Denied said:

Yeah, some of us are slackers trying to not get seen by the boss . . .

ItsUncertainWho said:

SHHHHHHHHH, they might here you…

I'm not going to add to either of the new provocative threads, but I have to ask this: why are critics of the game labelled as "realism seekers" "40k // Dust Tactics players who feel threatened" "idiots who don't understand anything because they haven't played"….why always something like that, and not "people who think the rules could do with improvement"? Would that somehow validate them more? Is it about categorizing and marginalizing the opposition, or what?

For example, what have I been labelled as now? What is your perception? Am I a Dust Tactics player who is threatened by DW or what?

Seriously, I don't even get why people are fighting. Some people think the rules are perfect, others don't. Both viewpoints are equally valid. You definitely can't change anyone's mind by being boorish and aggressive and insulting, let alone demanding ("go away! I don't want you around here voicing contrary opinions!") the only reason to do that is to pick a fight and be a troll. I guess it's basic forum behaviour though…

The fact that the game is doing well in general (though not here) can only be a good thing for everyone. But the game's success doesn't require the critics to shut up - it is FFG's goal to win the critics of the rules (who love the setting and models) over, remember that.

Sami K said:

Thank you. I love the setting, I enjoy the rules. I think they can be better.

Sami K said:

I was not asking for validation, merely asking why people categorize as they do…

Unfortunately, personal preference means that if you don't like certain design choices, playing the game doesn't help. "I hate cover ignoring grenades" will not turn to "I like cover ignoring grenades" simply because the rule has been experienced in practise. There are multiple things playtesting does help with in a lot of cases, so I'm not totally slagging it, I'm just saying that no-one else can really tell whether or not someone else is able to grasp a certain thing with or without exercises.

With that said, I'll happily playtest the game, it's just not going to happen on my dollar. So, who'll set me up with a demo? I'm here in the Helsinki region, but I haven't seen anyone who is keen about the game yet.

Sami K said:

While you not likely to go "I like cover ingnoring grenades", you might "ehh… I can live with then". I never found a perfect game, have you. Every game there are things you just have to live with or house rule. But, without exercises you can never know if you right, you can only think you are.

The problem there is that I've got way too many games going on already, and nobody here knows about DW yet, basically I'd have to be the one to sell the game, and for that to happen I really need to get behind and like the rules - not just tolerate them. We're not talking about something with an established playerbase that I would not be joining because of the rules.

I do have an unopened DT original core set, that's how hyped about the game overall I was, so that should give you an idea that I really wanted to like the game from the go - I did not approach this with anything but enthusiasm. And then to have that enthusiasm die out….hard to get it going again without changes.

And I say this with respect and unsarcastically, but maybe it's just not for you. Maybe you'd be happier with the other games you're playing. The majority of us that have played a lot really like the game as is (just tightened up editorially maybe). The game obviously will probably evolve over time as all game do, but it may not evolve at the speed that will satisfy you.

We'll see. But you may be right. However, I still have vested interest enough that I wanted to advocate the change, but it wasn't really meant to deter those who enjoy playing the game, it's more about being part of letting FFG know.

Shadow4ce said:

A fan boy, for me, is someone who argues in favor of a game without actually considering the realities of a situation, Someone who can argue a point with actual facts behind their argument is someone who is actually contributing to the debate, and not a fan boy. Sorry, but you don't qualify here by my definitions (though I find the coincidence funny we started playing wargames in the same year). Whining the thread should stop or other inane comments is being a fan boy. Debating the issues is contributing to the discussion.

A unit losing their attack action due to declaring an attack on an enemy position, where the enemy has vacated the position by a reactive move, would bother me less if the same kind of limitations were more evenly applied, and the possibility of losing that attack action were not available for any unit with the ability to move while within anything up to 65% of a rifle's engagement range. Ducking behind cover or moving as you see a unit coming up I could accept. Dodging out of range simply because an attack is declared doesn't fit. The attack is being declared on a unit in range, and not the unit displacing because the attacker is moving into position to possibly attack. You displace when you see enemy movement to a threatening position, but not once the bullets are flying, unless you are taking fire with the possibility of casualties while you move.

