Sami K said:

DT can be used with simple conversions as a full TTG. DW can add to that, or drive away DT players who wanted more complexity without a completely different game. DT as a simple conversion would be a viable competitor in the marketplace, but DW as a complementary game could be more.

DW changing into a completely different game is a rather ridiculous idea. The core rules of DT give a solid starting point, so it would be easy to build more complexity onto them and have a very viable miniatures game with greater complexity for those who want it. That gives the advantage of being able to use the same models with minimal confusion, and adds appeal for players who would want more complexity for some games, but less without having a completely different rules set for others.

Two completely different games could weaken the franchise, while two complementary games would strengthen it.

Different is not always better. Sometimes, it's simply different, and if the difference is too great, it becomes less appealing for many. Using the exact same models with two radically different game systems is a good way to add confusion to game play, because remembering specific rules means remembering two different sets of rules and keeping them separate when the models that normally work as reminders no longer will. Using complementary rules that build on DT for DW keeps the confusion, especially during competitive play, down to something that is less of a problem.

DW will be a different game than DT, or there would be no reason to do other than the conversions people have already been using. Those differences, however, should allow players to enjoy both games as keeping the feel of the universe the same, and as two games that complement that universe, and each other. The further game design differs at the core level, the more it will alienate players that want to enjoy both games. These are nothing I've even heard rumors of, but as examples: a unit of Axis Gorillas should stay a unit of Axis Gorillas, and not suddenly change into light infantry assault troops that require a human controller. A unit of Death Dealers should stay a unit of Death Dealers, even if they gain more options for fielding. If units are changed for no reason other than to make them different, it would add nothing to the game, and detract significantly.

If DW is a completely different game than DT, I, too, will be holding off on purchasing it. If it is not a complementary game, or a phenominal new game, I would have far less interest in playing it. I play several different miniatures games, with several levels of complexity, so adding a new rules set means the game has to have something I'm really interested in. DT had that, and so I've invested happily into it. DW as a completely different game would have to overcome a lot of ground to match up with other games I already enjoy, including DT.

DW building on what DT has given us would be a serious winner in my book, because it would start with a solid core, and build on that for when I want more complexity from that universe. DW as a completely different game would be far less appealing.

Consider: there were a lot of players that happily went to D&D 4th ed, but Pathfinder kept a huge segment because people saw no reason to completely change something they already enjoyed and felt worked well. D&D has remained viable due to market penetration from several decades, but lost customers are lost customers, and is part of the reason D&D has changed hands through several companies. GW has changed their games multiple times through the years, and market penetration has helped them keep going, but they alienate some players with every new game edition that changes everything from before. FFG doesn't have the market penetration with DUST to risk that.

DW as a completely different game would require more playtest expense for every new unit, more reference materials expense to send out for customers with existing armies (where some were already upset over the point value change implemented with Operation Seelowe) and every new unit, and more design work expense before playtest can even began. Every extra expense for a game is something we, as customers, will have to pay for, because FFG can't survive as a company by doing work for free.

If DW adds enough extra expense to offset increased costs as a largely different game, those costs will have to pass on to us, and could drive players away from both games. Players were already upset when some new units came out at a higher cost. More expense to support greater differences would mean higher costs to all of us. DT and DW are attracting customers from the same niche marketplace, and so they need to share expenses, or suffer. If units work largely the same, but with additional rules for DW, playtest can find problems for both systems easily, design would work seamlessly, and reference materials can be kept functional for both games. For example; if a unit works the same, but can have more or less models in it, a DT reference card would still work for both games. If it somehow needs additional information for DW, it can be added to the card without negating its effectiveness for DT.

FFG could go the route of printing special reference books for each faction, and charging extra for every bit of information needed to play, and some players will like it, because they're used to it from other games. Other players will not. If they keep things easy to access, with new units able to be released as soon as the models are ready instead of having to wait for the next book to come out, a lot more players will be happy, where they might leave if hit with extra books to buy every time they want to use a new unit.

