battlemechanik said:

Or since?

BlackKnight1917 said:

BlackKnight1917 said:

I disagree that game balance can only be determined by extensive playtesting. Many people theorize about how a game works without truly examining the mechanics. If some looks at a game where units cost the same, and are othewise identical, yet one hits and kills 75% of the time while the other only does 25% of the time, do they have to play the game several times to verify there is something unbalanced?

Game balance has to start with consideration of probabilities and interactions between units. That analysis can be based simply on experience instead of a math degree, but it has to be considered. Anyone willing to apply those same priciples can gain a reasonable evaluation of a game before play. The problem with theoryhammer is that many people who use it go off emotional responses to game situations, which will not give valid considerations. That has given game analysis a bad name, but does not invalidate it.

I like a level of realism in my gaming because I am a simulationist. If someone wants to imagine a laser for a game, I want it to reflect how a laser works. If someone want to set up a platoon structure, it should make sense to someone with a modicum of military training. I'm not terribly upset that the Axis get extra walkers and the Allies extra heroes. If the game is set in a world where the effective changes to the war began in late 1942, then it would make sense for it to reflect the realities of 1942. At that time, US production was increasing far faster than German production, and the Soviets were gearing up as well. Germany had quality, but low production, because that was how they were thinking. The Allies had decent quality, but massive production, largely because of the simple realities of how big there production capabilities were compared to the Axis. I can live with the rule, but it does show a lack of consideration of the history they are using to base their game upon. German total AFV production for all of WW2 did not equal Allied production of just the Sherman tank, which production was matched by the T-34. There were plenty of other Allied AFV's produced. That is simply because the production capabilities were so much greater than Germany could hope to achieve. It's not a reason for me to hate the game, but it is one that bothers me due to the lack of thought it represents. Alternate history has to consider the history they are changing, and all of its effects.

The minefield rules are not just unclear, they are absurd. Consider a unit moving fast through a march move or the Fast ability: so long as they clear the minifield, they are unaffected. The rules specify only a unit which ends its movement within range of the minefield marker is affected. Unclear rules can be clarified, but if I'm spending $40 for a rulebook based on an established game that deals with certain concepts, I expect at least those concepts to still be dealt with.

There are vertical movement rules on page 39. I noted them. They specifically address climbing levels of a building. A unit can spend an entire march move and only go up one 3" level, because the restriction is 3" per turn, and not per move action. You could decide to apply those limits to the slopes of hills, but that would contradict the stipulation that the vertical distance is not considered for movement, as well as being a pain to adjudicate.

As I already noted, the rules stipulate a soldier never obscures line of sight for models in its unit, but on page 42 it specifies they do block line of sight for enemy units, allowing exactly the situation I described. I was able to notice that issue without even putting a model on the table, so perhaps there can be something to theoretical analysis.

I am sure there are games that have remained with the idea of reacting to run away before bullets can reach you, but not in any of the games I have worked with. I will happily acknowledge some game companies have very happy customers with that concept, but I can only go with the reactions from evey forum I have seen the issue dealt with, where it has always become a joke. I should have clarified that applied within that part of the gaming community with which I have interacted. I have played many, many games, but I have not played them all.

Movement at half speed through difficult terrain I would not have a problem with. Warfare does not do that, however. If a unit encounters difficult terrain during the turn, its entire movement is restricted to 3", or full movement if they make a march move. A walker 3" away from a patch of woods could move to the edge of the woods and stop, or make a march move and go 12". If they had moved on a previous turn to the point 1/8th" of their base were still in the woods, they would again be forced to choose between a 3" move or a march move up to 12".

I have two issues with that, both from the simulationist stance I prefer for gaming. A vehicle moving through heavy woods can't simply crash through at full speed. Think of the baccage from WW2, where a Sherman could break through the boccage with a Culin adaptor, but even then was slowed. Pushing through without one was far too slow. Trees can also stop a tank, and Europe has lots of big trees. That makes the full 12" march move something that bother me. Not being able to move more than 3" if any part of your turn is spent in contact with difficult terrain is just as annoying. If you spent half your movement time approaching difficult terrain, why should you not be able to move at least part way into it? If you're barely still in terrain that slows you down, why can't you accelrate to normal speed as soon as you leave? It makes no sense.