For those who keep decrying my posts because it started as something prior to my having played: where have I stated that I still have not played the game? When people argued I needed to play for my points to have any validity, I asked how many games did it take before those points became valid without an answer from anyone . Those points remain with all of the play experience I and others I have talked with have had. The number of games for those points to become magically valid for others has never been set. I have acknowledged I have many years of gaming experience, but have never insisted that makes my opinions more valid, only that it has given me more experience to draw initial conclusions from.

I'm happy for those who are happy with the rules as written.

I'm happy for those who are happy to wait for FAQ's and errata to fix the problems they acknowledge exist.

With my play experiences, and the play experiences of others, the points I have made have remained. Those points will remain regardless of the number of games I play. House ruling interpretations can fix game play, but it does not change official rules as written. With Warfare declared a tournament game, the rules as written are important. Suggesting event organizers can change official rules interpretations, as they have done in the FAQ for the close combat conundrum, is a ridiculous way to try and run a tournament style game. Official rules as written have to be able to deal with issues consistently for all official events. It cannot be left to event organizers if the game is supposed to be an effective tournament game, as players would have to be adapting to varying styles of interpretation if they went to multiple events.

For those who want to argue the vertical close combat effectiveness of a unit is limited due to line of sight, consider a few points: first, even if individual members of a squad can't draw normal line of sight; if a unit leader is in base contact with a building, the rules specify the terrain is considered open terrain for the members of the unit, so a target unit on any level is visible and able to be attacked in close combat. Likewise, a 20" diameter expanse of forest is open terrain as soon as a unit leader is in contact with the forest. Second, a helicopter is visible to all units, and so is able to be attacked in close combat by any unit that comes within 3" horizontally of it. Any aircraft would be subject to the same rules, so a P51 Mustang on a strafing run could be punched out by an Axis Zombie unit. Third, while a soldier can use a vehicle for cover, and be ducking and dodging around the vehicle to fire while it moves; anyone who suggests such fire should be as effective as fire from a stationary piece of terrain has never fired a weapon in such circumstances. The rules give no penalty to a difficult firing option, while allowing the unit to be completely obscured while firing. If you can shoot at them, they should be able to shoot back.

Some people are happy with Warfare. I'm quite glad for them.

Is the game playable? Yes. Does the game have significant issues, whether people are happy to play around them or not? Yes.

I find those issues significant, and very disappointing.

Suggesting anyone simply sell models they have spent time and effort painting is a solution to those disappointing issues is ludicrous. Even if I simply play Tactics, every issue for Warfare, and every development cost for Warfare, impacts Tactics as a joint business venture. Their fates are tied together, whether people like both games, or not. Consumers are required to pay for the costs of both games, because FFG has to recoup their expenses, or the games will have to be dropped as non-viable.

The increased costs for models did not occur when Warfare was released, but the development costs for Warfare started accruing for FFG before Warfare was released. To think Warfare had no impact on the price of the models is to not look at the facts of the situation. The price increase was not a logical increase for all products due to inflation. The price increase came for all models produced after Warfare reached a production point where significant additional expenses were accruing to FFG for Warfare.

I can accept that reality, but it would have been far better if the additional product I am paying for (Warfare) were less of a disappointment.

Be happy with Warfare. Encourage further development. Don't, however, insist my opinions are wrong in not being happy with Warfare. Whether others are happy with Warfare, or not, does not invalidate my opinions. I consider 40K to be a pathetic set of rules, even though I've had fun playing it since the 80's.

Warfare sucks, in my opinion. Others are quite capable of having differing opinions, and are welcome to them.

What pisses me off most i think is the fact Andy Chambers was advertised (and still is) as the main developer of the game, and then FFG suddenly decides to rework the stuff he came up with. If i understand correctly the rules were severely simplified (and stupified). Somehow it feels like false advertising and my expectations on the game were light years ahead of the final product. I have myself to blame for buying minis and painting them up for Warfare, but nevertheless i feel a bit cheated because i trusted FFG and Andy to make something spectacular. Mini wargames have reached a new level of complexity these days, and i thought Warfare would follow this trend.

