I can get behind Gunther's comments, I agree that there are a few glaring issues here and there in the book and people very much have the right to be confused. More to the point, it is perfectly valid to post what you might see as potential fun inhibiting issues. I think Gunther did a great job pointing out his arguments in a very respectful and thoughtful way, I say well done to you mate.

I would like to talk about realism for a moment as I have been seeing this issue in various forms pop up. I think people were expecting something a little more invested that what Dust Warfare turned out to be. Being lead to believe that Warfare would be gritty World War 2 action with an even eye on realism makes sense. However, I have to say that I was never under that impression and I think that has colored my view on the game. I never though that Dust Warfare (or even tactics really) was anything other than a Pulp Scifi game. I have been reading the comics for quite a while and there is nothing in that technicolor insanity that screams a "Saving Private Ryan" level of historic consideration. Historical Consideration is what I do for a living, I have been spending the better part of my career digging through the utter morass that is World War 1-2 and American Military History, and I can tell you that even "Saving Private Ryan" did get quite a bit wrong.

If I am perfectly honest, my major point of realistic contention is that the Maoist forces of the People's Liberation Army have taken control of China by 1947 and then joined with the Soviet Union. On a personal and historical level I find that a rather insane logic jump to make for that time period.

The point I am trying to make though is that Dust is very much a Pulp game, I would never expect FFG to spend the serious time/money/effort to develop an indepth World War 2 (with zombies) simulation game. Do you know why? Because a fully fledged World War 2 (with zombies) game might end up being too complicated for the average player to get into. That my friends is the REAL crux of the situation here, if you make a game too complicated it won't be as approachable as a game that puts it's focus into simple but engaging game play. Next time you are in your FLGS take a look around or ask where their Historical Combat Simulation games are. If you want really good simulated World War 2 squad based combat I suggest "Conflict of Heroes" though the rules are very dense.

I think the designers behind Warfare wanted to make a fun table top game using a particular artist's work as inspiration. I don't think they really billed it as anything else. I also think that many people where expecting a lot more out of this game and were left wanting, which is perfectly valid. However, from where I stand as a 40k player (There is a GW store near the Naval Academy in Annapolis and I sware that every Pleeb walks in at least once to check it out) I find the Dust Warfare rules not only easy to follow but tons of fun. My gaming group has had so much fun with the game since it came out that we are starting to wonder why we should be interested in 40k at all.

Bonus History Lesson of the Day :
In the 20th Century term "Grenadier" refers to elite assault infantry. While at one point a Grenadier was a specialized type of soldier armed with explosives over time the title stuck but the role changed. The term "Panzergrenadier" was a term used by the Wehrmacht to designate elite heavy motorized infantry that could keep up with and provide infantry support to fast moving armored armored formations. The explosive experts of the Axis German forces were called "Pioneers," these are the units are what would most closely resemble the Grenadier of the 17-18th century.

In Addition, the German Stickgrenadda (stick grenade) was NOTORIOUSLY hard to maneuver with in combat situations. To illustrate what it is like grab 2 or 3 full sized hammers and stick them in your belt and try to move around while crouched. You end up smacking them into everything, and it wasn't uncommon to disable the fuse or even crack the casing over the explosive charge. A few notable German units would designate carriers to lug around satchels of Stickgrenadda and would hand them out when ordered too. Many other German units wouldn't bother carrying them due to how cumbersome they could be. However they did see considerable success as a defensive weapon. The Allies however followed a different combat doctrine where individual high explosives like Grenades where emphasized. The frankly superior design of the Mk-2 Fragmentation Grenade allowed for easier transport by individual soldiers as well as soldiers being able to carry far more of them into battle. In all honesty this is something Dust Warfare got very much correct, elite German units would only have a few Grenades if any at all rather than the 3-4 (in some paratrooper units up to 8!) Mk-2s carried by individual Allied Troops.

thejughead said:

You keep bumping the thread you wanted gone btw … the other stuff youre posting is rather off topic as well, we are discussing issues about the game in this thread. And yes we get it now, you will swallow anything created by Andy Chambers and Paulo (although i must say im pretty sure most of the weirdness in the rules is due to FFGs rewrite). I like the guys too, but at the same time i am a customer and have a right to point out things i think needs improving in the product i paid for.