I'm a simulationist. If you're going to have deadly electrified razor wire, then there should be a reason for it. Vehicles can operate with a high powered electrical wire fallen on them without being damaged other than by spark burns, so why should vehicles be susceptible to electrified wire? Since vehicles were a standard method of clearing wire because it didn't bother them, why is it difficult terrain for vehicles? A strand of razor wire is not strong enough to slow a multi-ton walker. Infantry being so threatened by razor wire is equally ludicrous. Razor wire is an impediment, and not a killer. Even electrified wire can be countered simple by using insulators (which includes rubber soled combat boots).

You think wrongly in assuming I started out wanting to hate this game. I was looking forward to Warfare. Tactics is fun, but I wanted something that gave more tactical challenges. I don't mind complexity in rules so long as the complexity adds to the play of the game. Warfare added complexity, but rather poorly.

I've never bothered with Advanced Squad Leader. I'd purchased the entire Squad Leader line before it came out, and have happily played that through the years. There are many rules we don't bother with, as for our gaming the complexity they add don't enhance the play of the game, but it's an excellent game for learning basic infantry tactics.

I don't want or need Warfare to be Squad Leader. We were told it was to be a more complex and tactical game than Tactics, and I was quite willing to work with that, because Tactics dealt with a lot of game situations cleanly and simply while still allowing tactics to matter. Warfare added complexity in platoon structure and game play, but not in ways that add to the tactical level of the game. Complexity for complexities sake doesn't help.

I wanted to like Warfare, which is part of why I'm so disappointed in it. I'm sure it will be fine for some players, but I'm not one of them.

ShatterCake said:

See the rules on page 42, where it specifies both that units can screen, and the level of cover they give. Units only avoid obstruction for firendly units, with vehicles obstructing all units, thoug as they are classed as an area of terrain, a unit leader in base contact changes that to open terrain.

I agree I was in error on Tank Killer. I addressed that in an earlier post.

Heroes make units more elite, which gives a bit of a differentiation, but units vary in morale without heroes, and heroes are limited in number.

I agree that infantry is not bothered by many terrain features, though there is more than just deep water to slow them down. Jumping a fence will force the unit to slow to 3" of movement, as will barbed wire or walls. I don't agree a fence should slow them down much based on personal experience, but that's minor. I'm not fond of the entire 3" or march move so long as any part of a model's base in in touch with difficult terrain.

Re-read the rules for the Vehicle Damage Table. Damage negated by cover is not considered, but damage negated by an armor roll still adds dice to the roll on the table. Per page 44. '…the attacking player rolls a number of Combat Dice on the Vehicle Damage Table equal to the amount of damage dealt before the Armor roll. Cover reduces damage dealt, and therefore the number of dice rolled.' and is rather clear the amount of damage reduced by armor does not reduce the number of dice rolled on the table.

I expected Warfare to be a science fiction game that allowed realistic tactics. Tactics does that in a simpler format, so I was hoping to see the game grow from a solid base into something more challenging.

I don't fault anyone for enjoying the game, but it was a supreme disappointment for me.

superklaus said:

I evaluated the game as I have been evaluating every game I have played for over thirty years.

I posted my opinion based on that review because some people who had found they agreed with my thinking on other posts asked me to.

I noted I was writing a negative review that could be ignored by anyone who was happy with Warfare.

I see no arrogance in doing what other posters and lurkers had asked me to do.

Most of my points have been validated by others reading the rules and playing the game.

Which is worse behavior, going on an open forum to voice an opinion that was asked for, is thought out, and supported by the rules, or condeming someone for saying something you don't like?

Gimp said:

This is GW model right, just guess with no playtesting. So that how they get, the great blanace.

Playtesting to see how everything works in game is the only way, paper theroy is the worst way the judge blanace.

Grim6 said:

It isn't that I like to play with rules lawyers, but that I've had to run tournaments for several games where they were present.

If FFG is trying to turn Warfare into a major tournament game as Mack stated, then the rules need to be able to withstand rules lawyers, or everyone else playing the game will suffer.

If reading the rules and finding inconsitencies and errors is not valid until the game has been played, what is the limit on the number of games before that opinion becomes valid?

The errors I noted have been corrected by several people, but only one of those corrections I have read so far was due to an error on my part. Several people have noted how squads can't give themselves cover, yet page 42 specifies exactly how they do.

People who have played the game and tried to correct me were correcting me with errors. Correcting me with errors is nor correcting me.

