felkor said:

felkor said:

Absolutely true. Paolo himself told me at Gencon when Tactics was released that he wanted the game to play like the first 15 minutes of Saving Private Ryan.

If someone wants a simulation, they should be playing Command Decision or some other WW2 simulation were people spend more time complaining about each others paint schemes and improper radio antenna placements than playing instead of Dust.

I would think we'd all want to be as far away from real war as possible

Id like to see the first 15 minutes of Saving private Ryan, BB-gun directors cut … rated PG-6

Hatamoto said:

Me too, that would be hilarious!

paradiddlebob said:

Already had enough of that nonsense. I want to play a game, not experiment with any PTSD (fortunately, I have none).

Peacekeeper_b said:

I don't mind the idea of DUST going for a comic book style of cinematics, as I've dealt with other games that have done that quite well.

Those other games, however, could still maintain a logical consistency that Warfare is seriously lacking. Even Hollywood can get the basic action ideas close to correct. One of my favortie games, as a simulationist, is very comic book oriented for style, but is also one of the best tactical simulations I've played.

I don't need a perfect recreation of real combat for a game, but a game about combat should be able to look and act like combat to some degree, and a lot of Warfare gives us an epic level of failure on that.

As I noted at the beginning of my post, I'm happy for those who find Warfare to be a warm cuddly game they can be thrilled with for years.

I'm happy for those who feel they're willing to wait and give FFG several additional re-writes on the rules to actually get things right.

Unfortunately, Warfare is far too messed up for me to be willing to run house rule patches until FFG figures out where they've screwed up and does another re-write that actually fixes things.

I paid for a game that I really wanted to like, and got garbage. As they say, 'One man's trash is another man's treasure,' so I know there are those who will disagree with that statement, and that's fine. Their disagreements do not change my opinion. FFG has lost a serious amount of trust from me with this fiasco.

I'll be finishing off on this topic, so people can continue to complain about everything I brought up without worry about long posts from me in response. I don't worry about a game rehashing PTSD, but Uncle broke me rather well, and right now it's gotten to where it hurts too much to type, so I'll be less active on the forums (and there can be much rejoicing from those who don't like my opinions).

Have fun with Warfare for those that like it, and best of luck for those who found some level of agreement with the issues I've brought up.

Gimp said:

Now before you go - what's that, Gimp, as I happen to agree in principle with you?

Sami K said:

Warzone. It's out of print, and had another company put out a version that was rather lame as a licensed property. The original kept a comic book feel while still being very good for tactics. It had some issues that were easy to fix, and by the later expansions where playtest started really slipping you had to decide whether to allow new units, but the core rules were solid. The 2nd edition tried to fix things and work more as a straight tactical game, did it well, but lost a lot of the flavor of the original. The licensed property was very popular with some people, but I was underwhelmed. It came across as trying to do things differently just to be different, while not doing them very well.

There are other companies putting out fan made suplements specifically using DUST models that are far better simulations, which is where I'm headed for tabletop gaming with my DUST figures when I want more than Tactics gives me.

If Warfare somehow gets pulled out of the mire it bogged itself into, I may look at it again, but there are plenty of really good games out there I already play, or am interested in buying, that paying for Warfare when it doesn't work isn't worth it.

Having played a few games, I have to say that I do agree with Gimp's OP for the most part. My main issues are the imbalance between factions.

Cover plays a large role in the game and the Allies faction has a huge advantage over the Axis faction in negating cover, having access to several units with weapons that allow you to ignore it. The Axis have 2, I think? The Axis have nothing to match Phaser weapons. In return the Axis have 2 units that ignore suppression. The Zombies lose most cover benefits and the gorillas are weaker versions on the Allies rocket equipped troops who don't trigger reactions on the move and have better CC weapons. Snipers in general are broken.

The Axis have Laser weapons, which I'm underwhelmed by. I have a 1/3 chance to get another hit and a range shorter than the basic weapon of my opponent which btw puts them in reaction range.

My opinion is that the game hs too many issues to be fun. It's already beginning to die at my lgs and we are switching back to tactics. I'm going to hold on to my stuff for a while to see If FFG is interested in making much needed changes. If not, I'll have a large collection of premium models for sale in the next year.

Id be very interested in knowing what these fan-made supplements are, and for wich systems they are used … I have a lot of Dust figures as well, and ive had a feeling the official rules arent up to par. Id be happy if you could tell me more about these alternative rules.

Warzone btw, always loved the potential that system had … We started playing 1st edition when target games released it in sweden, and had it not been for the awful looking miniatures i think it might have given 40k a run for its money. Even though i mainly played 40k after this, i always thought back on Warzone and how much cooler it actually was, the amount of strategy and detailed rules it had.

Gimp said:

Id be very interested in knowing what these fan-made supplements are, and for wich systems they are used … I have a lot of Dust figures as well, and ive had a feeling the official rules arent up to par. Id be happy if you could tell me more about these alternative rules.

Warzone btw, always loved the potential that system had … We started playing 1st edition when target games released it in sweden, and had it not been for the awful looking miniatures i think it might have given 40k a run for its money. Even though i mainly played 40k after this, i always thought back on Warzone and how much cooler it actually was, the amount of strategy and detailed rules it had.

