Sami K said:

I don't mind differences of opinion, but we heard yours and gimp's. Continually saying the same thing does not make for good conversation and does nothing to evolve the game or this thread.

I love the game warts and all. Yes it has warts.

Here's the reality, there will be no re-write unless initial success (ala Descent) and only after a number of years. Hoping for it is folly.

The unsurprising news is that the more "shut up, stop talking, shove off" comments there are, the longer the discussion will continue.

As I can't believe anyone wouldn't actually know that, I'm led to no other conclusion but that some people just want to fan the flames for their own sake.

My messages haven't really been about trashing the game for a while, I'm mostly trying to end the discussion peacefully and I might just do so after this.

You are right that only sales will create a new edition of the game, and only after a number of years at that. FFG might have got the message that there are people interested in a revision beyond those that already bought the first edition, but it's also possible that fighting and bad attitudes here mask all that.

What we could do, instead, is to create a thread where this message is conveyed, whether it's started by Gimp, me, or anyone, and the only answers allowed would be "/sign"….but before that happens, a discussion thread like this will have to do.

thejughead said:

Saying you love the game all over doesnt improve the game either. And if you dont have any issues with the game, what in bl**dy hell are you doing in this thread at all? And truth is you have a **** hard time with difference of opinion. Denied calls my posts hate mongering that no one listens to, yet he keeps coming in here reading them and responding to them. Start a new thread and list all suggestions for improvement i say, and we keep it civil. Hopefully "lovers" of the game can allow some criticism of the game without feeling too threatened.

Why are you angry that I love the game? I love Dust Tactics too. I hate 40k. Enough balance or you? Next time try not to suppress thoughts or bully people and you might find a meaningful discussion.

I have no idea what you are on about now, but since this is how posts are interpreted here I will stop posting in this thread before i somehow offend someones cat or uncle.

thejughead said:

Isn't this a distinct case of the pot calling the kettle black and all that?

Yeah Sami look back at your posts that description is YOU, entirely.

Actually Jughead me and Sami K I think are actually at an agreement, he is not the "type" that are making this thread unbearable its really just Gimp who comes in with his long winded and poorly worded endless responses to people who say SHUT UP! and occasionally Hatamoto who for all intensive purposes is my opposite in so many ways. I WILL DESTROY YOU BIZZARO DENIED! Also I have been drinking HEAVILY tonight at a LAN party so its about to get all kinds of twisted up in this thread if those nutters don't piss off! (again I actually think your fine Sami K me and you we can go get a Falafel some time :-P )

Heh, Denied, that might be reverse psychology, but it works for me!

I don't know if I should even deign Jug's accusation of bullying and thought-suppressing with a response, because now it just seems like provoking again…

I'm not going to go there.

But in any case, we haven't seen anything about the rules itself for a while now, and nobody profits from an ad hominem "argument", if you can call it from that. If anyone has any new insights to add, feel free, but at least I'm bored with the schoolyard arguments. We have enough of a consensus. If FFG hasn't heard from us by now, they never will.

It took FFG less than 2 years to revise Dust Tactics, sure it wasnt a huge revision, but they could very well do a 2nd edition or a revision in a year or so ( they do like to make money and nothing is better than getting people to buy the same product more than once).

But sales are not what get 2nd ediitions. Time and issues do. I dont want to wait 5 years to get a 2nd edition so FFG needs to hear about issues. WHat we dont like, what we do like, what people would want to see changed or kept.

I would like less ambiguous cover/obscured/line of sight rules and more platoon options and upgrades. I would like to see special HERO platoons (the Markus Ape Platoon or Action Jackson Para Platoon) be able to buy support units and platoon upgrades beacuse on a 150 point game I can field 4 squad sof Gorillas and Markus and be only at 120 points and not able to spend the extra 30 points on anything.

We make some noise FFG will relase the ever expanding FAQ, eventually make a decision on vertical shooting/ape punching, and so forth.

But we shouldnt attack each other no matter our different thoughts on the game.

Well said, Peacekeeper_B. Better line of sight (maybe more realistic?), more options, weapon team (HMG, recoilles rifle, and mortar), and a dedicated Overwatch rule complete my wish list for the revised edition…perhaps in 2013?

Peacekeeper_b said:

I think that the revision for Dust Tactics was well in work as soon as FFG picked it up from AEG so Im not entirely certain that is an accurate precedent. The original release scheduled was changed even before publication requireing some rules changes I think. Warfare was developed in cooperation with Dust Models so I think that the final product is much more in line with what the intended product was meant to be. Could it use alittle cleaning up? Sure without a doubt and Im fairly certain they will with the use of FAQs and/ or updates. FFG released a FAQ within a couple weeks of publishing and for a game company that is pretty good (with some companies it takes months, years, never). The way this trainwreck of a thread went you would think that the game has been out forever and it was unplayable when in actuality it is pretty good (mine/ my groups opinion) and has only been out like a month or so. But we know there are some minor issues that could have been worded better. As for the vertical distance thing I think they are just taking a wait and see outlook. If everyone starts using the optional ruling then yeah it will probably be incorporated.

As far as adding more options this is only the core rulebook and it has 3 platoons (plus the special hero ones) for each faction and a fair amount of support choices which is a good amount of content and certainly enough to get it all going. With the planned quarterly release schedule of campaign books I dont think we are going to have to wait as long as a revised rulebook for new options as the intent is to add new stuff (units, platoons, models, rules, etc) for everyone in each book. The campaign book approach is also an ideal way to incorporate upto date rules (including changes if needed) on a regular basis and to give an inprint current FAQ each season. Also FFG has always been pretty **** good with providing the same updates via PDF for rules for people who dont intend to purchase the product.

