Denied said:

Troll alert.

Trolling only works if people allow it to. This thread has had debate, but the largest part of it has been very civil. I do appreciate that, so thank you all.

It's funny to see people insist anyone who doesn't toe the party line is a troll as a defense mechanism. Calling someone a troll does not eliminate the factual points they have made.

As for discussing my gaming history, I've been playing board and miniatures games since '78, running through Avalon Hill, SPI, GW, Warzone, and others of the old guard up through several current games. Someone asked once, and I counted out over 150 miniatures rules sets I've worked with through the years. I won't post titles, as I don't feel that's appropriate on FFG's board. I was comfortable mentioning Warzone, as it isn't a competing product, and using GW as a negative example is certainly not doing anything to promote them here.

For those who insist the majority of those who don't like Warfare are simply Tactics players with loyalty to the board game version, I have to disagree.

Tactics is a reasonable game that can be a lot of fun. Every game has to decide how to deal with certain simulation issues, and Tactics as a hybrid did as well. For players of both games, Tactics dealing with issues in a logical simulationist style (ex: snipers actually being able to snipe), points up more strongly some of the issues with Warfare (where snipers no longer are capable of functioning as snipers should).

Warfare should have been able to build on Tactics, even with the shift to Andy Chamber's reactive mechanic. Most players I know trying to work toward both games expected Warfare to build a stronger set of rules allowing full tabletop play. Having Warfare reverse logical considerations that had been dealt with in Tactics was a huge disappointment, because FFG had the system for much of that in place.

Some artillery ignores cover, and some doesn't, wihtout functional regard to the type of artillery. Artillery can attack anyone, anywhere, regardless of what kind of terrain they are in (ex: firing into covered buildings, or even bunkers, lost logical limitations). Spray doesn't ignore cover, though the Nebelwerfer says it does.

A unit that can jump 12" with no possibility of reactive fire, and then attack 3" further with the target unit specifically unable to move in reaction (though they can move and outrun bullets fired from within 12"), means close combat jump troops have an effective threat range of 15" within which they can devastate enemy units due to their hitting on blanks (Hammers generate an average of 8 hits against Armor 2, and 4 against armor 3, to give an average that wipes out their target unit after armor rolls). It's a nice dodge around the reactive mechanic, and makes them more 'immune' to suppression while on the move, as they can't take fire to get suppressed while moving or attacking. Nobody can fire at the guys that are actuially playing ***** and should be easy targets, and then their target can only fight back against Armor 3 infantry with whatever close combat weapons they possess, as they apparently are too awed to move away or fire appropriate weapons while the jump troops are ridiculously exposed. Airborne troops hate hot landing zones, because they cause dead airborne troops. Jump troops keep jumping and landing, but are somehow immune to what should be their greatest threat.

They are issues that can be dealt with in play, but they are issues that are ludicrous from a simulationist standpoint of a gamer trying to play a realsitic combat simulation with sci-fi elements added. 40K made bringing a knife to a gunfight a standard option for 'cool,' but I don't know of any real soldiers that would rather bring only melee weapons to a modern battlefield.

There is no true justification in saying only Tactics players are unhappy with Warfare. Tactics players can simply see where Warfare took issues that were dealt with in Tactics, and forgot to even consider them in Warfare, or took well designed combat elements, and made them ludicrous (ie: snipers).

Now, you luck out, as I reached my limit for typing.

I don't see anyone saying "only Tactics players are unhappy with Warfare." The other category is people who have read the rules but haven't played the game. :-)

Denied said:

You do realise that people are allowed to discuss the game don't you?

Major Mishap said:

Discussing the game is one thing. That's where people sit down and say "You know I think X is a better unit then Y based on reasons Q-F, What do others think?" or Discussing is "You know I really don't like this, but I do like this." What this thread started out as and is continuing as is just one long winded person b!tching about things they don't like. That sir is trolling a forum.

I have no problem with discussion, but people who have nothing better to do with their lives then sh!t on others I have no time for. You don't have to play this game, but others like it and are going to play it so if you want to have an actual discussion go ahead but if you want to cry about why you don't like something, people don't care. Your not going to convince people not to play this game so bugger off if you don't like it or don't want to play it because the rest of us do and I really think the market will speak for itself. Sorry you feel like the game touched you in a no-no place but I don't have time for your QQing.