Well, that was rather long-winded wasn't it?

What I simply meant that I'm happy that if Andy wants the system to evolve in the new format, he has a free hand to do so, unlike at GW (4th edition 40k), and that if he and FFG see the possibilities for evolution in order to be truly successful, I'd say they should go for it rather than hold back so to appease Dust Tactics players.

Most of the tabletop miniatures market doesn't care about Dust Tactics per se, so it is wise to cater to them first and keeping mechanics the same for DT players second. Assuredly, the units will feel like what they were designed for, that I wouldn't worry about, it's the mechanics and level of "meat" that's in question here.

Sami K said:

What do you base your assumptions on? Just about every player I've talked to with interest in DUST Warfare is also a DUST Tactics player, which makes sense as both games are designed for the same niche market of alternate history WW2. All of them have stated they want a cohesive exchange between Tactics and Warfare. Most of them have stated they plan to wait and make sure Warfare derives from Tactics before investing in it, with little interest in buying it if it is a radically different game. That's local, with some input from friends in other places, but the amount of similar input is significant. I've read a few opinions that state they want Warfare to be a very different game, but have not talked directly to anyone with that opinion.

For the TTG crowd I've talked with, many of those with interest in Warfare but not Tactics worry that change without cohesion would indicate a willingness to go down GW's road of multiple versions of the game requiring new purchases of rules every few years, and are leery of joining another parade like that. GW survives with that concept due to the level of market penetration they achieved before they faced any significant competition. I've met a lot of GW players that continue to play only because they know they can find opponents with GW's games, but not because they like the constant changing of their rules. Major rules changes is one of the most common factors for people I know that have left GW's games.

I agree Warfare can evolve into something more than Tactics, but evolution is gradual change that improves, rather than wholesale alteration. Wholesale alteration indicates a lack of faith in the original game, and an unwillingness to work to help the community enjoy both games. Appeasing the Tactics players with a smaller game like Warfare could very well be the difference between the games surviving and thriving or either or both games failing.

From a business standpoint; basing a product on an unknown new market's possibilities, or growing from an existing market, is a no brainer concept for anyone with any business acumen. Growth with some risk is a far better investment than dropping an existing market completely to try another. You don't ignore your established consumer base because you hope another unproven consumer group will be a better investment when there's no need to. There's even less reason when part of that new group are already customers that could be alienated by that action.

Ultimately, what we think people want from Dust Warfare is not relevant. What's relevant is how FFG feels about it.

Keep in mind we're not talking about selling an extra book to Dust Tactics players with Dust Warfare. Dust Warfare exists to expand the audience and become a major player alongside PP, Mantic, etc. After all, DT players already have their "vehicle" to sell models, although it's a bonus if some start buying more because they can play two different games with it, but ultimately this will depend on a wider adoption of the rules.

But like I said, it's not really a topic worth discussing at length, it is what it is, and I support FFG if they want to go this way. I can also give it a shot if it's "Dust Tactics +" but I personally feel more enthusiastic about a system with real meat in it.

Warfare is coming to expand the audience for DUST, but expanding to a boardless miniatures game does not mean the game is opening into a bigger, more intense world. Board games are a larger part of gaming than miniatures games when considered across all of the options. Warfare will give DUST a chance to give existing players more options, and appeal to bring more players into the game who are leery of a board format, but miniatures games are still only a portion of the gaming market. They take far more space than board games, but there are far more board games and RPG's produced and played than there are miniatures games.

FFG is already a major player in gaming, they simply have not moved into the miniatures market until now. Take a look at their catalog, or simply the shelves on your LGS, and you should be able to find a plethora of products from what is actually a fairly sizable company by gaming industry standards.

