems that at one time had plans to be interchangeable with each other...

KAM said:

If you're not currently happy with Dust Tactics, then i don't think Dust Warfare will be for you either. From day one, when AEG had still planned on distributing the game, the plan was to put out a PDF for a tabletop version, which the way they described it at the time, would be just a conversion of the tile rules to go tileless.

When you have a fantastic core system already (which, I know you don't think is so great, and doesn't make for a great tabletop game, which my opinion and our gaming group opinion is the exact opposite. We have yet to have a real rules arguement, but we watch our 40k buddies do that all the time), there is no reason to scrap the core just to make it an alternate version. Privateer Press, Spartan Games, and even Games Workshop to an extent have used the same core of their rules system for multiple games. In our area, the Warfare rules will only bring some of those 40k players over, who love the smooth mechanics, but hate the tiles.

Hello,

blkdymnd said:

Well, you're right, and ultimately, that's what might happen. Dust tactics is "good enough" for me, but not for other people I game with. They are sufficiently unenthusiastic about the game that they aren't even interested in playing with me buying all the product. I've been talking about the Tabletop rules coming out as something they might be interested in. They're likely to be less forgiving than I am.

As I've said--I think Dust Tactics is ok. It just doesn't happen to have the depth and custom elements that I prefer (I'm a VOR player). It was enough to keep me going, but it will be a disappointment to discover that the thing I was hoping to lock me in to this game will be the thing that will ultimately push me away.

If so, well, it isn't; the end of the world, and I won't hold a grudge against FFG or anything but they will lose a customer. You can't please everyone of course, but the point of me posting what I am is that what I'm hearing as reasoning doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and I'd like to think that someone might consider these issues. Of course, who am I? Nobody--just one customer. The question is whether my views are shared by other customers--and that I do not know.

KAM

blkdymnd said:

Again, you may be right. if it's not for me...well, then its not. That's just the way it may be.

However, where I do not agree is about "scraping the core" to make an alternate version. They ARE making an alternate version--Dust Warfare, not Dust Tactics. If it isn't going to be an alternate, then why bother pretending that it is? Eliminating tiles and using a tape measure doesn't justify a separate title in my view.

Further...if the goal is to provide a means for players with different preferences to have a reason to buy Dust Tactics miniatures, there actually IS a reason to present something that actually has a different appeal. That's what my earlier post was about. If you want to broaden your appeal, then by definition appealing to your existing customers isn't what you're doing. You are simply providing one additional product for that existing customer base.

Also--I disagree with the characterization of having an ALTERNATE (significantly different) set of rules is "scrapping" it. It is providing a means to reach NEW customers who have different preferences, but without the need to create a completely different line of product.

Increasing the number of customers for a wide range of crossover product--basically all of the miniatures is beneficial. Selling one additional product to the same group of customers is still a benefit, but a smaller one. Which would you rather do? Sell a book to all your existing DT players, or sell a dozen or so different miniature sets to X number of additional new players?

KAM

I'd ask you to hold off rushing to judgement about Dust Warfare until you can at least give it a try. A level of abstraction doesn't automatically equal bad (think about it - EVERY game has a degree of abstraction) and overt complexity (by which I mean long stat lines, charts, tables, dice roll modifiers and using polyhedral dice) doesn't automatically equal good. In my experience the reverse is usually true.

Dust Warfare is being developed from Dust Tactics mechanics, but the key word here is developed. Having worked on a few ruleset developments in the past I can say with some confidence that the same stats and mechanics can be used to produce very different games by changing a few key elements. There are a number of very long running, popular games that have been around for a large number of years that have been successfully redeveloped from their core mechanics . Whenever this happens quite often some people will say things didn't go far enough while others say the development went too far. Even in this one thread we can see posters that want to pull in diametrically opposed directions.

So what's a poor, yet highly talented and hugely charismatic, games designer supposed to do? Fundamentally you rely on experience and try to create a cool game anyway, in my opinion preferably by building on whats aleady there and honing it. Other folks' opinions about what makes a cool game might well vary from mine and, I have to admit, that sometimes I might even be wrong (unthinkable), but I do feel like Dust Warfare is one of the best games (possibly the best) I've designed to date.

It's good you've managed to stay humble all these years, Andy

Hello,

Well, I'll take a look at the end product and decide. However, the purpose of demonstrating something is to provide information to the prospective customer. I left there thinking "this isn't significantly different from Dust Tactics." It may be that the version demonstrated doesn't do justice to the final product you've designed (are designing).

