Hey, I recieved my copy of dust warfare today. Wow! All I can say is they took a nice clean system and made it needlessly complex. I have to say the weapons ranges were unbelleavable. The ranges are shorter than Dust Tactics. Why do they won''t make a Sci-fi game intoe a melea game► I have have played bronze age games with greater ranges with that! I can''t beleave we waited so long for that► Does any want to buy a Dust Warfare Rule book!►

Nohing wrong with a 16" assault rifle range on a 4'' table and the rules alway''s were going to be more deailed, no pont in writing a newr ulebook just to tell you to use a tape measure instead of a grid.

Major Mishap said:

IMO, it sounds like FFG stepped in it, at least as far as I''m concerned. As in, they needlessly complicated and altered the DT system to justify a pricy rule book for DW. A big part of what attracted me to DT was the alternating activations. Yes, there were some issues with alternating activation, but it does look like DW solved those problems with the platoon rules. I was looking for more chrome on top of the core DT system, not a rebuild. Lots of things they could have dealt with in DW without a rewrite of the core rules: alternate vehicle damage tables, vehicle facing, 3D terrain rules and a better balanced list building mechanic. It didn''t need the addition of IGo/UGo turn structure with added on rules to try to kinda sorta keep the "flavor" of DT.

In short we have a great system in Dust Tactics. All we need is to define terrain types, which Warfare does do.

Then plug in some ranges which Warfare does although the ranges are for the 16th century. Here is a though. I know this is old school, but what about a measuring stick marked with the same ranges of a DT grid. This way you have the same ground scale on a terrain board.

The Task organization is decent, but no armor company. Besides in DT I can design a force anyway I like, so I don't see how restrictions are better?

Do you really think I want to place all of these counters and keep track of then? That's what the game needs more counters! DT has the data card for tracking most of what you need. How about one counter placed on a unit when it fails a moral check?

DT is fast and intense, Dw is slow and cumbersome.

Now, I haven't seen the rules, but remember that the range of a weapon in a tabletop wargame game is never usually in scale with the models themselves. Tabletop wargames usually presume that the figures are much bigger than they should be for the ground scale. 16" (if that is correct) does not represent a range of 30 metres (roughly the scale if you use the same scale as the figures). It would be an abstract representation of the range in comparison with other weapons in the game. If you want to visualise it as a "real" distance, multiply the range in inches by about 6-8 and that could give you a rough distance in metres (though for game purposes bigger weapons in particular will often be much shorter than they should be). Doing this for 16" gives you a "real life" distance of about 90-120 metres, which sounds fine for the effective range of an assault rifle.

Also, as said, you have limits on the ranges you give things with limited playing space. A 6x4 foot table seems to be the norm in most current wargames, probably particularly popularised by GW's games, but it is also about as big as you would expect to get without custom built tables (and even then is quite large) and past a certain point people just can't reach across the tables (8 foot is about the practical maximum, and even then you are relying on moving round the table all the time, or getting the other players to move your units). With that as a maximum, ranges cannot be too big as otherwise there would be little point to maneuver (really heavy terrain excepted).

Counters are of course entirely optional. They might be suggested in order to make keeping track of things easy, but if you feel you can do the same task with fewer or no counters then there is nothing stopping you.

Don't know why they couldn't have continued with alternating activations though… plenty of tabletop wargames do it.

From someone who has played a few games of Warfare and absolutely loved Tactics, I can tell you at least I am very impressed with how Warfare came out. Is it way different? Yes, but you still feel a little bit of the Tactics core in there. Are you going to pull more people in to play with a straight conversion from Tactics to the tabletop? Most likely not. It had to be different, it had to be something innovative like Tactics was innovative in its own right. It's far from slow and cumbersome as its not a true ugoigo system, but a hybrid between that and an alternate activation system. There's no reason to pad your army list with 6 observer squads to over out activate your opponent because you can't do that in Warfare. The scenario builder is great and could probably be adapted into Tactics as well. Platoon lists are pretty balanced and I'm sure there will be variations in the future (armored co, etc). There is a fantastic amount of decision making in both systems. I do think FFG has pretty much all the initiative in developing Warfare, and I think that's ok. Both of them and Dust Studios seem to have a great cohesive relationship so far (much better than the old FFG/Rackham relationship) and both are set to be very successful using the same miniatures for 2 completely different games and pulling in different types of crowds for both.

Dust Warfare is not Dust Tactics with the squares removed.

Dust Warfare is a game set in the same alternate universe as Dust Tactics and uses the same models.

If you like Dust Tactics then play Dust Tactics and if you like Dust Warfare then play Dust Warfare.

Warfare is not an expansion to Tactics that allows you to play on a battlefield table.
It is a seperate game that needs to be judged as a seperate game.