As for adding meat, Warfare is planned to do that, but overall, board games tend to go for more meat, while miniatures games go for visual appeal and more freedom in terrain design and unit movement. Just because a model can move in any direction does not mean the rules are automatically meatier than a board game limited to some kind of grid. Frequently, the additional problems caused by free movement and line of sight in modelled terrain force the rules to simplify to maintain playability.

The board wargames I've played through the years have consistently been meatier than any of the miniatures games I play, simply because they have more control to allow more options. I know many miniatures gamers who like to believe they play more intense, meatier games, but they haven't taken the time to see what board games have done through the years. Andy Chambers acknowledged the reactive system he's designed to allow for faster play in larger battles is based on his experience with a board game years before. I know and play the game he described, and it is far meatier than any miniatures game I have ever found for that scale of battle.

Warfare is interesting, in that it is taking a simple but intelligent board/miniatures hybrid, and adding to it while expanding to a full tabletop format. The core design noted by Andy Chambers will allow for larger battles in less time, but it remains to be seen how well everything else will function for the game.

I wish FFG the best in whatever format they choose to use for the finished product, but see Warfare as either an opportunity to expand on the solid base Tactics has given them, or competition as a separate entity that can weaken the market for both games. There are those who will play one or the other, but there are several who will want to play both so long as they fit together without major conflicts in the rules.

Anything FFG can do to keep development costs down is also something I will applaud, as it means the cost of development for the additional game will not mean prices for the models will have to be increased as much to cover the overhead of two separate games. Rules don't normally pay for miniatures games' expenses. The models do, so the models have to pay the develoment costs for the rules and the models. Similar and complementary systems means FFG has two games to appeal to a wider audience, while actually saving on development costs. Separate and distinct games means the models have to support separate development costs, which will come down to us to pay in the final analysis, because that's what we have to do as consumers.

As I noted, I wish FFG the best with Warfare, but it needs to complement Tactics, or be something phenominal as a completely separate system, or I doubt I'll see much reason to buy it. I like miniatures games, but I have several, so anything new has to be worth the expense to add to my collection.

Tactics is a good, solid base to build on. Hopefully, Warfare will be built strong enough to be worth it.

The overall picture of board games vs miniature games does not really matter here, what matters is that the miniature gaming segment outnumbers Dust Tactics players and that's the market FFG has failed to exploit so far (and I was talking about becoming a major player in the miniature games market obviously, I'm well aware that FFG is a major player in gaming overall - but this is only relevant because it means FFG can leverage Dust better). Why do board gamers need Dust Warfare to be the same as Tactics? Is Tactics not enough by itself, it needs to evolve into Warfare? I thought the two were meant to be distinct.

Same goes for board games "overall" having more "meat" vs miniature games "overall", that's again not relevant. What's relevant that in my opinion, Dust Tactics was too simplistic for me to really get into. If Warfare is in the same ballpark in simplicity, it probably is not for me, but we'll see. I don't want another game where "everything counts as the same or close enough". What I mean is, I want the differences between troops to show in the mechanics and to see enough distinctiveness and character in the units' rules.

We all have our tastes and as our individual tastes will have no bearing on the finished product at this stage, it's not like we are actually contributing to anything by going in circles about this.

I believe in forums as a place for people to come and share differing opinions, and to both simply talk and debate those opinions. I enjoy finding out what others think about DUST concepts.

FFG may read this, and gain something to think about, or ignore it as they follow whatever path they choose, but I'm happy to deal with opposing views simply for the way it makes me think about my own. I don't come here to change FFG, I come here to share opinions with other players. Without knowing your background, I can only take what you say verbatim, and not assume additional knowledge on anyone's part. I have met people that assumed FFG was a very small company, so I had no idea what you might or might not know about them.

I want Warfare to be distinct, and to add complexity that does not appear in Tactics. I simply feel that by using the core concepts of Tactics, and layering additional complexity on those concepts, they can create a viable new game that can appeal to new players without alienating established players that would like to sometimes play Warfare, while still using Tactics for fast play on smaller scenarios.