I don't see anyone really trolling although I could be missing it because I don't know the personalities around here. I think issues with the game will be worked out in errata and faqs and probably another edition at some point. The more I play the more I see that many things I thought were broken do not appear as bad now or even a lot less effective than I thought. Hammers for instance can be rough but I have found them not as bad as I realized when I started to support my own units a bit more and not leaving them out on an island whenever possible etc.

Last night a group bounced in and dropped my Hans to one wound and then went poof under a flame thrower and guns of a Pioneer squad in my command phase. Same thing happens to my zombies now as my opponents get used to them. They often charge in and pound something to pudding before being reduced to a fine mist by incoming fire. I am still trying to get used to allied medium tanks being able to hop over terrain. Nothing like the surprise of a medium walker bouncing like a bunny over some ruins to scorch one of your squads. One of my main opponents is still trying to get used to my Hans being able to indirect fire, that has cost him a few times. Snipers can be just plain ugly but I will take that over being ineffectual because both sides can take them.

All of this being said I don't see anything so far that makes the game unplayable and I am willing to put my trust in FFG that anything that is way out of sorts will be worked on and hopefully fixed in a satisfactory manner. I don't think anyone should take insult with someone not liking certain aspects of the game. Most have presented their reasons in a well thought out way and agree or disagree with them as long as they are presenting them in a civil manner I don't see the problem. It does not take away from my enjoyment of the game if someone does not like it or finds certain aspects unsatisfactory.

Hmm. My problem with Tactics was that infantry was so slow, and so short-ranged, that walkers clearly dominated the game to the point of making it simiilar to Battletech, where nothing else mattered but walkers. In all fairness, this impression was made with the first play of the original basic set - when a Pounder practically cleared the board in a few turns - and I didn't play with the following expansions; Armor 3 infantry would have made quite the difference, I think. And, yes, I have all the expansions, I just kept them for the tabletop game.

I certainly understand Gimp's reaction to the Heavy Assault Rangers; they are a fairly broken unit. I can attest to this after blasting them last night with three squads and a heavy walker, for three turns, without causing any effects other than suppression, which they shrugged off, thanks to their accompanying hero.

I'll have to look up the Tactics rules for snipers; mine certainly did journeyman service last night, and my opponent is now well interested in a sniper team himself.

(As for your gaming pedigree, Gimp old man, it's nice to meet a fellow fatbeard!)

Denied said:

you seem to be confused about the reason why people post in this thread … its not to convince people to not play the game, its frustration from buying miniatures that at the moment can be considered useless because of a rushed rule-set. You also seem to think the whole deal is centered around what you have and dont have time for. Its not about you, and you dont have to read the thread if it touches you in a no-no place. Calling people who paid for and supported FFGs Dust line trolls is just outrageous.

Haters gonna hate, and haters of the hate gonna hate the haters?

felkor said:

Yup

Lot's of nerd rage in both directions over what amounts to a 1.0 ruleset.

It's got some issues. Wait for the FAQ then. Wargames are like software, they're buggy until at least the first service release. What we should hope for is that FFG is more reactive with its FAQs than that company "over there".

CorpseGod said:

agreed. No on to the flip side anyone notice the awesome models that are the new SSU walkers? like I am in love with those models I really hope they are good so I have an reason to buy a bunch of them.

Gimp said:

Gimp said:

I'm just going to throw this out there, and I don't mean this as any sort of attack on you or your 30 years of miniature game experience, but do you think that you might have already found your perfect game? Maybe Dust Warfare just isn't for you and perhaps instead of belaboring your steadfast point that Dust is critically flawed, you might just move on? Walk away from this rule set and the core issues you disagree with?

I get your point that there are issues with this game, however there are issues with EVERY miniatures game that I have ever played. This game is clearly not the holy grail of mini games, I think we can all agree on that. However, the comments and issues you have raised here haven't really been an issue in any of the few games I have played so far. In fact I have been having a great time with this game and my friends and I have been loving the ability to turn a night of wargaming into a story driven event! We even had allies fighting allies at one point in a mission we called "Blue on Blue" and Axis slugging it out with Axis attempting to stop a rogue group of Nazis from detonating a bomb. This game really goes the distance in selling a cinematic combat experience.

