Thread for noting possible inconsistencies and typos in the core rules.

Sniper (p.56)
Does not have the Shared trait, but the text says "An attack made by a unit with a Sniper..."

This appears to be inconsistent. Is the intent that Angela would confer the Sniper special ability on a unit she joins? If so, she seems overpowered relative to other Heroes.

1) Rhino and Ozz 117 are only listed as move 6 and not move 12

2) .50 cal has a range of 16'' but dual and quad .50 cal both have a range of 24"

3) action jackson and rosie are missing unit info

4) Sturmpioniere lost Fast►

50 Sigrid is listed as only have 1 wound but has a DC of 4

I want to keep a eye on this thread… thanks for starting it

1.) No stat line for the artillery associated with the Kommandotrupp''s artillery strike special ability (pg. 117).

2.) Should Black Ops be a Shared ability (pg. 53) - without it, it seems Bazooka Joe would lose it when embedded with a section.

kommandotrupps arty strike is for calling in a strike from a unit that is on the board i belive. like a lothar.

Pg. 53 has the rules for Artillery Strike. It works just like the Beobachters AS. As far as Black Ops goes, we could see future unit releases that will have that ability. I don''t see Angela being over powerd because of sniper. The units she can join are limited. She is the most expensive Hero as well.

Dakkon426 said:

I guess that makes sense, but it''s a little inconsistent, since their opposite on the Allies side has an extra off board artillery unit.

Grim6 said:

I have a new name for my fears and that is Long Tom!

Grim6 said:

I don''t see it as inconsistent at all. Long Toms are a platoon special rule, and the Germans get a different platoon special rule. Both sides can use their artillery units with the Artillery Strike.

A few things I think are weird so far:

1) Ozz and Rhino only having a move of 12. I''m 99% sure this is a typo, because I refuse to believe that teh intent was for them to be wandering off on their own.

2) Range of .50 cal. Its got the same range and only minorly different stats than the .30 cal. I would prefer it to have a longer range like it does in tactics, but I won''t lose any sleep over it.

There were a few others, but I''m at work and my book is at home ftl.

Jowimus said:

It''s just that using that special ability requires you to take up an extra 40 point in your army, not to mention, buy the figure. I''m sure it balances out. Maybe I''ll get the Lothar before my next game…

I think there''s a discrepancy with the nebelwerfer 42 on the medium axis walkers. The discription of the weapon states that unlike spray rules you do get a cover save… but the spray weapon ability doesn''t mention negating cover saves (burst does).

Are people emailing these questions into FFG? It would be good to get official answers about them ASAP.

felkor said:

Not if the answers come back wrong as they have several times for Tactics.

I've been extrmely underwhelmed by Warfare. It was sent back for reworking before the original release date, yet when it finally got here, it looks like something that needs to go back for editing and review. If my FLGS had not ordered me a copy, I would nothave bought it, not because I don't like the style of game it represents, but because it is so much in need of an overhaul to correct rules issues and design stupidity even after its delay for corrections. This is an errata thread, so I won't go into that any more here, but as some players asked me to note what I thought of Warfare, I'll do it later in another thread. Fanboys, be prepared for a large target.

A few additional rules specific problems others haven't mentioned yet:

Minefields are noted as being able to be attacked and reduced by artillery, but the combat stats to attack the minefield are missing, as is any definition of what weapons qualify as artillery for that purpose. Reducing minefields by individual high explosive shells is a ludicrous proposition, but that escaped the designer's mindset. It's also odd that a Dozer Blade, traditionally used as a counter for minefields, has no advantage against Minefields.

Air Drop is noted as being like Reserved, but also worded differently, suggesting as worded that Air Dropped units may be able to take actions normally when they come onto the table. Hopefully not the case, but something that needs to be clarified.

Grenades specify an Attack action that 'includes one or more Grenade weapons will always cause a Suppresion marker,' and continues with, 'In addition, like Burst weapons, cover cannot cancel damage from an attack that includes one or more Grenade Weapons.' As worded, that would mean adding a single Grenade weapon to an attack would negate cover for all of the other weapons included in the attack . That would be a ridiculous increase in combat capability when you consider the Axis equivalent squads cost the same, but do not have that advantage.

I saw many other issues, but most are related to terrible design, as opposed to specific rules wording, or have escaped my memory for now.

Minefields I agree aren't completely clear, we've done 1 die per point of density like an attack the other way. And artillery weapons would be… artillery weapons.

Air drop is treated as reserve except on how they enter. So a march move to air drop or nothing at all.

And yes, any attack that includes a grenade in the attack would auto apply one suppression marker. So if you spilt your lines, you'd only benefit the line that targets the same enemy as the grenade line. That's how we've interpreted it.

Does the MG48 for Axis Soldier units really only have 3 dice versus Soldier 2 targets, when the example on p43 states it has 4 dice, like it does in Dust Tactics?

Gimp said:

Airdrop is pretty clear that it works just like reserve and is a march move.

Artillery would be Artillery units…thought that would be pretty clear.

As for the grenade thing, it really doesn't seem all that ridiculous to me. How often is a range 12", reloadable weapon really going to fire in a game where you lose half your actions at the drop of a hat through suppression? Once? Twice? This may well be balanced out by other Axis special abilities, such as blutzkrz immunity to suppression. Looking at things in a one on one comparison rarely makes sense from a wargaming perspective because the factions play so differently.

I wouldn't be surprised to see an official FAQ out in the next few weeks resolving alot of smaller issues. WizWar had one out within something like 2 weeks.