Warfare needs to give more, but creating a separate game entirely makes it reinvent the wheel to deal with every concept every game has to deal with. The reactive mechanic described gives more flexibility without negating the activation mechanic of Tactics, so they complement each other while allowing Warfare to deal with larger battles more easily. If a soldier is armed with an M1, or StG47, and Tactics gives a basic firing mechanic, Warfare can layer additional complexity as desired on that mechanic without conflicting with it, and still be a complementary game. The core mechanic is simple, yet workable, so there's little reason to change it.

Warfare should try to give us more, and not try to fix what isn't broken.

Warfare could then add to what Tactics gives, while also enabling FFG to give players more without having to increase prices to cover major additional development expenses. That's a win for FFG by reducing their development costs, and a double win for players, because they get both an option for more complexity, and less reason to have prices increased.

There are some players that are not interested in Warfare, just as there are some players that are not interested in Tactics. Most of the Tactics players I know, however, are also interested in Warfare, not as a replacement for Tactics, but as a secondary game for when they have the time and space to play it. They gain the most from complementary systems, but everyone can gain, from the players on up to FFG.

Sami K said:

Well, you missed the context of the post you were asking about, so it had to be laid out in full. Gimp saved me the trouble and probably was more polite about it.

You are correct, FFG doesn't have to deal with any of their DT players. Toss most of them under the bus. Of course, there went their ready market. If I want to learn yet another game system (instead of a converted and augmented DT on the tabletop using the same core units with their stats), then I have several others that are more interesting. I'm having fun with 40k, but I'm not interested in supporting FFG on its way down the GW business model, which is what a radically changed DW would mean. Alternating sides movement, shooting & assault rather than unit activation was a red flag to me, but supposedly the reactive fire thing is better in DW, we will see.

Let me put it this way: If I cannot, with adjustment to scale, swap between DT & DW on both the tabletop and grid squares, fairly seamlessly, then the value of DW drops rather quickly for me.

Fair enough, but the main question here is, does DW as a DT-alike game make you buy more miniatures? Selling the book to DT tactics players is not the key here.

But I think it's safe to say that DW will use the same cards as DT, and I believe there'll be plenty of common ground simply based on that.

I'm not saying that having a lot of common ground is a bad thing, I'm just saying that if FFG decides to sacrifice some of the common ground for a better and more interesting game to a wider audience, I'm all for that. If they can do it without sacrificing a lot of common ground, that's good as well. But most importantly I'm just happy Andy has more freedom to execute his vision for the game than at GW.

Sami K said:

I prefer alternating activation systems, but agree with Andy Chambers that they can slow a game down as the size of the game increases for some players. Analysis paralysis for every activation can get rather ridiculous for some players.

Because of that, I'm willing to accept the reactive mechanic suggested for Warfare, because overall it can speed play for larger games.

I see Warfare as allowing larger games with a reasonable time frame, as opposed to Tactics for small fast gaming.

Larger games for Warfare certainly would mean more models on the table, which would only come from buying more miniatures, so a complementary Warfare/Tactics compatibility would create an excellent sales synergy.

I don't really know what kind of synergy we're even talking about here, but as an example, how does War of the Ring compare on the synergy scale with LOTR SBG?

Sami K said:

Do they use the same components?

Sami K said:

We aren't talking about other games that are not designed with synergy in mind, we're talking about the viability of synergy between Tactics and Warfare, and the advantages it would produce.

If I buy two (Insert Name) Squads to use in Tactics because I like how they work together, and then want to play a larger battles with Warfare, there is more probability that I will buy more of those squads to use in the larger battles.

If I've bought six (Insert Name) Squads to use in Warfare, they work wonderfully using just a few to play Tactics.

With complementary systems, units that work well for one will work well for the other.

If a unit functions within certain parameters in Tactics, and the expanded parameters of Warfare work with those parameters, then development, and development costs, becomes easier and less expensive, which creates fewer costs that have to be passed on to the players.