Gimp,

I normally don't play miniature games. I am an avid Euro Gamer for the most part. I am trying this with my son because I listened to D6G and liked what I heard about Uncharted Seas. It was a simple rule system for my son to grasp. After playing it and seeing how he liked it I decided it might be fun to have a miniature game that did land units. D6G peaked my interest with their Warfare review. We picked up Tactics and my son liked it. I am now reading the rulebook for Warfare.

Why am I telling you this? First because your review scared the pants off me. Second I want to ask you a favor. I am giving this a shot even though it is not my normal cup of tea. So the favor is this. Please for me play this game just once. You already have tactics if I read right. If not I am not asking you to buy anything. Play with someone who has the stuff. Just once thats all I am asking. If you don't like it then fine your opinion is doublely confirmed. If not and you like it you gain their too. Just once that is the favor I ask even before I have played a single game myself. Call it a favor for me some stranger you don't even know. A dad with a little boy. I am not saying your experience is not enough to tell by reading the rules. I am not saying you will like the game. I think it is just something I want to ask just out of human curiosity. A social experiment if you will. I want to see if you as a fellow gamer would take up the gauntlet when asked by another fellow gamer. So what do you say ? Give it one go? I await your answer.

Gimp said:

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. Only dead marines should stay still, fire and maneuver is a way of life, you should always be trying to find the best position on your enemy. Every good infantry Sergent knows this, even in the Army. Okay mate, lets talk about Blocked Line of Site and Obscured Line of Site which is very well outlined on page 41 of the DW Rule Book. Blocked line of site is outlined as:

Line of sight is determined miniature to miniature. To
determine if a miniature has line of sight to another
miniature, a player must look to see if any part of the target
miniature’s figure is visible to the attacking miniature. He
does this from a viewpoint at the center of the attacker’s
base at the top of the miniature. If no part of the target
miniature’s figure can be seen, then line of sight is blocked.

Simple and elegant, if you can't see the model then you can't attack. This is also defined as not being able to see the center of your target's base. Now keep in mind that you only have three inches and optical angles can be a tricky thing.

What's beautiful though is ALSO on page 41 of the DW Rule Book under Obscured Line of Site:

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 .

So if line of site to your target unit is blocked and even if your unit leader is touching terrain it DOESN'T MATTER. I can't stress enough that people should read all of the Rule Book and double check their facts before they make finite statements. I think quite a bit of this entire thread could have been avoided if folks would either play a few games or just move on from this particular game.

Lets move on, Vehicles only obscure line of site they don't block line of site, a unit only gets Hard Cover from taking cover behind a vehicle, page 42 of the DW Rule Book:

Units obscured by soldiers are granted Soft cover, while
units obscured by vehicles are granted Hard cover.

The unit is never completely obscured, EVER.

As for Aircraft, you should take a moment to LOOK AT THE WEAPON charts for close combat weapons, they don't list any Weapon/Damage dice against aircraft. So yes that P51 can make a strafing run and it will not get knocked out of the sky by a Zombie or a Combat Knife.

The issues you find so significant that it prevents you from playing the game aren't really issues at all. Sorry but they just aren't. They are things that can be easily figure out just be taking the time to properly read the rules and also play a few games and not be afraid to address the wonderful full Index (pages 135 and 136) of the Rule Book. Whats more, many issues have been addressed in the wonderful FAQ FFG just released. If all you are going to do is nitpick little issues and blow them up to into game breaking stupidity then you REALLY haven't played any other game systems out in the market right now. No joke, they all have terrible rules issues from Infinity to 40k.

Before I end this rather long post, I want to point out Gimp's 2nd to last sentence: "Warfare sucks, in my opinion." Wow, there you go. Why bother trying to be constructive and post in these forums if you hate the game. Nothing any of us write here is going to magically change that opinion. Gimp had some good issues at first, and I think they were pretty well addressed. Then the comments around here just got nasty as pointed out above. If you don't like the game then simply don't play it and MOVE ON. All you are doing is bringing these forums down.

I also don't know why people seem to forget this but DUST WARFARE and DUST TACTICS are two different games. They share artwork and Minis but they are NOT THE SAME GAME . Warfare is not an addition to Tactics, it was never even advertised as such, I have no idea where people got this idea.

I played it with my sisters 2 boys, 8 & 10, and they loved it. Rules seem perfect for kids, especially if they have a card for each unit to refer to and a little help, and the game plays quick enough so as not to tax their short attention spans. Your son should love it.