DoomOnYou72 said:

Well I still think they need to make minute chages to the system, such as with the Zombie platoon. They should be able to buy Grenadier X witout having to get a second platoon and have him not cost a hero slot. I would also like to see the sections be larger (like a 5th or 6th section) as a PLATOON upgrade option. Similar to how the allies can get a extra hero and the axis can get a extra walker. And for the hero platoons to have access to the platoon upgrade options.

It is a pretty good game, I agree. But even a pretty good pizza can be better with additional topings or different cheese or whatever metaphor works best. The game can be so much better.

The FAQ they released was pretty sad, Im sorry. It was 3 pages of which one was the intro page and it covered a lot of things that we already knew and a few lame questions. I look forward to it being expanded, hopefully soon.

Let me start with an appeal: this thread has stayed on topic without personal attacks through most of its pages, and it would be nice if it continued that way. Discuss the game, and argue opinions, but there is no reason to attack the people involved. This is supposed to be a discussion of game issues, so please keep it that way.

Next, I appologize for mentioning attacking aircraft in close combat. That was an error on my part, where I was trying to put an emphasis on the ridiculous situation of ignoring elevation, and went for the highest target I could easily explain, as opposed to simply using the twentieth story or some such.

Moving out of range when attacked not realistic? You have apparently made a tactical withdrawal under fire. It isn't an easy evolution but it is WAY more preferential to being pinned down and slaughtered.

My issue is that moving out of range from an attack is done once the bullets are declared coming, without exposing the target unit to any danger. Moving to a new position when an enemy is moveing into a threatening position on a current position I have no issue with. Waiting to move until the enemy has reached that position and started firing allowing movment out of the threatened area without any danger to the target unit would not be possible without terrain that completely blocked fire. Allowing it for movement across open terrain is rather ridiculous.

Unit Leader that has its base touching or within an area of terrain ignores that terrain for the purposes of obscured line of sight, but not blocked line of sight.

This issue is due to very poor wording. The unit leader is specified as having to worry about blocked line of sight. I have no issue with that point. My issue is with the next sentence. which specifies, 'The unit treats the area as open terrain.' The leader has to worry about blocked line of sight, but the rest of the unit is specified as treating it as open terrain , which would not block line of sight.

That leaves both the issue of being able to see through something that is blocking line of sight for the enemy, and also the problem of no blocking terrain for anything if something like a piece of felt is being used for a forest once the leader's base is touching it. I don't know many people who use actual tree models for all of their forest terrain. Some do, but the vast majority I've dealt with simply use a patch of felt for their forests. with perhaps a tree or two for visual effect. How would anyone have blocking terrain in a forest indicated by felt once a unit leader is in contact with it?

A vehicle is an area of terrain equal to its base with no specified height (unlike infantry that is specified as going to the top of the model). Enemy models have to deal with both the obscuring aspect of the base, and the requirement for line of sight to some part of the actual model be seen for line of sight to exist. Vehicles are specified as obscuring line of sight 'as an area of terrain,' which would mean actual line of sight would be required for enemy models considering the actual vehicle model as blocking terrain, while friendly infantry get to treat it as open terrain so long as their leader is in contact with the vehicle's base.

The rules issues I have are due to wording, because most tournament issues come about because of poor wording. It's easy to come up with house rules to fix issues, but the core wording is still a problem. It doesn't matter what was intended for the rules if they are worded with issues rules lawyers can argue effectively in competitive games.

As for my comments on 40K, note that I have played, and can still have fun, with 40K since the 80's. I prefer many things from earlier editions of the game, and can complain about the things I don't like, with no rancor. I never considered 40K a great game, as it can be quite fun with the right people.

I said Warfare sucks, and for what they were touting it as, I think it does. When looking at the exceptionally poor wording, even after pulling it back for a re-working, I think it does. That does not mean nobody can enjoy it, nor does it mean I will never play it if someone asks me to. It simply means I find too many issues with it for me to consider it a good game. That I see the potential it could have in the morass of poor wording and rules gaffs only makes the game more disappointing. It sucks because it has significant issues with rules, limitations that make no sense, and shows the potential of what it could have been with a bit more effort.

Most games can be fun if played with the right people. Any group can decide how they want to interpret rules issues to make the game better for their group, or even decide to revamp rules they don't like and have fun. That's easy for friendly play.

No game company can easily work on improving their games without negative feedback from their player base. A single complaint about a rules issue helps far more than dozens of, 'This game ROCKS!' posts. Warfare has a good, solid core to it. The issues obscure that core to the point line of sight is almost blocked.

I don't care if FFG makes any changes to Warfare, or not. How much weight they apply to negative opinions is their choice.

As the game is, I will play if asked by a friend, but I will always offer an alternative before we play. I won't spend any more on new rules, campaign books, or anything else without their being significant changes to the game. It isn't worth it to me. So long as they continue to put out Warfare products along this line, however, I will continue to hope they keep a loyal following for Warfare, because I can still get a lot of fun out of what I have for Tactics, and the two games fates are entwined.

I do not fault anyone for enjoying Warfare. As I have noted several times, I'm quite glad that they do.