With different systems, those could be reasons people don't play both, as units purchased for one may not play well in the other, and so reduce the probability of someone investing in both games. The additional costs for developing different systems also work to drive up the price of the games to offset those increased costs.

The synergy of complementary systems is the drive to purchase units functional for both games without risk of wasting money because of differing rules for the units between the different games, and to keep development costs lower to allow continued viable pricing of new units. The two games would work together to allow increased playability for the players, decreased development costs for FFG, and fewer development expenses to pass on to the players through increased prices.

If players have to completely reconfigure their forces to be able to play in the alternate game, there is a significant drive to not bother investing in the second game. As I noted before, one of the primary complaints I hear from former GW players is the rules changes forcing them to reinvest in the game every time a new edition comes out, because their older armies have been made non-viable for one reason or another. If Warfare forces that for the established cutomer base of Tactics, it becomes more of a forced choice to use one system or the other, rather than easily using both.

If a sound point structure has been established for Tactics, there is little reason to require a different point structure for Warfare. Even if squads are given more equipment options, or the option to add or subtract squad members, the value of those members has been established, and the value for various pieces of equipment has been established.

If a member of a specific squad with a rifle is set as worth 5 points, then an added squad member with a rifle should be worth 5 points, because there is no difference between their capabilities. If a Tactics squad of five is set at 25 points, an additional 5 point squad member should simply raise the squad's value to 30 points. Since any added complexity in Warfare applies to all squads equally, the point values established for Tactics should remain viable for Warfare.

Well, that sounds just like the kind of limited design I wouldn't want to play if I found Dust Tactics too simplistic, a sentiment given as the main reason for not getting into Dust Tactics by people to about it, and which I share.

The LOTR / WOTR question was an honest one, not an argument. But I suppose you explained in detail what you want from the game. Now, since I don't want to lose any more enthusiasm for the game, I'll just concentrate on heckling FFG for a release date so we can see what the real deal is.

Sami K said:

You may have a valid point regarding something from LOTR & WOTR, but having only played one LOTR game from several, I don't have a reference to know what you're talking about. I could have made points using Tobruk and Squad Leader, but as their ties to DUST are minimal, the points would make little sense to anyone who hadn't played the games.

Why do you say building on existing elements is automatically too simplistic? The core firing mechanic is rolling a set number of dice based on established stats. Enhancements could include varying the number of dice due to range or cover, adding dice for extra actions spent aiming, or anything else they might come up with, and still maintain the core mechanic and core values because the modifiers apply to any firing, just as they would in real combat.

Assuming the use of a well designed but simple core mechanic as a starting point is automatically simplistic is a rather simplistic judgement.

They could change Warfare to a percentile based system, with counters for each model to indicate whether they are prone, standing, running, crouching, out of ammo, etc, and it would be far less simplistic, but also obviously not functional for large battles without a ridiculous time investment.

If a unit costs 25 points for a core five members, and all units are impacted by the additional rules the same way, that point value as a comparison against other units would retain validity, so there is no reason to change it. If members have assigned values, adding or subtracting members from that base squad size should likewise follow the same values. That isn't simplistic, it's common sense, and quite a valid viewpoint. To suggest two identical soldiers armed with the same weapons be given different values when assigned as part of the same unit is rather ridiculous. It's basic math: if A (A soldier with set capabilities capabilities) = B (Another equally equipped soldier), and A = C (Assigned Point Value), then B = C. What justification would hold to sugest their values be different?

What are you suggesting as an appropriate change to a less simplistic game that could not build on the core values and mechanics?

Modifying the chance to hit without outside modifiers like cover for various units is common for many games, but not very realistic when the capabilities of actual soldiers are considered. Experience impacts morale far more than fire control. Untrained militia would justify modifying the number of dice they roll, but such a unit could have that possibility listed as their stats on a unit card valid for Tactics or Warfare. Otherwise, trained soldiers tend to be very similar on their overall chances to hit a target.