Resv said:

the problem is they arent all that different, dust warfare and dust tactics … The difference should have been alot bigger to warrant a whole new set of rules (and nerfed ones at that). I get the feeling most people who like warfare in its current state havent been around playing tabletop wargames all that long, or experienced a great variety of systems. But then again people still play 40k and think its a gift from god even though its one of the worst ones out there.

Gimp I appreciate that you do not like the game and also acknowledge that there are no wrong opinions. However when those opinions are presented as fact then they can most definantly be wrong.

PG 41 A 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. The unit treats the area as open terrain. This includes terrain that both the target and the attacker are within.

It is then followed by this bullet: Line of sight to a miniature is blocked if the figure isn’t visible, but if any part is visible, then it can only be obscured. Miniatures only ignore the cover they are in for the purposes of obscured line of sight, not blocked, so they still can’t shoot through a wall!

Therefore yes you still have to have line of sight to make the attack. CC attacks ignore cover anyway so obsucred is irrelevant.

As for attacking aircraft with Close Combat weapons as a Tactics player I would have figured you would have gotten this one right…there are no close combat weapons that have any attack dice versus aircraft. So no there will not be any zombies attacking a P51 on a strafing run. (Weapon Characteristics pg 22)

As for soldiers advancing behind a vehicle shooting you state that you should be able to shoot back…you can as vehicles only provide Hard Cover for soldier models (PG 42).

After reading your post you seem to misunderstand the difference between obsurement and Line of Sight. Obscurement only determines if any type of cover save is allowed nothing more. You may always shoot at an obscured unit. You must still have line of sight to the target model to make an attack. If you cannot see a model you cannot attack (only exception I can think of off the top of my head is Indirect fire in which case the spotter need Line of Sight). Back to PG 41 again.

As far as having played or not it is really is irrelevant because, when and if you did play, you played the game wrong.

Now as for not liking the displacment mechanic I can appreciate that as it is an opinion. For me it works with the type of game they were aiming for (which is more akin to warhammer, warmahordes, dystopia, etc). But hey thats my opinion. I have other rulesets I play when I want an in depth more detailed game (and considering that we appear to have been playing roughly the same amount of time Im fairly certain you do too).

Gimp just stated that he had played several times. Yet still that is ignored.

I've learned a lesson at least, and that is to never mention that you haven't played the game on a thread like this. If Gimp hadn't been such an honest chap, half of the needless whining of this thread could have been avoided, since it seems to be all about validation. In my opinion, validations (like gaming history, whether you've playtested the game or not etc.) shouldn't matter, only opinions and observations taken at face value.

But I'm not trying to start another war here. There's almost a semi-consensus here, and that's always saying something on the Internet.

I have to shake my head in disappointment at the off-handed comments about 40k - with all its warts, it's a very playable and balanced set for what it does overall, the only real balance problems coming from the long periods between which army book releases are made which creates some discrepancies (because GW needs each new army to be just a bit shinier). Yes, there are no overwatch or reaction rules, cover is a bit wonky (but for a reason) but when you compare to Dust Warfare, there's a vast difference between the granularity of troops and weapons (with their stats, weapon stats and unit qualities) while still retaining acceptable tournament game balance. Would I like the rules be better and incorporate more complex elements? Hell yeah, but there's not a lot there that aggravates me either. And it's hard to beat the models and style of it.

Now I'm probably designated as resident 40k fanboy, which explains everything why I have a problem with DW rules…but you might be surprised to know I'm actually constantly on the lookout for alternative rules for 40k miniatures (or otherwise), and DW was one of the candidates.

Sami K said:

To be honest, the issue isn't that Gimp hasn't played any games. I am very satisfied to see that he has, and his honesty should be applauded. What I take issue with is that he is quick to lay out game breaking issues in the rules that are in fact not really issues. It seems as if many people just assume what the rules will say, and I admit that I have fallen into this myself. Yes, DW isn't the best rule set ever, but there is a lot to like and over all I do really enjoy it. Yeah I think the rules could be a bit tighter in places too, I won't argue that. But there is a difference between educated observations and out right assumptions, and that is what I take issue with.