Panzer soldier said:

Yes you are right four 4" squares is so much better than 16". Oh wait!

Now I am not a big fan of all the counters, but honestly, they are not that hard to keep track of. Hit Points in D&D are more complicated and involved, just write it down on a sheet of paper, Unit A has 3 suppression markers. Bam, its recorded, you now know.

Would I have preferred longer ranges? Yes of course. Would I have prefered a different Morale system" Yes of course. Does that make Dust Warfare bad? No. Just different.

Besides, you know the errata and FAQ are coming and in a year or two a new edition.

And if the ranges bother you that much, use Dust Tactics ranges and a AT43 tape measure.

My problem with ranges was when they decided to multiply most weapon ranges by 4", but then movement ranges by 6", encouraging the stupidity of saying bringing a knife to a gun fight makes an even match.

The call Suppression a 'Morale' system, but it's only a counter for how many times a unit gets shot at. There is no differentiation in how well a unit stands up to fire except to make vehicles, Zombies and Gorillas immune, as well as one squad per turn for one Axis platoon type with the Blitzkreig order.

Vehicles have been driven off many battlefields without being damaged, so a morale system could have considered them. Squads could have been given some way to resist suppression markers to actually show how some units are better at standing up to fire than others. Right now, a unit of Home Guard conscripts in their 60's are as brave as the bravest of the Red Devils from the SAS, or Volksturm compare equally to the most elite stormtroopers.

Platoon structure is rather laughable. You get choices, but the choices are simply restrictions without considering how the platoon really fits together. An Assault Platoon for the Allies that can only take light and heavy walkers, but none of the medium walkers with actual assault weapons (the petard mortar, short barelled howitzer, and napalm thrower were all designed specifically for assaulting positions).

Having the 40K holdover scenario where a modern army leads its troops into battle with its command elements, with the armored vehicles coming in turns later, was dumb for 40K, and worse for something that pretends to have any roots in history. Whether an alternate history, or not, they still claim to have Rommel, Patton, and the other commanders who trained soldiers to fight far better than that. Modern armies only lead with their command elements when they are in a parade, and don't leave the armored vehicles in the rear if the enemy is anywhere nearby.

There are far too many ridiculous concepts in Warfare for me to be able to play it happily. Tactics at least understood a smoke screen is supposed to obscure a part of the battlefield, where Warfare makes the entire battlefield fill with a fog that only limits long range fire against infantry (with some wepons excepted from that), and leaves all vehicles exposed.

Dust Warfare will be Dust 1940K, for me, because the rules have devolved from a simple but playable tactical game into a mess that needs a complete re-write to be close to the level of tactical thought Tactics gives us.

They said we were getting a more tactical game with Warfare, and we got the illegitimate child of Flames of War and 40K instead.

It will be fine for some players, and I wish the game well, if only so it doesn't kill Tactics if it tanks after people start seeing more of the problems, but I was completely disappointed.

Gimp said:

More accurately; right now experienced soldiers entrusted with costly, alien technology are as brave as other experienced soldiers entrusted with costly, alien technology. Armor 2 is "Elite Soldiers who wear body armor"

just Logan said:

Agree, and that would be a nice to way to make armor even more worthwhile. Each point of armor over 1 allows you to ignore 1 suppression token if you desire (you can hit the dirt if you choose). Cover should also reduce suppression.

Veteran units can be designated by a number as well. Vet 1 rolls a bonus die when removing suppression in the end phase, Vet 2 rolls 2 bonus die, Vet 3….. and so on.

Minor upgrades that can be added as expansions are added. Remember Dust Tactics started with very few add on rules (4 walkers, 6 squads, 2 heroes, 2 terrain types). Each expansion added skills and rules to get it to where it is now. Rules for structures, carrying capacity of vehicles, reactive fire, changes to close combat and so forth.

We have no idea what is coming for us in Zverograd and the future. Extra platoons seem a guarantee and the fact that Zverograd is listed as still in production even though it is due in a matter of months may mean they are holding a few pages for updates and errata to fix "release wave" issues.

Gimp said:

Also, it may simply be a difference of definition. You take Assault to mean "storming a prepared position" and so it should have lots of assault gear while they may have meant "assault" to mean fast moving and mobile, in which case swift moving, light units make sense. Or they think that a full blown "assault" would have a non "assault" platoon to provide fire support (with its flamers and the like) while the "assault" platoon moves up to make the final attack under the cover of the other unit. I don't think the restrictions where applied without thought, just that the thought process that arrived at that decision was different from yours.

borithan said:

The trick is not to redefine the language to try to make words work out nicer. Fact: a lot of terminology for warfare in USA, UK & Germany comes from the same sources. So an "assault" unit isn't meant to "fast & mobile" the building, it is meant to assault it, you know a sudden violent attack that marks the close combat portion of an attack. "Prepared positions" are optional.