Clearly, you've got to deal with the fact that players have different desires, and can't please everyone. So, I'll just say best of luck, and I'll be looking forward to seeing the finished product.

KAM

blkdymnd said:

AE-WWII's setting has nothng to do with giant walkers. FFG's Dust has everything to do with normal units still existing. I can buy that joe normal troops would most likely never encounter any special axis or allied weapons, but I cannot accept that special heroic walker/super soldier would never encounter normal troops.

To put it simply, a Stormtrooper in the Star Wars universe is very unlikely to run into Luke Skywalker. Luke Skywalker is very likely to run inot a Stormtrooper. When you dont have your normal units about, and they could all be Armor 2 for all I care, then your special units dont feel so special. They become the normal.

GW has made plenty of rules that they never made models for, they usually (up until recently) were called Dark Elves or Dark Eldar.

And most o fyour argument against this seems to boil down to the fact the YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED in it. There are plenty I guarantee who are. Tanks especially would bring in other fans. I would be more inclined to buy more armor models if I could field a few tanks instead of walkers. So there is my I AM INTERESTED argument. And there have been plenty of people asking for this, including, it seems, Mr. Chambers.

But one thing I have learned over the years, is no matter how much you want something, just saying it on a forum isnt going to make it happen. But here, for one of the first times I can remember, one of the designers of the rules is actually listening and talking.

Peacekeeper_b said:

No, I made one comment that I wouldnt be their target for it, i'm allowed to speak to what I want for the game, just as you are. My main point is that large companies don't really make rules for models that they don't produce, and that the theme of the game isn't really about normal troops, it covers the more heroic side and supernatural side of alt WWII. And yes, Andy is interested, but make sure you mention everything that he said. He also said it is normally a bad idea for a company like FFG to go down that route with a game.

Again, there are going to be plenty of alternatives unofficially to use normal troops and tanks and such, I just don't expect FFG to produce them unless they have some of kind of weird war flair to them.

I don't think it's about being fair or unfair to FFG. I also don't think just because other companies don't do it is a valid arguement either. There are plenty of companies that have rule sets where you can use models that they don't produce.

There are many voices here and on the DT site that want classic troops and walkers from the Dust Models website. The justification from Christian, backed up by the feedback from Andy doesn't hold water for me (i.e. I don't believe including these will confuse retailers or cost sales). If FFG can't figure out how to make that work even in some sort of unofficial "can't use this in organized play" way, then it tells me they don't want to listen to the community.

rwwingate said:

Not listening to the community, really? So I guess that wasn't the CEO of the company that I saw on Boardgamegeek, taking his time to address multiple issues that Grand Inquisitor Kris was spouting off about. It's not about listening or not listening to the community, it's about their vision for the game, and what they think is best for the company (not what we think is best). I don't care either way, I've never been a straight historical guy, so the idea doesn't really push me either way.

And give me one of any of the huge gaming companies that make rules for models they don't produce, and name me one game that FFG produces in their entire catalog that allows you to use something outside of what they produce. It may be there, but I can't think of any. Again, i don't care either way, I just don't want FFG to spend energy developing stuff they aren't going to make, and keep production of what they are making up. If they make a halftrack, then more power to them, add it to the game and give me a card for it. If not, then keep all energy in what is being developed and leave the other stuff for the fans to make.

Any one got a date for when the book is actually coming out? The rules are, what, Beta testing now?

Does mean theres likely to be any major last minute changes, or it's just a fine tuning period?

blkdymnd said:

Easily. As I saoid before. Games WOrkshop. Dark Eldar and Dark Elves. For years had troops in their books that had no official figures for. Necromunda. Warhammer Quest. All had stats for things that didnt have figures. Secrets of the Third Reich (not FFG of course) allows use of other minis. As do many other games (even back in the days of T$R, AD&D's Battlesystem let you use any mini you wanted).

And if you dont care, why are you so quick to tell others to stop caring? Honestly, people have voiced an opinion of what they want. So you dont want it. Lets say FFG decides to do it. Are you somehow put at a loss for it?

Early GW, before they had the full might of the TT world behind them, even had tutorials in White Dwarf on how to use other games, other figs in their game or how to make models out of ordinary products (such as the land speed made form a tube of deodorant).