On the issue of 40k, there are a ton of odd rules, but it isn't a bad system at all. The only real issue I have with 40k, which you mentioned, is balance between the different armies. 40k seems to have a higher focus on selling models rather than the game itself, which is just business practices. I love my Tau army and I will never give it up.

One of the things I really like about Dust is the ability to at least react to close combat assaults. You get the same ability (sort of) in Warhammer Fantasy Battle, but not in 40K (which I've been playing since 1989). Assault has been evolving into the prime tactic - indeed, the only tactic - which is less than satisfying to those of us who have studied warfare, and feel better with tactics that have proven successful in reality. Not to say I'm giving up my orks any day soon, but I'd like my Tau to be just as relevant.

However, with the changes in GW's rules and business tactics I've been hearing about, Dust is well-positioned to become a contender, commercially. The new 2012 price increases are going to sting ($75 Land Raiders, $40 transports, $66 large monsters, etc.). I have been advocating Dust to my 40K-playing friends, not just on the basis of the fun of the game, but also on the basis that a 300-point tournament army can cost less than $200.

On the other hand they release 6th ed. rulebook so they still might stirr the pot, but I think they want to cater to wealthier and smaller audience.

I am not gonna deny that DW is a good contender but look at the whole industry, you've got pleanty of great games and only limited resources : money, time, learning. Infinity which is fairly cheap to start and beautifull, or Warmachine which starts to think about merging their wargames with RPG (how cool is that?),another ww2 games Flames of war and Bolt action, Mantic games and Dropship commander. Now I must say I got hooked by FFG promissing a boardgame and wargame in one but at the time I had no clue what a wargame is. If I was picking my wargame now, I would think twice.

PS. Dropship commander can be a jewel in the crown if only rules gonna be ok. ONE guy created it from beginning to the end and look how stunning it looks. Those tanks fit phisicly inside their dropships.

When I saw it at Salute my jaw dropped I would call it JAWDROP commander, 10mm resin, I hope the price will be accessible, ONE GUY made it and he's got allready think 4 full factions made, and modular buildings, everything… Unbelievable, If you haven't seen that look at this BoW interview from Salute

So It is obvious DW has to improve to be competitive, nobody say's it's unpleyable, everybody said its not the holy grail, why not? I think if FFG will release rubbish FAQ's like the one we got, collecting what's been said on the forums and leaving the rest rules for the players, it might dissapoint few. I think FFG also fail to advertise their product on proper wargame channels, they've got the boardgamers on board thanks to Dice tower, but I've haven't seen a proper AD of DW on any miniature game sites yet, strange, just their own vid, and few overglorified reviews on some blogs, and some reviews that aren't realy liking it, so far I think most reviewers looks at the models first and then at the rules…

Hatamoto said:

You know you complain that FFG messed with Andy Chambers work and it is all their fault you don't like this game. To be fair the reasons changes were made was because the work Andy Chambers had given them originally was horribly too complex and broken, I know my friends play tested it and informed me the new rules are far nicer overall. Also it wasn't just FFG who came to this conclusion it was a score of people who playtested the game and under the editing council of Alessio Cavatore (maybe you've heard of him he). I trust the people who playtested the game and told me it wasn't very good until after Alessio and FFG reworked some major areas and cleaned it up. Nothing against Andy Chambers he did an excellent job, but no game is perfect on first write it takes scores of people to clean it up and make sure major problems don't ruin the game . So if you have a problem of the game now trust me you DID NOT want to see it before it got fixed. Maybe you should stop talking now because no one is listening to you hate mongering.

Ok, we've heard all the reasons why you hate it over and over. You don't intend to play, then why continue these posts? To broadcast how smart you are?

If you dissatisfied with warfare, you still have tactics or 40k. Why continue this? And please don't tell me you want to see the game improved. We are well beyond that.

Denied said:

Wow, I can't believe I almost thought Denied would post a reasonable, non-trolling reply, but in the end, he didn't fail to deliver.

As for Jughead, I don't know who "you" was in your reply, but personally the only reason I'm here is because I want to see the game improved.

And I thought we had a semi-consensus already that it was ok to hold that opinion and ok to love the game. People have different tastes. But Dust Warfare could, with little effort, convert a lot of "tastes" over to their side.