Gimp said:

Two quick issues:

1) Snipers are not assassins. No matter how crazy video games or movies may make it look, United States Marine Corps Scout Snipers (as well as our sniper counter parts in other branches of the United States Military) are no assassins. If you even talk like that around a bull session you might get your head examined. Snipers ignoring cover makes perfect sense, because that is exactly what it means to be a Sniper, you take your time and plot out shots to avoid cover.

2) Simply put, Tactics and Warfare are different games. Yes they do use the same models and the same fluff, but they are different games. From what I can tell, they were also written by different people. Expecting or demanding anything from these guys is a little presumptuous. I have only played a bit of Tactics here and there and it was an alright game, but it played like a board game. It wasn't nearly as dynamic as what I have come to enjoy in Warfare.

Gimp said:

It seems like the main issue you are having with a lot of this game is the individual aspects of units encountered in a vacuum. I wonder how difficult it really is in a game to make what your propose.

However, I want to point out something here. This is a Sci-Fi game with talking Gorillas, Zombies, Lasers, and Maoists controlling China before 1949. It seems that you are asking a game based in fantasy to be a little less fantastic. Yes, Airborne troops hate to drop into a hostile DZ. Though if you have a Rocket Pack and are able to Jump a thousand feet into the air and land in your powered armor you might not be bothered by a hot DZ. If you are just in your Cammies with your vest on is one thing, a full suit of power armor is completely different. If you want a realistic game then maybe you are looking at the wrong product. Just saying.

Gimp said:

While I wouldn't say that only Tactics players don't like Warfare, I do think there is some justification. You clearly don't like Warfare, I don't really like Tactics. What I think I am going to do is not play Tactics, it isn't my cup of tea. Why don't you just not play Warfare? Why continue to punish yourself with rules you don't like and don't agree with? I don't get why you have pushed your arguments into 11 pages of forums when you did such a good job outlining your thoughts in the first page. The issue is that you have come back to defend your complaints, over and over again. However no matter what is written in this thread your arguments don't really change. Sure you drop a few issues here and there but no matter what is said it isn't going to magically change your opinion. However no matter what you write, it probably wont change the way I think about Warfare.

Again, I am not trying to troll you or this thread. No insult was intended or should be taken from what I have written above. I just feel that this whole thread is a giant pit of quick sand and we might be better off moving away from it. Threads like this only start to breed hate and negitivity after a while and I would love to not have this fantastic forum fall to that.

"Threads like this only start to breed hate and negitivity after a while and I would love to not have this fantastic forum fall to that."

I completely agree. However, I would also like to thank Gimp for, for the most part, keeping his complaints confined to this thread. A lot of other people would be spamming all the other threads throwing in negative comments about everything being discussed, and Gimp has, thankfully, not done that. I completely agree with your points that once played, it seems that the vast majority of perceived issues melt away. But a single thread of complaints is easy to avoid for those who want to avoid it - I'm just glad I can discuss the game in other threads and forums and not feel like I'm getting harassed with hate.

Interesting. I usually avoid the internet, because of all the debate (I refer to it as debate because it's largely rhetorical battle, not logical argument/discussion. A good debater doesn't care if the subject being defended is clearly untrue or not), which resolves nothing. As such, I am perhaps not applying the same definition to 'trolling.' Is it just me, or does it seem that said term is now defined as anyone who would like more actual information, and not just rhetorical debate back and forth? I was curious about Gimp's wargaming background merely as a matter of context, and for one am pleased to find another old-school gamer out there.

Re: Gimp's original subject, I found his list of problems to be informative and actually reasonable. I also understand his reticence towards adopting Warfare; indeed, following these posts has shown me that my initial sunny evaluation of the game didn't see all the dark clouds lurking beneath the sunny exterior. I've been checking this forum routinely, learning more about the rules as I read, and I'm quite glad that there have been a lot of people who haven't been the least bit bashful about speaking up to answer rules questions (thanks much!). Just because I don't weigh in on every dispute doesn't mean I'm not interested. Like most of the rest of us, I'm waiting for the errata (I do love and respect that FFG still refers to it as errata, and not some mealy-mouthed pseudonym such as 'FAQ.' The first time I saw that bit was in the early 90s, put out by Games Workshop, under the apparent auspicies of 'we don't have errors, we only have 'frequently asked questions.' Good on FFG!). Hopefully, at that time, a lot of the dissention will be cleared up.