Very well written Resv. This whole thread really illuminates unmet expectations, not right or wrong, and I think that's what has given it legs far past pg 4 where it should have died. People whose expectations (pulp miniature Wargame) have been met, dig the rules simplicity and tactical depth in a game easy to play, hard to master. Those who were expecting a more realistic simulation were disappointed at best, if not disgusted. I think this is a definite case where the two sides need to agree to disagree.

As far as the history lesson goes, I recall having read most of that before, and even then, never really thought about the awkwardness of the stick grenades. When I was much younger, I assumed the gas mask canister the Wermacht troops had was where they stuck two-three grenades for transport. I now know better. However, you're lesson now makes me ask FFG, "Where the hell are my SturmPionere's grenades?"

"(although i must say im pretty sure most of the weirdness in the rules is due to FFGs rewrite). "

How do you know this? You don't.

"I like the guys too, but at the same time i am a customer and have a right to point out things i think needs improving in the product i paid for."

If you are that disappointed sell of your game. We get in now too, you wanted realism. Too bad its a game.

thejughead said:

no i didnt want realism, i just expected it to be a bit more sophisticated. i will keep pointing out things i want improved, because i like the minis and the universe. sitting idly by with a biased smile on my face isnt what i do. i play the game and its not the worst system out there, but it could be even better. if youve been playing tabletop wargames for a while, 40k:ish simpleton rules stick out like a zit.

Hatamoto said:

Please explain what you wanted or how it could have been better?

thejughead said:

longer weapon ranges, modifiers, more actions than move and shoot, better cover rules, longer reaction ranges to keep both players busy at the same time more often.. among other things. please explain why it couldnt be better.

i

I understand its a game and not everything must be realistic but it must be intuitive and dust tactics did it better and cleaner. I think people thought Warfare will build layer of additional rules on Tactic's ruleset so It would be easy to port from one to another and add so much more tactical options, like smoke grenades, covering fire, area effect weapons, morale, different activation mechanic etc, but still retain the backbone where snipers were sniping and it was possible to kill a walker.

I must admit that tactics is a little bit too fast for my taste, and I was hoping units will get more resilient in Warfare and hoped it could be achived with just changing weapon tables rather than adding armor saves, another unnecessary dice roll that swing the chances back and forth, the higher armor the more randomness there is… or making armor a static modifier just like cover… then you would have just one roll to determine the outcome and rear arch of vehicles could have lower value. Anyway after a year of development, I was hoping for something even better.

I am not giving up on Warfare though, and certainly don't want to sell the miniatures I've been collecting, but if they will handle rules just like what they did with multiple level close combat I will certainly not play Warfare. A game that claims to be geared towards turnament play should rule it one or other way. Honestly I was hoping it will play like modern skirmish games but in platoon level.

PS. I think you were right its mostly Tactics players who complain, I wonder why?

And a question from me. Is it possible to port Dust into AT-43 ruleset? The more I try to find about Warfare the more I stumble uppon AT-43 name, was it any good?

Galadhir said:

it was and still is an awesome game.. lots more strategic possibilities than what warfare currently has. it only ever came out with a 1st edition, and so it could also had been better in many ways. still it had a much better ruleset imo, a mix between at-43 and warfare is definatly somethkng id try.

"longer weapon ranges, modifiers, more actions than move and shoot, better cover rules, longer reaction ranges to keep both players busy at the same time more often.. among other things. please explain why it couldnt be better. "

longer weapon ranges = standard tables 4 x 6, any longer and why bother with ranges.

modifiers = pull out another table, NO THANK YOU!

more actions than move and shoot = In a fire fight that is what else is there that could add to the game. Its abstracted adding any more and you have 40K.

better cover rules = the issue may be with Heavies, but time will tell.

longer reaction ranges to keep both players busy at the same time more often = you would never leave cover and essentially just roll dice. NO FUN.