Morale could be added as suppression counters, with rules acknowledging unit status as elite down to green, as a modifier to unit point values, and with a varied number of 'hits' required to avoid status effects (ex: Elite roll four dice to avoid suppression, while regular roll three). That would not have to change the core mechanic to have a valid impact.

I'm very curious. As I asked; what do you see as a rules concept needed to make Warfare complex enough that cannot be handled based from the core mechanics?

I haven't read DT lately so I don't remember the exact details, but stuff like armour 3 being the same as armour 2 against basic weapons is an example of the kind of simplicity I don't like.

Beyond that, I'm not sure that a) the current costs are perfect and b) we can assume an "even increase in detail & power across the board and thus points staying the same for a different game" .

But as I said I have to apologize that I can't offer further detailed examples. Certainly, if the synergy you want is maintained by changes like you described in your last post, it's entirely fine, it was simply a gut feeling that I got from the previous posts that made me assume you wanted the system to remain much closer to DT. But I think we're on the same page now, and as you say, if we allow for that kind of development then there is no need for the game to remain simplistic and maintain the synergy you want.

There are significant differences for some weapons facing Armor 2 or Armor 3, but there are others where the effectiveness is close enough to use the same stats. That isn't simplistic; it's an evaluation of the capabilities of various weapons and armor. Armor does not always gain increased effectiveness against all weapons as the type and level of armor changes. Allowing that in the rules simply requires players to adapt to what their units can face. That's what a real military commander has to do, so why not reflect it in the game the same way?

It has only been in the very recent past that our militaries have gained body armor that could protect against a normal rifle round. It still wouldn't help against a flamethrower, or several armor penetrating rounds currently available. From a game balance standpoint, rifles against Armor 1 are 2/1, dropping to 1/1 vs Armor 2 or 3, and unable to affect Armor 4.

That means the primary weapon of normal troops has a chance against anything up to Armor 3. Armor 3 is better against shotguns, all of the machine guns, the powered close combat weapons, most of the vehicle mounted weapon, and immune to knives alone. If they made it proof against rifles, there would need to be a significant increase in the point value of the units with Armor 3 to maintain game balance. Instead, you use Armor 3 units wisely, and accept that they are only equivalent to modern body armor from the late 1990's, or 50 years ahead of WW2 capabilities. When you consider that DUST rifles could easily be equipped with armor penetrating rounds, instead of simple ball ammo, and the Armor 3 units could have better than what can be fielded today.

As for the point values, they may not be perfect, but I've never seen a game system that could make every unit point value perfectly match how every player would be able to use those units. They serve as a good basis, and the increase to the 10x factor over the original point system allows a much greater variation to show varied capabilities.

Because point values are designed to show relative effectiveness of units compared to each other, if a new mechanic shifts all probable effectivenesses the same way, then the point values would retain value as comparitive values. Again, with basic math, if A=B, then A*C=B*C, or A+C=B+C, with C being the change in effectiveness. If rules do not impact units the same way, then there would need to be some change in point values, but environmental or other outside tactical effects should be consistent in effect, and so allow the point values to retain value.

As I noted, if Warfare grows from Tactics, it can retain many of the concepts of Tactics, and still give a higher level of complexity while allowing for larger games. Everything thay can retain from Tactics means less development problems for Warfare, and a greater synergy between the games to allow crossover of play and shared development expenses to allow continued reasonable pricing for comsumers.

There's a couple of catches with your argument about the armour, and first, you're arguing from the standpoint of the existing rifles vs armour mechanic being correct in the current context. I didn't say Armour 3 should be proof against rifles in the current system, I offered it up as an example of the simplification and generalisation of the system that I don't like. And like I've said before in many a thread, two rights don't make another wrong right.