(Yes, I know, awfully optimistic of me, but I can hope.)

felkor said:

felkor said:

Seconded. On all points. And I understand Gimp's passion, even if I disagree with most of the actual reasoning. It's just a difference of perspective, not one of fact, IMO.

The conclusion I've drawn most from this thread (and others, both here and in the DT forums) is this:

Folks who are avidly loyal DT players were expecting DW to be an expansion rules set, not a new game, and are at the very least disappointed (justifiably based on their expectations which were somewhat heightened early on when it was stated the cards would be usable in both games), if not outraged at the fact their expectations weren't met. While folks who bought DT preparatory to DW and only played DT occasionally as a fun aside to their other full-blown mini games, are for the most part happy with DW. Especially after plaing a few games and getting the hang of how it works.

I fall mostly into the latter category, but as a known, war-game "demo" guy, I am quite a fan of both systems, as long as I look beyond what they aren't, namely a single system with basic (DT) and advanced (DW) rules. As Resv and others have said, they are two very different games. They just share a setting (which as a "fluff" fan I love) and models (something my wallet loves)!

I actually fall into category 1 - I was quite disappointed to find out my DT unit cards weren't going to work with DW. I read the rules and had mixed opinions, feeling like there were some major balance issues.

Then I played the game, and WOW. Love what they did with it - everything fits together so well and the game feels quite balanced in all the right ways.

If you've read the rules, and are bothered by historical accuracies, then that's fine - I personally don't care much about those but I completely understand those that do.

But if you think the game is unbalanced and there are broken units and you haven't yet played the game… well, then you really are just hurting yourself by preventing yourself from enjoying a really fun, tactical game.

As mentioned above, you can't just take rules and stats in a vacuum. It all works together and there are checks and balances that you don't quite realize until you start playing the game.

In the end, the point is fun. And if the game doesn't have what it takes to be fun for you, then change things up to make it fun, or go on to a different game. Talking about games is fun too, even when we disagree and when we think a game could be better than it is - so as long as we aren't going out of our way to step on people's toes (by spamming every thread in the boards with hate), then by all means, speak your mind, but do it with respect to all.

Yeah, the cards were the big disappointment for me. Especially after buying the new deck, lol. But I started seeing right away the changes were necessitated by the different rules to maintain balance. I think they did very well.

Interesting side note: The first two mini games I played back when I was cutting my wargames grognard teeth circa 1978 were, like DT/DW, both attached in some way to another game (both of which were more famous than the mini game associated with them). The first, named after the type of armor made from linking chains together, was the impetus for a couple of guys named Arneson & Gygax to create a small little RPG and organize a small convention in the Lake Geneva area (now in Indianapolis), the other was a miniature game spin-off of a Sci-Fi RPG, where characters "travelled" the stars that shares its name with the US Army's 8-Wheeled IAV.

I loved all four of those games back in the day. I think it was way easier to adopt the, "these are two totally different games" vis-a-vis the miniature game vs their RPG counterpart than DT and DW, but I'm guessing had Internet forums been around back then, there would have been some definite, "What have they done to my beloved game?" discussions as well. Let's face it folks, as adaptable as we humans are, we tend to resist change. Especially change to that which we love! Say, anybody want to play some 1st Ed of that Arneson & Gygax game? It really was the best.

*Edited for grammar

I just want to throw this out there for everyone, don't kill me.

Telling gimp to go play something else doesn't help the fact he has admitted to not playing the game.

CSMason26 said:

You say that as if that was something dramatic? Just because most of you don't have the perspective that comes from 20+ years of playing and evaluating games doesn't mean other people don't.

Playtesting is important and reveals a lot about game flow and army vs army interplay, but it's not like it will make any specific issues disappear.

But I understand it's the same kind of attitude some performers at talent shows take: "you're not qualified to judge me because you can't do it yourself", which is frankly just plain stupid.

Oh, and please don't feed Denied.

Sami K said:

i'll tell you what… I bet if I was to walk into the Hill Top or some other food eatery and wrote a review on the food without actually TASTING IT but simply on the quality of the menu and the ingredients that were put into it you'd be scoffing at me left and right about it. It's the same thing here. The review complains about several things that when playing the actual game are unaffected or actually help it flow better.

Better yet… how about I close my eyes and write a review about a movie I'm listening to? Because writing a review about a TABLE TOP GAME without actually PLAYING SAID GAME is only a half review.

As to feeding Denied… Denied, I've got crackers.