Again you list complaints with no recommendations! You are free to your opinion, I believe the game has a good starting point and so do most websites that have taken the time to point out detailed reviews.

thejughead said:

whatever makes you feel good regarding the rules m8, there seems to be an insecurity keeping this thread alive though. almost as if people come here with a need to convince themselves everything is just fine. if you had been less narrow minded however youd realize there are several ways to incorporate a bit more complexity without making it a hyper realistic and static game. i could bring up infinity again as good example, with the possibility you will interpret this as me saying i want warfare to be a small scale skirmish game.

Great, thanks for the insult.

thejughead said:

telling me to sell off the miniatures i invested in and painted was another good one.

Hatamoto said:

True. On both sides, or this thread would have died on page 2-3.

It appears neither side will convince the other, and I'm now bowing out of this thread which has become a dark morasse hole of suck, lest I be thought of as insecure in addition to my fanboyism.

I will leave these few parting shots however, because it still boggles my mind how it's an issue…

Rules as Written, 3-level Close Combat is not going to happen absent clear glass buildings, as LOS from attacking unit's head will be obstructed. No LOS, no CC. People who keep bringing that up as a flawed rule need to escape the tunnel-vision of just the, "measured horizontally" aspect, and utilize the LOS rules to complete the picture. The horizontal rules of distance are so MGs can shoot SSU Helos.

People, love this game or hate it, the sky is not falling. Stop taking ourselves so seriously, play the game, and we might have fun!

PS - According to Mack Martin, there will be quarterly campaign books. I for one hope they develope the system with an eye to how it effects the whole, and not just add things willy-nilly because they can. Please FFG, do not destroy what you have created here by overdoing it, or by not allowing it to grow either. That way, I think we can all be happy.

I like Dust Warfare as well. But I prefer Dust Tctics Cover system (the dice roll instead of 1 or 2 auto saves and grenades/bursts negating all saves for all attacks in the same volley). I would also like longer ranges, even if that meant adding a range save to the target.

If they were not going to use the die rolling save mechanic, I would like more levels of cover: No Cover (0 save), Soft Cover (1 save), Active Cover (1 save), Hard Cover (2 saves), Active & Soft Cover (2 Saves), Active & Hard Cover (3 Saves). Active Cover is a action to "hit the dirt" similar to suppression. As a double action you could dig in, so yes, a unit dug in behind hard cover would have 4 auto saves. Or use the Dust Tactics cover save system.

Range Save would allow an attacker to attack at a range of half again the weapon's range as a double action (single action if you are a TEAM squad) but hits must be rerolled and only hits that score a second hit actually hit the target.

Skills like spotter, sniper and so forth would not share with the squad. Spotter could share with one model (but not themselves) and sniper is only the model with the skill. Sniper would pick target that is hit.

Grenades and other cover ignoring attacks would ony ignore cover for their own attacks.

Morale/suppression would be more scaling. If you have a unit leade you can ignore the first suppression marker (it doesnt go away and still counts for the sum needed to cause a squad to flee, but you are not suppressed from the first marker) and the number of suppression markers needed would be increased by your squads Armor Class-1 (Armor 2 takes an extra suppression to flee, Armor 3 2 extra and Armor 4 3 extra).

Close combat would be a range of 3", up or down, front or back, left or right, in the past or the future.

But anyway, just because I would like to see changes to Dust Warfare does not mean I want it to fail, that i wnat to not play it or that I should shut up and put up with it. The gaming industry has a long history of making changes based on feedback, not every game does it, not every time, but you never know. And if FFG sees enough comments and suggestions, you never know.

Its like complaining about politicians and not voting. It makes no sense.

thejughead said:

Best summation on this thread and I am in total agreement.

thejughead said:

Not if they were meant to be the jump pack troopers they wouldn't, at least based on the narrative and comparison to assault marines (jump troops).

thejughead said:

I'm not looking for "project reality" in DW, I wanted a good pulp WW2 wargame. This is, of course, all a matter of opinion, but in my opinion it's a promising one but flawed in its execution in its first iteration that I will continue to hope for it to evolve. So yes, I am "letting" designers design, if that's something I can actually somehow do. I want them to design more.

