@Gimp - I have to say, after delivering such a lengthy and harsh criticism of the game, it's a bit jarring to see you misinterpret something which seems very clear. I don't say that to put you down, but I do wonder if maybe some more time reading the rules and actually trying them in play might have given you a better impression of the game?

I have to say, there are some things which I was concerned about how it would fit together, and I found during play that it worked out very nicely. Suppression is one of these things. I kinda love the mechanics now. I love the idea that plinking away at an enemy, even if you don't hurt them, makes them put their head down. This is a fundamental infantry tactic: use a support element to suppress the enemy while an assault team charges in to finish them off. Tanks don't get suppressed the same way, though they can have sight block knocked out, fires set, weapons damaged, etc, and this system does, IMO, a great job of representing it.

Many of these side threads on specific rules issues I'm using to point out problems with wording.

As it is worded, something that causes suppression should have some effect on the Vehicle Damage Table. I easily see that is not likely to be what was intended, but it was what was written. Either poor wording, or a missing section of rules detailing how suppression would cause some kind of roll on the VDT. I assume poor wording, but I also study English, and know how gamers like to creatively interpret.

Realize I look at new rules as someone who has run tournament events for several game systems through the years. I look for the wording that can cause problems. Whether I see how the designers intended it, or not, how they wrote it, and how players can interpret it, is very important, especially with FFG wanting to use Warfare in a major tournament setting.

Gimp said:

How can the phrase "Vehicles do not gain Suppression markers" be confusing?? It's on page 44. Right above the big words that say ATTACKING VEHICLES. Below the big words, it says in the middle of the second paragraph down it explains:

"When a vehicle suffers one or more damage, but is not destroyed, the attacking player rolls a number of Combat Dice on the Vehicle Damage Table equal to the amount of damage dealt to the vehicle before the Armor roll."

Seems awfully clear to me. Didn't see anything about suppression on the VDT table. At all.

I really don't want to get into another drawn out exchange, I just hope you look at the rules a little more closely. They are not that confusing. It might not be what you are used to or what you expected, but the text is really pretty clear.

I don't know about the rest of you, but it's gotten to the point that I no longer read Gimp's rants. I'm tired of reading post that seem motivated by nothing more than a desire to bash a game that many of us are enjoying. I've yet to see anything constructive in his posts. Dust Warfare is just a game, and nothing I've seen in the rules makes it one I'm not willing to play.

The only point that I'm willing to concede is the number of typos. For anyone, and especially someone that puts out the number of games that FFG does, that is unforgivable. Someone as large as FFG should have a staff of editors to review and correct these problems for all the games they publish and nothing should get out that is this bad.

Grim6 said:

That part is clear. The point I brought up for clarity is from the same page directly after your quote: 'Vehicles do not gain Suppression markers. Instead, vehicles suffer additional effects on the Vehicle Damage Table .' The entire paragraph must be considered for context.

That paragraph is all about vehicles and suppression, and only about vehicles and suppression, so it says vehicles suffer effects on the Vehicle Damage Table when they would otherwise suffer from Suppression. There are then no mechanics to show how that would apply.

If vehicles do not have to worry about Suppression at all, that entire second sentence is superfluous, and only adds questions.

The same situation applies to the wording under Vehicles and Suppression on page 45: 'Vehicles cannot gain Suppression markers. Instead, when a vehicle is attacked, it may suffer other negative effects (see "Vehicle Damage Table" on page 44)."

Note there is no specification in either paragraph requiring damage be dealt to require a VDT roll, only that something happens on the VDT instead of the vehicle gaining a Suppression marker .

That there is no specification of how Suppression is rolled on the VDT could be an ommision, or it can be a wording error including references to the VDT that do not need to be there.

Both paragraphs specify no Suppression marker is gained and Instead use the VDT.

People are welcome to ignore my posts. I don't care. Acknowledging that adds nothing to the discussion, but whatever makes you happy.

The wording error I have pointed out, whether suggesting a VDT roll instead of gaining a Suppression marker, or forgetting to include the mechanics for such a roll, exists whether people read my explanations, or not.

It could be easily rectified, but it should be addressed.

Gimp said:

As far as any one can tell you are the only one who thinks that this occurs. Everyone else has managed to read the entire page of rules and understands that you only roll on the vehicle damage table if the vehicle has damage assigned to it before armor rolls. It is very clear i do not know why you find it confusing.

Mecha-Gojira said:

Actually, I have other people agreeing with me, but that isn't the point. English is English, and follows specific rules. Gamers are gamers, and frequently ignore those rules to make things work the way they expect them to.

I evaluate rules wording the way I do after having run game tournaments for multiple systems where players look for whatever advantage they can.

I'm not fond of rules lawyers, so I tend to look for the kind of things they would exploit.

I've also worked as an editor, so I have to evaluate actual wording for professional documents.