I happily acknowledge my fallibility, and the fact that I mis-read the rules for Tank Killer to be on hits instead of on blanks, when it referred to the Vehicle Damage Table instead, but I did it after noticing it with rocket punches, and was wondering how many other rules had that added to them. Not an excuse, but an explanation.

When it comes to my desire for more realism, I have acknowledged that I am a simulationist, and prefer realism in my wargaming. That was why I noted at the beginning of my post that people who were happy with Warfare could ignore it.

If someone is not a simulationist, and likes Warfare as it is, I have no problem with them. For those who are simulationists, I have stated honest and largely accurate information. My initial statements should have warned people what my post would be like.

superklaus said:

Again, how many games does it take to validate a point that is accurate and based in the rules? As I noted before, if a game comes out with one side able to hit and kill 75% of the time versus the oposition that can only do it 25% of the time, while all other stats, points, etc, are equal; do people really need to play the game before they acknowledge the balance is skewed?

I was not noting game play issues. I was noting rules issues that would impact play, but were obvious without playing.

I noted a squad could give itself cover based on the rules, and several people that have been playing tried to correct me when the rules on page 42 are quite clear and in my favor, as I have already quoted.

blkdymnd said:

My point on Tank Killer was in error, as I have willingly acknowledged. My other points are either simply opinion, or are valid based within the rules.

I agree games have gone to being an open beta instead of polished rules, and that that is a detriment to gaming overall. The companies that then charge for their correction documents are even worse.

Warfare went back to get corrections and was delayed from its planned release last year. The number of errors remaining is appaling.

borithan said:

A lot of those choices may have been planned to make things simple, but instead added unnecessary complexity and silliness.

As I've noted for several, if the level of realism makes you happy with Warfare, ignore my opinion. If it bothers you, you can agree with me or not. If you're on the fence, you can use it as part of your consideration.

Posting various viewpoints, instead of just the happy fan views, is part of what a forum is for.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Many of the errors I noted could be fixed easily. My opinion is that they should have worked to fix them while they took the extra months to get Warfare ready.

I've never been tasered, but know how electricity works, that it takes a lot to power an electric fence to constant dangerous levels, and that simple things can insulate someone so the electric fence is not a problem, because current has to have a path through the body to be dangerous. That's why tasers have two prongs.

Leaders can lead from the front, and are far more likely to in a modern counterinsurgency mission than a movement to contact standard military engaement.

Even when leaders want to be at the front, however, they are not required to be there, nor are they likely to be moving without being under supporting fire range from other friendly forces, nor would they always leave their vehicles at the back of their movement formation.

That is far less likely in a movement to contact with a standard military force. Requiring it for a standard tournament game is where I start having major problems.

I can be happy with unbalanced force games for competitive play when they are created so both sides have a chance of victory. I will never be happy with an armchair platoon leader designer deciding what is the best way to create or deploy a platoon when they have no real clue what they're doing other than copying ideas from another game that doesn't know what it's doing.

Artillery can be used to clear minefields. I noted that. I also noted it is not a guaranteed way to do it.

The point I did not make at that time is that when artillery is used to clear minefields, it is used in abundance. You do not clear a minefield with a single gun firing at it; you fire barrages at it.

Grim6 said:

I disagree on my level of understanding of the rules. I have done far more than a cursory reading of the rules because I had been asked to make a post specifically like this, where I gave my impressions of Warfare for people who shared my views on severl other points.

So far, the only rules point disputed correctly has been my error on Tank Killer. I was getting tired of writing, and could have written far more based on an extensive reading and evaluation of the rules, so I got sloppy on one point. FFG has been sloppy on far more within the Warfare rules, so perhaps I deserve a little slack for one error.

All of the posts correcting the use of other squad members for cover have been in error, as the rules are explicit on page 42.

blkdymnd said:

He can't play; too busy defending his post. Or just trying to bump it. Ach! I fell into the trap, and have helped bump it too…

Azrell said:

Azrell said:

I find it ludicrous that Mack said he was trying to reduce the number of rolls needed to play wherever possible.

Every attack with any hits now requires an armor roll. Why make an armor roll when the various armor classes give differentiation on how hard a unit is to damage already?

Every attack that causes any hits, regardless of the armor roll, causes suppression on everything but a couple of squads and vehicles, which then requires either an order or a roll to remove each suppression marker. Why add a hit counter for morale without actually allowing for varying morale? Adding a suppression save would have made more sense than adding the armor save.