There's a big difference between building a game from ground up for assumed maximal marketability and fine tuning an existing rule set. I enjoy and am good at the latter (in my own subjective view) and my dream job would be some kind of auditor for games and rules.

thejughead said:

Nothing? Well, that's again very subjective. What do you mean by black and white and who wants that? Gimp and Gunther?

As for Andy Chambers' vision, unless it was a lie, a deleted beta tester's post in the thread told us that Andy Chambers' version that was ready in late 2011 was revised into what we have now, and based on that message, I would have vastly preferred that version (it didn't have cover-penetrating grenades etc.)

I wish you'd stop telling people what to do with their own time, money and models. Yes, I kinda-sorta did it myself there, but only almost (it was just a wish).

I can't help but think that maybe there's some ring of truth in the post about insecurities here.

I guess it's the nature of forums like these that people can't discuss without some people getting all passionate and up in arms one way or the other, but somehow it just disappoints me every time. In the end don't we all want to just have a good time and play the game in some form or another, whether the current version or a potential future revised one? I don't think anybody is here bashing the game for its own sake.

Some things I'd like to see change:

Well, there's the obvious stuff like attacking people on roof tops from ground level, or mixing in a grenade or flamer to have every gun in a squad ignore cover. That stuff is pretty silly, but I'm sure those will be issues worked out.

No, my beef is with the more core mechanics. I AM enjoying this game, I've only played a handful of games and I've had a lot of fun, but some stuff could have been better.

1. I much prefer tactic's cover/armor systems. Flat cover just isn't fun. I've had a one man squad with a bazooka blast away at a unit in hard cover only to learn it can NEVER hurt the unit. That doesn't make for a very action packed battle. And getting armor saves not only adds more needless rolling to the game, it's double dipping. I thought those big charts for the weapons were already there to reflect a unit's armor?

2. Sometimes the unit leader counts, sometimes he doesn't. Make up your mind and stick with one system. I would much rather have everything done by squad leader to squad leader. Ranges should be measured from leader to leader. Line of sight should be done from leader to leader. Cover should be determined if the leader is in cover. The leader should always be the last to die. The rest of the squad should be essentially wound markers that keep track of what weapons are still in the unit. Their placement on the board should make zero difference. This should be a skirmish game masquerading as a platoon level game.

3. I like reactions, but this reaction system honestly feels a bit clunky. It feels like a huge advantage when the side going first at many times gets three actions. Why can't an action (either during the command phase, unit phase, or from a reaction) cause the unit to get an action marker? Once it gets two, it's done fro the turn. Or, why can't it be like dust tactics, with alternating unit activation. It's a bit less interactive, but it's simple and works…and it's fair.

Again, I like this game a lot. I'm just a bit disappointed with how it turned out. I see a mountain of potential and I want the game to be the best it can be, because the minis and setting are just awesome. Plus it's affordable. How rare is that?

I forgot one other small quirk. I'm not a fan of the rally command removing all suppression counters. I feel like the initiating player should have a chance of suppressing the enemy before the unit phase, and the reactive player can just whisk away all that suppression with a single command. It's not that unit's shouldn't be able to clear suppression in the command phase, i just feel there should be some dice involved. I think just giving a unit a chance to roll away some suppression (just like it would get when it activates) would be good enough. Essestially you're giving the unit two shots at getting rid of it's suppression. If that's not good enough, you could always have the die reversed.

Ok I stopped reading every post after page 9. I only have one question.

Did anyone ever talk Gimp into playing the game at least once?

TBaileySr said:

Nope, he is just hating on a game he hasn't played and it only gets worse the more full of himself he gets over his "Many years of wargaming experience" as if people care.

Denied said:

if i had loved the game like you do i would probably be offline playing it right now

Hatamoto said:

You know how cell phone work right, you never need to be offline, and still can do everything.

Noir420 said:

If someone's typing away on their cell phone while you're trying to play a game with them, then *that* is an issue worth bitching about.

Also you know people work during the day too and perchance on those few hours when I am chained to desk/lab bench I have free time to hit up the forums.