I'll keep it simple:

For someone who want to get into Dust Tactics, can I play this game "the way it's meant to be played" by only buying the Revised Core Set and later on buying some expansions and troops? Or do I absolutely need the first Core Set to play this game as it should be?

Thanks a bunch!

Yes, you certainly can. But if you just want the "basic experience" I'd advise on the old core set, over the revised one.

Yea by all means you can get the Revised Core Set. Just people recommend the other bc it comes with a lot more for the price and the fact that it might be going away permanently.

Ok thanks, i'll see tonight I guess

The thing is, it's not about price it's simply about playtime schedule for me and my buddies. We don't play that much (we try to play once a week at least) and it's often with more than 2 players.

I can play weekly with 1 friend only but spending 100 bucks on a game to play it here and there I don't know yet. I'll see tonight if it's worth it since earlier this week my FLGS had the old core set in stock.

You are the only one who can say if you think $100 is too much of an investment for time played.( I wish I could get in 1 day a week for DT!) For me, with all the fun I have with this game ( and since I'm also a hobbiest not just a gamer) the Original box set was a great value!! So much so that I bought 2! and then 2 more Revised sets when they came out!! I know, I have a problem...but admitting it is half the battle!

You can have a fun time just using the Box set minis, and playing your own easy scenerios, or finding ones online, and never have to spend another penny on it again. BUT, when you see all of the cool new minis and expansions coming out, you might find them all hard to resist! And even if you arent into typical "wargames", FFG is making everything in the future usable for the simpler Dust Tactics, wich plays quickly and is easy to learn. You wont have to upgrade to Dust Warfare (a much more rules intensive wargame) if you dont want to.

So if you decide to jump into war-torn 1947, a big welcome from all us at the Madhouse....I mean forum....excuse me.

Have fun blow'n stuff up!

Major Headcase said:

I think "upgrade" to Warfare is a very erroneous way of putting it. They are different games, but we can't really say one is "higher gaming" than the other or anything like that.

Loophole Master said:

I completely agree. To me it's sounding more and more like Dust Warfare is a large, complex tabletop game, as opposed to the quick and simple Dust Tactics. Personally, I don't think that's an upgrade at all. If there are more tables in DW than I can fit on a single sheet of paper for quick reference, then I will probably pass on it, as I won't be able to find anyone all that interested in playing it with me.

felkor said:

Yes and no...

Warfare is more complex and a few more extra rules, but it is not as difficult to learn as say, 40k is.

Gobbo said:

Thanks. Perhaps this is more detail than you are allowed to reveal, but what about tables - are there a lot of look-up tables? The biggest annoyance with games like 40K is the massive number of look-up tables (most of which could be completely eliminated with some minor tweaking of the rules.) I'm curious as to where Dust Warfare is at this. My hope would be that once you've played a game or two, you wouldn't really have to reference the tables anymore.

I guess I started a wildfire with the word "upgrade"! I just meant you wont need to "expand" into the realm of hardcore wargaming, that Dust Tactics will still be supported and kept relavent with future FFG products! While I do intend to play Warfare, I and my friends will still play Tactics for quicker, more casual games whilst enjoying a beer or three! I was in no way implying Warfare would be better than Tactics! I'm still a Grid-Head!

I'm trying to talk my gf in buying this for me at Christmas...even though she hates boardgames with a passion. But, she doesn't really know what to get me yet so I convinced her that this would be a gift I won't forget

She's open to the idea so I guess there's some chances i'll be a happy geek this Christmas hahahah.

We'll see. If she ends up getting me something else, i'll get it on my own! I'll have plenty of time thinking about which set to get.

felkor said:

I can say there are not a lot of tables and by that I mean there is one for Armor. There are also Weapons stats and such, but that is to be expected. Also, the cards for Tactics are NOT used for Warfare. That is all I can say due to the NDA and only that much as those have been seen by those who got to demo it at Gencon.

Gobbo said:

But is it as prone to rules lawyering as 40k rules are?

??? So I guess it means we get the basic stats for the troops and walkers in the corebook and we'll have expanded rules with upcoming army books just like Mr. Chambers wanted?

Interesting. I was hoping the cards would get used, as they make it so easy to keep track of your units, their abilities, what they've done in the game, damage, etc. I hope it's still just as easy in Warfare. I'm sure the cards make things a bit less flexible for game design, but I was still hoping they'd get used.

I'm still quite interested in this game, but I'm starting to think more and more that my gaming friends (none of whom are into miniature gaming) are not going to be keen on giving this a chance, and will want to stick to Dust Tactics.

Anyway, thank you for the info.

Algesan said:

We did everything we could to prevent that. We have some good rules lawyers that I play with [the good kind who find problems and make suggestions on how to fix the issues]. We found all the loop holes we could and patched them up with rules that make sense...

sparkybrain said:

Unless there is a radical change to the book since the last update, then yeah...

Gobbo said:

That's too bad. Building on Tactics would make the game easier for people to shift between the two.

If the changes are needed to expand the game, I can accept it, but if the changes are simply to make the game more different, it would be a huge disappointment.

I'd understood the combat system was staying fairly similar, which would leave the data cards useful, as they had been in the Warfare demoes at GenCon. Even if unit structure were made more free form, the data cards would be useful for tracking information and weapon references.

Change to expand or improve is a good thing. Change simply to make things completely different would be rather sad. Minor changes that simply invalidate the data cards should have game mechanics to back up the reasons for the change, or it will make the values for both games look questionable, and that would be bad for both games.

I wish that a bit more of Warfares actual combat systems had been shown to us, I play S.O.T.T.R. and think that for a D-6 basic rules it delivers a lot of what I would expect Warfare to give us. A few of the things are buildings, the differences in quality of cover,for example bushes, trees and brick walls, and a really nice crew bale out system to put that nice touch to "Hells bells I just found the mine field". Joking aside, I hope that for it`s price Warfare delivers as there are no miniatures with it to fall back on. Dusts two boxes give good minis, extra rules well thought out and adding different applications to try. I have never thought of them too dear, or not worth it. Warfare looks very photo structured with great battle shots roaming through the streets. I really hope it`s not a "Catalogue" look at our range rules aka Racham. To all Dust Players everywhere, Good Night take care.

Gimp said:

Hmmm, well that thought will make me definitely wait on Dust Warfare reviews and comments. If it becomes "Core Rulebook + Army Codex" model along with the "Official Models & Cards Only" then I'm probably not interested. Doesn't matter how great a game system it is either. I don't intend to support FFG going any further down the GW business model road. DW as DT sans grid & on the tabletop with some extra nifty mechanics was a great idea and still is, but part of that includes unit cards and easy translation back and forth between the two.