I have to admit I was a bit skeptical of a few things before trying them out. The more I play the more I find the game fairly well balanced. The only self imposed rule we are playing by right now is only one sniper team per 300 points.

CSMason26 said:

i CAN HAZ CRAKERZ !?

Yes, feed me because I am the troll who goes in to a forum about a game I haven't played slap my "pedigree" of gaming down by listing all the games I have played in the past and say this game is crap simply by looking over the rule book for a little bit. Just because you have played a lot of wargames in the past does not make you the freaking Messiah of wargames here to save all the lost souls from what you see as a failed game.

Like get over yourself and if you don't like it don't play it and stop trying to kill everyone else's buzz who is enjoying this awesome dynamic game. This was not a discussion thread it was a troll coming over to sh!t on everyone else's parade and because we are all nice people everyone tried to convince the troll additional fecal material was not needed only here's the small problem with that the Troll doesn't care because you're giving him attention which is all he wants. So sorry Gimp get over yourself you're not king Wargamer and no one cares about why you think this game fails, because the rest of us who have been PLAYING it love it. Shove off please!

Hey tough guy, why don't you do us a favor and relax? Your baby is ugly -- don't like that, cool disagree but keep your tone polite.

Why don't we revisit Gimp's opening statement, which I find to be very untroll-like:

Some people had asked me to look over Warfare, and give my opinion. I tend to be long winded, so feel free to skip this post if you're completely happy with Warfare, because I'm not. So long as you're having fun, rock on.

Gimp posted a review because he was asked. He stated right up front that if you were happy with DW, to skip this post. And he politely said that if you are having fun, then continue to do so. This thread has continued for 12 pages because it provoked discussion, which until now has been mostly cordial, by many other people than just Gimp. Recently the term troll has been bandied around, and I take offense to that. I know Gimp personally and can attest to his character; he is no troll. You may think this thread somehow diminishes DW but in fact it elevates DW by the simple act of prompting thought and discussion. How boring it would be to write nothing but praise, and not take the chance to call the emperor naked. Nothing is perfect especially in the first go around, but this thread might be of use in creating something better in the long run; disagreement can promote understanding.

I believe this thread has mostly run its course. I have an idea -- why don't we codify the problems Gimp posted about in the beginning. Then each one can be addressed in a singular fashion by those who have played several games. We would then have something constructive, which could dismiss all of Gimp's misgivings, or be turned in to FFG for comment. At the very least, more games would be played and a greater understanding had of where problems might lie.

Whether or not you choose to avail yourself of the knowledge that comes with experience and maturity is your own choice. Gimp never professed to be "the freaking Messiah of wargames." Using such derogatory language demeans yourself, and refuting knowledge does not make you smarter.

Cheers!

Huzzah, KiltedWolf, huzzah! Your point is the point of attack for this thread, really: Let's make a cogent list of the problems that we've found with Warfare and present it to the FFG people in order to assist them in making the errata we desire to actually play the game without the problems that we've found. We'll likely find others, naturally, but this would be a concrete and positive start.

Others have mentioned so many of the other problems that I'll only state one: A lot of us play with area terrain, particularly foliage-based terrain - you know, the stuff that you can find all over Earth, sequestering carbon and releasing oxygen? As such, we need actual rules concerning line-of-sight into such terrain, since an actual representation of such dense foliage would be impossible to place figures in and move figures through - and I'm talking infantry; I won't even get into walkers.

Warboss Krag said:

As stated, I think it might be best if these issues where tackled in separate threads. KiltedWolf may have taken a constructive view of Gimp's comments, but I think from the comments, it is evident that many people (including myself) did not. If you want to seriously address them, this thread is not the place to do it. As KW said, it's past "run it's course". It's a BlutKruez horse. That's been smacked by a Rocket Fist, or two. But still doesn't seem to get suppressed.

Actually, I would be very interested in "shaking out" the specific comments Gimp made, if just to put the whole thing to rest. My personal opinion, having played the games a few times and read the book a few times, is that we would ultimately find there is very little there. Much of it has been addressed by various people in this unfortunately long thread, and many of the original comments seem to have been based on either misinformation or misunderstanding.

If the OP (or anyone, for that matter) (in any forum) (throughout the history of the internet) seriously wants to highlight and address specific issues, I think he would be well advised to address them one at a time, rather than as a shotgun blast wall of text that defies most attention spans.