Skipping the armor save, and adding a suppression save, would have not changed the effective time (actually shortened it with vehicles not taking suppression) and given a more accurate way to represent morale.

The game works, and some people are quite happy with it. I'm glad for them, and hope they continue to enjoy it enough it doesn't cause problems for Tactics. I'll wait until they finish the Warfare rules before I decide if I'll invest any more in it.

Peacekeeper_b said:

I was taught to stay low as I move away, because the grenade throws fragments up, and enemy soldiers are likely to try and shoot you down if you stand. Rolling a few feet to the side is far better protection than standing up into the blast pattern and enemy fire. Just saying.

Noir420 said:

Theory gives a starting place for balance, and playtest verifies it. Both have to be harsh and consistent.

Evaluation of a game starts the same way, with verification of the rules possible and necessary before play begins.

Playing without verifying the rules results in inconsistencies, as people do things like miss the rules on cover from other models in a unit that are quite explicit, or that the minefield rules are not complete, etc… GW's problem is that they play without proper evaluation of the rules, resulting in sloppy product. Warfare has donethe same thing.

Evaluation can have errors, as my mistake on Tank Killer shows, which is why further evaluation by others is as important in evaluation as it is in original creation of the rules.

Grim6 said:

I'll combine these. I'm not trying to pad a post count, as I don't care about them. I've been answering individually to avoid having an answer post that was longer than my original. I thought people might prefer being able to find their original counterpoints.

I'll keep this answer simple, and answer with a question:

How many games do I need to have played before the rules issues I have pointed out that are valid (ie: excepting Tank Killer) become more important or somehow gain additional validity?

If the points are valid with no games played, how will five games played change that validity? What about twenty games?

I'm retired. I can play however much I want. I made perhaps two answers to this yesterday before I went off to do many other things. I'm trying to give time to responses today. I'm a simulationist, so some of my opinions will probably not change because they are based on my preferences for playing. I have not said nobody can have fun with Warfare. I have noted the reason I am not pleased, both due to my preference in simulations and the rules I find ridiculous and poorly written.

So please, give me a number, but please try and explain how that number changes issues that will obviously remain.

It will not matter how many games I play. Page 42 will still state a models grant obscuring cover from enemy models. Vehicles will still be classed as an area of terrain that base contact from a leader will change to clear terrain. Minefields will still not have complete rules, etc…

Well Gimp I apprecite your opinion even if I dont value it. There are issues, things are wrong and they can be fixed. The primary concern is Mack Martin is involved (the same as he helped kill the 40K rpgs with his lack of common sense and logic). Let me rephrase that, Mack Martin doesnt design things I enjoy overall.

I like the core of Dust Warfare and think it should have kept more of Dust Tactics in it (cover saves being rolls against each hit instead of reduciton by 1 or 2 hits, Damage Resilience, the usefulness of some skills written for a tile game).

I agree, it makes no sense to roll damage vs a certain level of armor and then that armor which is harder to hurt gaining a larger pool of save dice. It would have made more sense to just have three attack values (Infantry, Armor, Aircraft) and then get your armor save, or make the degree of damage between armor levels more significant and not have armor saves.

Yes Minefields and Barb Wire are annoyingly written, but to have a game effect they need to have different rules then just "slows enemy down". I think the X/1 attack against infantry should only be against models that actually cross the barb wire, not every model in the entire squad.

But the game still works, its still better then many I have seen over the past few years and it will only get better. You ideas should be written down and submitted to the powers that be and maybe they will go "ahhh" but your say is not the final judgement (nor did you state it was) and we all should go "well Gimp doesnt like it" and if that affects our opinions of the game, then let it. If it doesnt, who cares? Its one guys (and perhaps his supporters) opinion.

Move along everyone, nothing to see here.

Page 42 First paragraph last sentence under the Miniatures in the Way section "a miniature never obscures other miniatures in its own unit"

While we disagree on points, we have the same core opinion. The core of Warfare is workable. It should be, as Andy Chambers has been honing his reactive mechanic for some time. I don't see that mechanic as inherently superior to alternating activations, but it does give some nice capabilities.

Mack has added a lot of changes that realistically look like changes simply to be different. I would have preferred he added complete and workable new rules (ie: minefields, barbed wire, platoon structure, etc..) instead of reinventing the wheel to put his personal stamp and love of 40K on the game.