Air Drop specfies: 'Instead of entering as normal per the Reserved rules , the unit is placed anywhere on the board more than 12" away from any enemy miniatures.' Reserved specifies the unit must take a March Move, and instead of moving, each miniature is placed at any table edge more than 12" away from enemy models.

Since Air Drop specifies it does not enter using the Reserved rules, with no further clarification, than exactly what rules Air Drop uses needs to be specified. I certainly hope the intent was to consider it a March Move to enter with Air Drop, but Air Drop only specifies that it does not enter using the Reserved rules, but only that they are kept off the board from initial deployment using the Reserved rules.

Minefields do not specify clearance by weapons with the Artillery Weapons special ability. Minefields are cleared using artillery described as shooting high explosives at the ground nearby. Even a 20mm canon on the Luther was and still is classed as a piece of artillery that throws high explosives around. A 155mm howitzer is certainly classed as an artillery weapon, and the German 88mm was famous as a multi-purpose artillery weapon. If they meant it to include only weapons with the Artillery Weapon special ability, it should be clear, though they may then want to consider why a Long Tom barrage can't be targetted on minefields as it does not include that specification.

UGL's removing cover protection for all weapons included in the attack being suggested as balanced by things like Blitzkrieg is ludicrous. Blitzkreig is an order available to one platoon type allowed to be used on one squad per turn. That cannot balance the removal of cover for all other platoon types and squads not currently recieving Blitzkreig's benefits.

Allowing UGL's to remove all cover benefit means all cover is negated by the attack. Even Blitzkrieg's immunity to Suppression does not negate the loss of two points of automatic damage reduction. That's the equivalent of adding six dice to the UGL squad's attack (to otherwise attain the two additional damage points heavy cover would otherwise negate).

Direct comparison of units can shift based on metagame concepts, but those balancing concepts must be overarching concepts , and not limited case specific possibilties to properly reflect force balance. Blitzkrieg would be balanced by each of the Allied platoon advantages, but UGL's negating all cover would have to be balanced regardless of which platoons are chosen, or the balance fails.

A unit's point value has to reflect its capabilities, so even if direct comparison of units can be difficult with varied abilities and weapons, the overall capabilities of two units with the same point value should be similar. The Gunners offer four assault rifles, one bazooka, and four UGL's. The Battle Grenadiers offer four assault rifles of equal capability, one panzerschreck equivalent to the bazooka, and two panzerfausts capable of the same overall damage as the four UGL's against vehicles, but far less against infantry.

Both are relatively equal, with a minor edge against infantry for the Gunners, and higher individual damagepotential against vehicles for the Battle Grenadiers.

Adding the removal of cover for fire from the Gunners radically increases their damage potential, with nothing to balance that for an Axis unit point costed to say it has equivalent capabilities.

Laser Grenadiers cost more, with slightly improved anti-vehicle damage potential againt light vehicles, but with far less anti-infantry capability, though capable of using it every turn.

Recon Grenadiers cost the same, gain against aircraft, lose against Armor 4 infantry and vehicles, and vary between slightly more or less against other infantry based on reloading the UGL's.

Those are all similar squads. What overarching metagame concept balances the loss of all cover protection against all possible platoon types the Axis can field? Remeber that vehicles can benefit from cover in Warfare, and so loss out with the enhanced cover loss from UGL's as well.

I don't have the book quite yet but I can see on the platoon preview example that the Long Tom is called Artillery on page 88 of the rules.

I still don't understand the Artillery confusion - the game labels weapons as artillery - what someone might argue is called artillery outside of the game is irrelevant to the rules.

felkor said:

It's called artillery, but it is not given the Artillery Weapon special ability in its description. It only lists Burst as a special ability. Fluff is not rules, so we need the rules. It holds no more weight than the Nebelwerfer noting its Spray ability is an exception that allows cover saves when Spray does not allow them for any weapons as written.

All I can say, Gimp, is that I wish you had posted this just a bit earlier.

I am normally cautious about buying new things like this without having read reviews, but having looked forward to this, and then being at the store yesterday I felt pressured to get it, so I did.

Now I have buyer's remorse. You've accurately highlighted the faults running rampant in the system, not just the typos and mistakes, but the terrible design decisions.

That issue with the grenades really hit the point home just a few hours ago, and yeah, it alone can ruin the game. Adding a grenade to an attack negates cover entirely? All the non-heavy ranger units have UGLs!

Since this is an entirely new game and I don't really feel like promoting this product, where does that leave us? c. 40 money poorer, I suppose, and with a lesson learned.

Or do you think otherwise? Fan rules are one thing, but we all know how well those work with promoting a new system, let alone trying to get house rules added to an existing game (in my experience, 9 players out of 10 will absolutely only want to play official rules, except where the errors in the rules are glaring and obvious).

Gimp said:

Actually that is pretty clear to me. I read it as only modifying how they "Enter" the field of play. It never says to alter any part except the entrance.

[Disclaimer: I do not own the book, just using the info provided.]

Look at it like this… You're not $40 poorer, you just have to take the time to either find a house ruling set, wait for errata to come out from Fantasy Flight (I mean the books only been out for a week. Look at how long things stay broken with GW.) And the fact that a campaign book is expected to come out sooner rather than later, I'm sure we'll see some fixes or things to simply pencil in for fixes.

I for one am still going to promote the game and look forward to seeing it grow.

CSMason26 said:

Amen brother. Preach it!

There can be a future for DW, I'm not saying that. It probably isn't this release yet, though.

Kind of hard to do community building with house rules….but let's see how it goes.

In any case, it remains to be seen whether any "updates" just need to be purchased separately with no FoW-like customer care involved.