The second hitch is that while I would accept that if the rules implied the rifles penetrate both armour 2 and 3 equally well, since they actually perform better against armour 1, that would imply that the 1/1 actually implies a lowered chance of penetration, where logically a heavier armour should perform even better.

Using AP terms, I'd accept that a weapon with AP5 would perform the same against armour 5+ and 6+, the logic that the same weapon would perform identically against armour 4+ and 3+ wouldn't fly.

But let's not get tied down with the minutiae of the rules. It's not really important. Let's focus on the big picture, and we already have as much consensus there as we're going to get.

I'm not sure I'm following the logic of your statement, and apparent 40K references may be muddying my understanding more.

If a rifle fires 2/1 against Armor 1, we're talking a rounded 55% chance for a wounding hit per attack. That considers the chance to hit, modified by minor cover and the target's battlefield sense to be as small a target as possible, as well as the level of armor protection.

If that same rifle is reduced to 1/1 against Armor 2 and 3, it indicates a reduced chance to cause a wounding hit against either armor type. It is a significant improvement in protection over Armor 1, but indicates infantry Armor 2 and 3 are far from proof against a wounding hit, just as modern body armor is not proof against a wounding hit from a rifle able to fire penetrator rounds. Armor piercing rounds were available for normal infantry in WW1, so the advent of body armor for DUST's WW2 would mean they were more likely to be issued whenever possible. The higher reduction in other weapons' effectiveness between Armor 2 and Armor 3 is a valid representation of weapons without the penetration capabilities of a rifle firing armor penetrators being reduced in effect far more than the rifles.

Perhaps the rifles only have a 'real' 30% chance of a wounding hit against Armor 3, and a 40% chance against Armor 2, but with the use of d6 for combat resolution, the dice restricts us to using the closest viable percentage increment. Armor 1 could only be 50%, Armor 2 40%, and Armor 3 30%, and the progression using d6 of 2/1, 1/1, and 1/1 gives the best approximation. Without resorting to different dice, both Armor 2 and Armor 3 would resolve to a 1/1 combat resolution. Nothing says the 'real' performance is identical. The game mechanics say the dice used give the closest approximation rounded to a 1/1 resolution based on the dice used.

All games have to decide how much probability variation they can afford to represent while still maintaining playability. Using d6 is very common, not because they are the best way to represent probabilities, but because they are a die type players are more comfortable with. Games sacrifice realism for player comfort and playability. 40K is a major example of oversimplification of probabilities to enhance speed and ease of play.

When you consider various weapons againt various armors, 40K's decision to use amor 5+ with anything less than AP 5 having a full 5+, and anything AP 5 or greater having no protection is a far worse concept for combat resolution. Armor doesn't work as an all or nothing concept against basic weapons in anything but a significantly over-simplified world view. It does, however, work to allow fast play of large battles without worrying about adding dice target modifiers as were used in previous editions. That's too much of an oversimplification for my tastes, so I don't use my 40K models very often with the newer editions. I don't mind the extra complexity of other rules versions.

DUST Tactics, however, gives a more consistent rationale for attacking and damaging targets, so I'm quite comfortable with it. It's a far deadlier system than many games, but combat has been like that many times through history, as people keep coming up with effective ways to defeat whatever armor their opponents try to wear.

Your statements suggest you are a 40K player, so I do find it odd that you complain about simplified rules for DUST. 40K is one of the most simplified rules sets I've dealt with throughout my time gaming, so it adds an odd dichotomy to your stance. 40K adds lots of special rules, but the core mechanic is extremely oversimplified compared to many systems available.

Look, like I said, not interested in getting bogged down in a rules minutiae debate. Sorry. I just disagree with you, that's all, and I know it's a waste of time trying to debate it. Why you keep pushing after we've reached a consensus, I don't know. Maybe you're just debating for debating's sake, or trying to "win".

Yeah, I play 40k, but that doesn't imply that I'm satisfied with the system. I'm developing a hybrid between modern skirmish games and 40k 2nd with a D12 as the basis.