Lets say FFG decided to make a bundle of 30 cards that detail 30 normal trool types and vehicles. Lets say they charge $20 for said bundle (probably closer to $30 or $40 since they dont make models for it) then they will make money from that product as just about 70% of the fans will buy it, whether they buy a model for any card or not. All FFG is out is the time to write the stats, the art for the stats, the time to design/make the cards and the cost of the cards. And in the past FFG has had no issue at having interns do similar things. And FFG is capable of not only allowing the Dust Models figures in their games, but also selling them through their site, at least to the North American market. Making even more profit themselves.

The sad fact is, that without some normalcy and regualr style new troops (who are interesting, be it from skills or different weapons) Dust will die because in 2 to 3 years it wont be about the best pleyer, but who can field the latest Gorilla in Vrill Armor 4 Power Armor with 10D mega-damage death-phaser laser steam gauntlets in walkers! And players will become bored and move on to the next WW2 Variant Sci-Fi Pulp Game.

Fenrir Kitsune said:

I would say this would be an excellent Christmas Sell.

Dont get me wrong BLKDYMD I respect your opinion, but I think it is at times (much like my own) narrowed by your own wishes and experiences. We each have valid points and neither one have a slam dunk thought. The grand scheme of things can unfold in many thousands ways, which ever it goes.

But I do enjoy the debates.

As for Andy, I know what its like with the little game design Ive done. Its always good to listen to fans, but you have to go with what you know is good or what you think is good. Each rule is decided upon based on other rules to fit the system. You cant suddenly throw a D10 morale check into the game afterall, as that would repackage the game (poor example I know).

One could also argue that as long as FFG keeps out any vanilla ww2 units or normal military stuff that they ARE listening to players like me who have no desire to see anything truly historical in the game. I got into the game based on the weird war stuff.

Tanks are boring to me. The theme of Dust Tactics is not. Just another opinion though.

Peacekeeper_b said:

I'm with you Peacekeeper, I enjoy a good debate, and if you and I were face to face I would definitely have a smile, no malice intended in anything I say.

And yes, most of any of our opinions are going to be colored at least somewhat by our own desires. Mine is more colored with realism only in the sense in that I pretty much know what a large company like FFG will do. They will only set forth with something if it returns something to them. They won't even waste an intern on rules that won't bring revenue (and do you really want an intern developing historical rules? The days of large companies doing things like GW used to do back in the day are very much gone. All the examples you gave were long long ago, and that kind of business in a large business just doesn't exist anymore. I do await to see how FFG handles the issue, but with Warfare being released, we are in much more dire need of a third and fourth faction before anything else.

blkdymnd said:

I dunno, that recent Tyranid book is lacking a lot of the models for the unit entries.

Does the initial release of DW include rules for aircraft?

Are there morale rules? Do any such rules apply to vehicles as well as infantry, or are vehicles effectively immune to morale (or flinching, or pinning, or whatever)?

Are there structured army lists with restrictions and requirements, or does DW follow DT's "grab bag" approach to army building?

Can units be customised in DW, or do they play as they are on the card?

Do units of multiple models have a "coherency" range? What happens if they break that coherency?

Can units be interleaved with other units? For example, could a unit of Recon Rangers be interspersed among a unit of BBQ Boys?

How is shooting handled? Is it like DT where you shoot one set of weapons at one single unit, or do you shoot at a zone, potentially targeting more than one unit?

Thanks!

The following questions are just asked for general feel and sense of how you would like the rules to work or not work. These are some of the issues I am trying to figure out for house rules as well in Dust Tactics.

Will units be able to fire every weapon line at once? Or one per action? For example, a squad with 4 rifles and a lmg while also carrying 3 grenade launchers. Will they be able to fire the rifles, LMG and Grenades all as one action?

Will close combat be a "locked" status, where you wont be able to move other then the flee, chase or cosolidate?

Will units that survive a battle gain awards/experience for the next battle in a campaign? Such as being awarded a toned down version of Medal of Honor skill, that is used once per game per medal?

Will the Axis get the Iron Cross to counter the Medal of Honor skill?

Will the W-Serum ever have a better description on how it works?

Aside from the Vrill and Sino Soviets, what are the other factions? Majestic 12? Other factions of the Axis (Nazi/Hitler/SS Loyalists)? Any secret societies?

Will we see more traditional pulp/sci-fi b-movie robots? Or just walkers?

How do you see the Army Books going? Obviously some sort of list of troops and history/fluff, but will they cancel out the cards? Will it allow for more kit-bashing our own figures (from 100% recycled Dust Tactics FFG bits of course)?

Hey

I think we should in our question focus right on overall shape of Dust:W. Details will come later.