However, you may be correct, the thought process that arrived at DW might have been different from Gimp's or mine, but it doesn't make them right if they are botching basic military tactics and language for a wargame. Even if it is a "weird war II" variation, all of this sci-fi alien technology crap could be dealt with by the military commanders of the day. Gee, that is why alternate histories like Dust are plausible if you get past the sticky bit about aliens landing on Earth.

FlorisH said:

You want DT without squares, here you go :

Dust Tactics Freeform

Measuring
Make a custom measuring thread using a knotted string, one knot every 9cm. Count spaces from the first miniature of a squad, i.e. the one closest to where you want to measure. Your target area must be fully within the last knot (space) allowed.

Squad cohesion
Each member of a squad, and attached Hero, must always be enclosed within a 12cm circle. Use a common CD as a cohesion template and make sure all bases fit under it. It's a little larger than the 9cm square we're used to but it gives a little leeway for the static scenery you might use.

Targeting
You may only target one unit, plus any attached Hero, of course. Don’t use the cohesion template as a blast marker!

Vehicles & clearing obstacles
When vehicles have to go around a corner, use a cohesion template to represent the added distance a vehicle must travel to turn around the corner (no diagonals, remember?). Put the CD at the corner and have your measuring string go around the center hole of the CD (stick your finger or a pencil in it). Don’t forget to check that the CD fits between every obstructing terrain piece and use it, as above, to navigate around them.

Terrain
To benefit from cover terrain, all of your unit must be within 12cm of the terrain and at least half of your unit must be behind the terrain. If most of your unit is between the shooter and the terrain, you cannot gain cover from it! Same goes for corner cover : if at least half of the minis are hidden by a building or blocking terrain the unit is in contact with = corner cover.

Now these are MY HOUSE rules… I'm not suggesting that you all adopt them, but if this can make some of you happy, feel free to use and abuse.

This thread is just an example of how wonderful the rules for AT43 were. You had a tape measure, used line of sight and the cards had all the info on them. I have not finished reading DW so I cannot add to the conversation but it does seem to be a different game system than DT. Either way I guess I have the choice to play it however I wish as it is after all a game.

borithan said:

I do take Assault from the standard military definition, where it is meant to be a solid attack on an enemy position. I also take the definition from the armies of WW2 the game is based on, where a short barelled gun on an armored vehicle was an assault gun designed to help attack enemy positions. My notes on the petard mortar and flamethrower vehicles are equally entrenched in WW2 and modern military considerations.

Any game basing itself on a real world example, and layering science fiction elements onto it, should abide by those considerations. Swift moving light units are the modern consideration of recon forces.

I agree that the thought processes that came up with the platoon lists were different than mine. I'm a trained soldier. I'm a military historian. Mack is obviously neither. Talking to a few might have helped make the game seem more like a wargame and less like a cheap movie.

As far as I know "Assault Gun" was a purely German term, and it referred not to the gun itself, but turretless AFVs that carried heavy weapons (ie the StuG). Initially these were short barreled guns for close infantry support, but they were replace by long barreled guns as the increasing need for anti-tank capability became obvious.

Not that other nations' didn't have things that fulfilled the same role, but they weren't referred to as Assault Guns. The British equivalent would be the Infantry Tank in its various guises. The Russian's directly copied the idea (though as far as I can tell, they just referred to them as "self propelled guns"). The American's just used upgunned and uparmoured versions of normal tanks.

I also think the common understanding of "assault" is different from the technical military term. This is commonly demonstrated by news reports when they refer to "assaults" when they just mean "attack".

Check the dictionary. From Dictionary.com:

'a sudden, violent attack; onslaught: an assault on tradition.'

'Military . the stage of close combat in an attack.'

If you have vehicles designed for sudden, violent attacks at close range, they are assault vehicles.

Yes, the Germans lengthened the barrels of their assault guns to help them deal with tanks as well as infantry and fortifications, but they were still originally designed for assaulting a position.

Other countries had developed short barreled guns for infantry support in close range fighting long before WW2, and were still using them. Mounting them in vehicles improved their utility, but didn't change their primary mission of supporting infantry against fortified enemy positions. They had defensive capabilities as well, but the vehicles mounted guns were so mounted to improve their mobility during assault operations.

The petard mortar was designed for the Normandy landings as a short ranged bunker buster.

Vehicle mounted flamethrowers were designed to allow a unit to approach a fortification during an assault on that position carrying a flamethrower with enough protection to get close to the fortification.

So, you have three weapons designed to help make sudden, violent attacks at short range on enemy positions that cannot be used in the platoon designated for sudden, violent attacks at short range on enemy positions.

Anyway, I noted on the Warfare side that I'll be posting far less for a while, so have fun.