Warfare now stands behind Tactics in dealing with simple mechanics like buildings, has extra rules that don't help, and other new rules that aren't complete. All of that, and it would be nice to have the SSU workable for Warfare when they hit the shelves.

I want Warfare to be a good game, but right now it's an unfinished mess. There's a lot of good in there, because Andy Chambers gave it a solid core to go with a solid core from Tactics; but FFG has to get their heads out of rectal defilade and finish what they started if they want Warfare to work as a competitive game. Beer and pretzels we now have, but we had that with Tactics without as many hassles that don't add to the game.

DoomOnYou72 said:

Clarified in the next paragraph on the same subject: 'Soldier models do not obscure or block line of sight from a friendly attacking unit. Enemy soldiers obscure line of sight to other Sodiers out to the edge of their base and up to the figures height as if they were an area of terrain. '

Soldiers don't obscure their side's line of sight, and never obscure their unit, but do obscure the enemy Soldier's line of sight.

I'd say it's irresponsible to give a negative review of a game that you haven't actually played, at least once, against another opponent who has read the rules and can contradict you on interpretations.

If you're still making fundamental rules errors (such as your continued misreading of the cover rule, which has been pointed out above), how can you have any sense of game balance? And, yes, your reading of that rule is incorrect, your claim that "a unit can move in a blog, with the leader at the back of the pack, and will give itself soft cover" directly contradicts the text that was quoted.

Your time would be better spent making a coherent list of questions about rules clarifications, because there are plenty of those that are actually needed (e.g. is Sniper supposed to be shared). People who are on the fence about the game can judge whether those are important, whether they've already been answered, and whether FFG does something appropriate about them.

I am very dissappointed in what I am reading about warfare. I was buing into this game hoping that they won't brake warfare, because I liked wierd ww2 theme and everything, Tactics was ok but because nobody wanted to play it as much as other tabletop's in my club I was waiting for warfare to finaly start playing it as my main game. I hate when a company release half baked product, and after what they done with Descent and Battlelore lost respect for FFG.

First of all I would like to thank Gimp for highlighting what might be wrong about the game, and I don't care if he played it or not, I can understand that after 30 years of experience he know what he's talking about. I myself am shocked how many mistakes they managed to make even after they took extra time to write it.

I am not happy with some things that were changed. What was wrong about the atack resolution in Tactics that they had to change it and add armour rolls? if tanks were too easy to destroy they could just boost their stats. And the movement rules are not intuitive and instead simplyfying they actualy complicate stuff. And think that the game will have to be rewriten.

As I don't have experience (just started with tabletop) is anybody looking at the issues with the game and trying to make alternate ruleset? That would be great if community could stand together and properly playtest (what I gues FFG didn't even do) few additional things, after all we all have cash invested in it.

I understand the idea that this seems "broken" to some people but for a first run the rules are there. They can be and most likely will be fixed with errata or common sense. One of the issues I've seen on the forums has been because you measure horizontally and not vertically or diagnal that you can hit someone on any level… That's not the case. Even on the back of one of their boxes they state, "Close combat is only done on the same level."

Then there is the fact that the Russians are coming and they're coming with a vengeance. We know a campaign book is on it's way because it's going to give us the rules for the SSU and several other units coming out. Who's to say that some of the issues aren't resolved in this book? Who's to say more rules, more stats, and newer things aren't released in there? It could very well be that when the SSU book comes out that issues that people SEE ON PAPER and not relative to the battlefield is easily resolved in the next book. For me, most of the issues here are not that bad and considering that some of the rules come a little smoother than say some of the other table top games that need to FAQ not once, not twice, but sometimes three times a single codex that they've written based on an army because they didn't properly word something. Even after 25+ years a company can still slip up so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and after reading the core book, I'm happily buying more figures and ready to demo the game for some friends in hopes to get them into it.

If the second book will be poorly writen as this one, I don't think I want to buy it. Its not misspelling few words, its the rules themselves I can't digest, and no I haven't played the game yet as well, but I am reading the book now, and I don't know if I want to play it as they wrote it, I rather stay with tactics or write the rules myself.

Great, duly noted. Move along. Naysayers get your peace out of the way so we can actually start to talk about the game that a good majority of us are actually enjoying. Everyone has an opinion and I will never try to block giving your opinion. Every game isnt for everyone and that's awesome, different strokes for different folks. So if you don't like it, that's fine, move along to a different forum.