Methinks :

IGUG- Iam not supporter of this mechanic but....

1.This how WAR is presented in Tv documentaries an books

(for example - El Alamein - Montgomery Pushes - Rommel sets defence - Montgomery attacks - Rommel holds - etc )

2.Moves focus into whole army , pushes for more strategy than tactics work better for bigger scale (you feel more like General setting great battle strategy) and finally imitates very important element of battlefield Taking Over and Maintaining Initiative.

Dust Tactics - frenetic bloody battlefield and You play Captain on battlefield.

Dust Warfare - You deal with command communication and big strategy plan from position of general in central command

3. I get Mr Andy rationalization -.

4. Best new Skirmish game Infinity is IGUG with reaction and that works very well for modern and extremely dynamic battlefield.

5. Industry leader has similar mechanics , which would make crossing over into Dust:W easier.

Iam full in support of one card two games idea.

1.Crossing will be easier.

2.I dont believe that there is some kind crucial difference between British and German soldiers. Difference that would push for some kind different stats... I dont like rpg like stats in wargames.

Epic A (one of the best GW games ever) for example uses only weapon lines and that works well giving different feel to Eldars and Tyranids.

3. after 10 years of war i dont expect fresh conscripts on battlefield.

Infantry 1

1. Axis Germany in year 47 cannot afford unprotected troops on battlefield

2. Infantry rating its not only armour but also grittiness morale etc.

3.There are already WWW2 games which deals with regular troops vs weird- if you really feel like you can use DUST:figures in this games (i do already with AE-ww2) . SOTR have extensive rules letting you to build your own mecha.

Problem comes with point cost. Tanks comes extremely expensive compared to regular infantry.So you dont get more than one per regular game.Elite troops balance game out so you can field more Walkers without Hords of infantry.

Dust:W should be game of Panzer Walkers Fighting on fields of WWW2-"second round" with support of Elite Armoured infantry and super science monster

s.

.

cheers

Poyet said:

I do agree, to a certain extent. The notion of how it is shown on tv and how it is a comparison of Captain of a company over General of a army. But that can be mimicked in other ways as well, such as initial deployment (if troops can start on board instead of "entering"), But with the Command Phase it seems you may get to move a few units at once before reactions get in the way. My biggest concern is that you may lose too much by trying to use a reaction and then failing cause you dont roll a hit to "activate" the unit. I think you should only lose 1 action on a failed reaction activation roll, not both.

Poyet said:

We disagree here. I prefer a little more stats, especially in skirmish games. Epic was huge battles, skirmish battles is the individual making a difference. The moment you decide to put heroes in the game you decide to make a difference between normal and exceptional, and all that really is in this game is health and if you can use cover (?). Ideally a rifle in Manfred's hands should function the same as if it were in the hands of Fritz Grenadier number One. But Manfred would be a better shot. But thats moot, as with the core game system being in tact in DW from DT there is not chance of new stats added. You can simulate it some with special skills. Create a dozen or so more and so forth.

Poyet said:

Yes, I do agree. But if you have no Armor 1 in the game, there is no reason to have Armor 1 on the cards. Or in the game. It becomes a waste. Armor 2 effectively becomes Armor 1 and it is just a waste of ink in the books and on the cards. There doesnt have to be Infantry Armor 1 as guys on the field, but in the game somewhere that stat has to be used.

Poyet said:

FFGs solution should not be "go play someone elses game and give them the money you wish you could give us" and as players of FFG games we shouldnt want or suggest that. And all those tanks and jeeps and halftracks used by everyone until about 1943 didnt suddenly vanish. And not everything had to be a mecha. They could have cool tanks based on traditional designs.

Poyet said:

Thats a problem for another game right? Cause tanks would be about the same point as walkers in Dust Tactics or Dust Warfare, 30 to 50 or so points? So whats the issue? And if they did have armor 1 infantry they would be what, 10-15 points per squad of 5? And they fall in the same category as everything else in Dust games, if you dont want them, dont field them.

Poyet said:

Yes and no. Without the normal the abnormal becomes the normal. All it becomes is another sci-fi game with different rules where everyone looks like they are based on 1940s earth but more science-ier.

But with all of this talk about secrets of the third reich, I might just go buy that and dump dust completely.

In the end, I will concede that in alternate 1947 your basic troops may be armor 2 (give them some flak jackets and 8 years of a world at war) but I refuse to accept that tanks, trucks, jeeps, half tracks and what not have gone out of style for chicken walkers.