Now let's see if you can find something to debate about that. This thread has been derailed beyond all belief already, and I know it's partly my fault for feeding it.

I debate to consider other people's opinions. There is no way to 'win' an internet debate, and I simply enjoy finding out how other people think about things. Debate is the easiest way to get people to fully explain their opinions, and so I debate.

I don't see debate as a waste of time, so long as I'm finding things out from other people, and being forced to consider and explain my opinions.

I wasn't assuming you were completely satisfied with 40K. I simply didn't understand why you could be a player with that system, yet insist Tactics was too simplistic to be worth trying. I see far more tactical complexity available in Tactic's system than 40K allows.

I added my rationale for the Armor 2 vs Armor 3 capabilties variance because I saw that stance as a logical progression that fit the sugested data and the dice mechanic used. Every game has to decide how to model probabilities, and as I considered it, I found Tactic's to be a reasonable way to allow multiple weapons to have various effectiveness without requiring multiple extra rolls and such to slow down game play.

I don't need you to agree with me, but I did want to understand why you felt as you do.

40k has an unbeaten player support, the best and most characterful IP along with Warhammer Fantasy (to me), great models and I don't mind the basic resolution mechanics (perhaps just because I've gotten used to them over 20 years) and while they certainly have room for improvement, I wouldn't call the wounding / armour resolution the simplest of all. Say what you will about save modifiers, for futuristic 40k armour they aren't completely required (and especially not with a d6 system, now, with a d12....) when resolving basic weapon fire, because the assumption isn't that a soldier taking a hit goes down anymore, regardless of armour.

But for the final time, my example of offering the armour mechanics as a rule I found not to my liking was not an invitation to debate that opinion over multiple posts, because it feels like you're trying to find a way to undermine my opinion. Besides, it hardly matters, because DW is a separate game and can do things differently.

Frankly I'd rather read the book and make up my own mind rather than speculate about it over and over on the net. Like I said, it can just lead to a further loss of enthusiasm IF the game turns out the way you want. It's too late to do anything about it at this point, but serves me right for going on the forums about an upcoming game.

So.....UH....How about that street date?

Sorry if I came across poorly for you, as it wasn't my intent. As I said, I come to forums to discuss and debate concepts, because I enjoy seeing other people's opinions and trying to understand them as well as sharing my opinions. I wasn't trying to undermine your opinions, but simply to understand them.

I don't see 40K's mechanic as the simplest, I see it as one of the most simplistic. The actual mechanic is rather clunky, but quite workable for those who get used to it. The simplistic part is where they gave up on modifiers to armor, so something like power armor is either 67% effective, or not effective at all, with no variation in between, even when the weapon doing the wounding may be varying from a base 17% up to 83%.

I've played it, and am more likely to play WHFB an earlier edition of 40K, or a converted rules set, but I see nothing wrong with people who still enjoy the 40K roller coaster ride.

I enojoy the 40K fluff, even when I find myself laughing at the absurdities and inconsistencies, but that isn't surprising for a shared universe with lots of people adding thoughts and opinions from within GW, as well as everything players think.

I can be happy with Tactic's rules, even when I find them simple, because they allow tactics to work as tactics should, and the game carries a great visual appeal. I want more complexity from Warfare, but want it to stay true to its roots, rather than branching into something that bears no resemblance to Tactics. It could work if it was done extremely well, but that's a very high bar to reach. Otherwise, it would dilute the appeal of both Warfare and Tactics.

One of my nightmares would be seeing Warfare somehow try to becomes a 40K clone as a few other games have tried to do. I've never seen one of those games do well, nor would I have much interest in it.

reptilebro1 said:

I heard a rumor they decided they needed to do more work on the rules, but have no idea how extensive that might be.

I don't mind, because I'd rather see it late and great than on time but a crime, but official word would be nice.