Ah, yes, Warzone…I have several very large armies for it. Yes, the minis were not very good (although the 2nd edition ones were excellent), but the game was very interesting, as micro-tactical as it was (one had a huge army of essentially one-man armies, sort of acting in units. I call it this because every figure had multiple actions each turn, allowing one to duck out of cover, fire, and duck back into cover, for example, in one smooth action). A very interesting system, and, I think, author Bill King's sole foray into game design? 2nd edition was full of rampant Anglophile revisionism, and it did easily loose the majority of the background and its flavor (which made a cracking great role-playing game, by the way).

I do confess to some intellectual curiousity about the basis of Gimp's comparison, vis a vis his condemnation of Dust, as to what he thinks is a good, complete game. Switching to first person, what do you hold up as such a good example, Gimp? I've got my own set, largely war-games from the 1970s - Avalon Hill and SPI titles, head-lined by Panzerblitz and Panzer Leader - which, in all fairness, are a lot less open-ended than point-based games today, and had mechanics that were similarly less complex. I'm not apologizing for Dust; its rules give every evidence of not having been blind-tested enough, if at all (for those of you not familiar with blind-testing, it's the process where the game draft is sent to cynical, anal, mean-spirited old rules lawyers like me, to be perused and played without any input from anyone already familiar with the game. It takes time, and knowing some of those cynics to use in that fashion. Privateer Press accomplished this by plopping their draft on-line for all to see, an despite decades of Games Workshop's shrill claims that releasing a peep of one's upcoming rules would result in people not purchasing those rules when they finally came out, I haven't heard anything about that playtesting act slowing down Privateer's sales any).

But, all the same, what are your paragon games, Gimp? I'm curious; I may well have played some of them of old, and it'd be nice to chat with another old grognard.

Bobby hostile said:

Axis have more than 2 units that ignore cover. Gorillas, Zombies, Loth, Luther, Angela, Snipers, Sturmpioneres, all have primary weapons that ignore cover.

It sounds like you're trying to play it like it's Dust Tactics, when it's just not the same game. Laser Grenadiers were an uber-squad in DT, but aren't in DW. But the Axis are still good, and from the battle reports that come in on here and other forums, they seem to have no problem winning their share of games. There are ways around the cover issue - yes, the allies have weapons that ignore cover, but all of them (except the snipers that both factions have) must be within reaction range to fire them off, and there are Axis units (like Gorillas and Zombies) that cannot be suppressed so should always be able to react. Walkers generally don't need cover because of their high armor rolls and health, and the Axis have the ability to field more walkers than the Allies. There are all sorts of ways to deal with what the Allies have - they are just different than what they are in Dust Tactics.

Hear, hear. I started out playing Germans, since my opponent du jour was playing Americans, and we were both suitably impressed with the capability of the Kampfaffen and Untertoten. Particularly since they could devastate any flamethrower American unit that got close (add Marcus, and a single command order turns into an assualt). When I started playing Americans (I'm teaching others how to play), I found that those flamethrower/shotgun assault units are really quite tricky to get into range of one's opponent. Just because they ignore cover doesn't mean they're the Golden BB; they have to get in range, first.

Bobby hostile said:

I don't have the rules with me, but I don't think Phasers ignore cover now. This is my biggest problem with DW in how many units and weapons have changed for no apparent reason, making it difficult to switch between DW & DT as you have to forget the units abilities to of one to play the other. I'd have like more consistancy between the 2 systems.

It does seem to be many players that have a problem with the ruleset are dust tactics player. I purchased all my DT models (which i played 3-4 times) in anticipation of warfare, so dont have that worry. We just pLayed our first 200pts game and I found many of the "broken" issues in this thread to not be a problem - just concentrated on supressing the (allied) units that were going to cause me grief. You may say Axis have been nerfed, but for instance Zombies not suffering from supression is huge, they ran across the board and caused my opponent real problems.

I think Panzerfaust has laid his finger on the large problem vis a vis disappointment in Dust Warfare. Like him, I didn't play Tactics much (twice - I was disappointed in it as a board-game, and put away my minis in anticipation of Warfare), and my problems are with the cover/obscuration rules (so much so that I'll not weigh in, and merely wait for official - and exhaustive - errata), as well as a few other lesser points already discussed, rather thoroughly. I have little objection to unit capabilities, and I consider both sides evenly matched, for now (which means I haven't played enough to discover if there's a broken list).

The game has some issues as all new games do but so far I am loving it and my boys have picked this game up faster than any other we have played. I have been impressed with both the miniatures and their price point along with the compact nature of the basic rules and speed at which the game plays. We can get two or even sometimes three dust games in compared to one game of 40K. I never played tactics but so far I have been impressed initial and I hope that FFG really gets behind this product and keeps supporting it. So far FFG has won me over.

Hey all, I'm new here but not to mini wargaming. After playing 2 games last night at 300 and 200 points a couple issues or tactics came to light. Maybe they are minor or maybe their is counters to these, we did not see in our games.

1. checkerboarding units. intemingling units to give each a cover save while in the open. It was almost a bad tactic in 40k till faq'd and it looks to be legal here? Am I missing something in the rules to keep two checker boarded units from doing this?

2. premeasuring every move to not allow reactions. we had very little reactions as units simply moved to 12.1 inches away. it slowed our game down and felt wrong.

3. going first seemed over powered. by not using orders and units getting to do their 2 actions AND react to the oponent going second, it felt like units were getting to do 3 actions as opposed to the person going second getting only 2 actions ( 1 reaction, and one action due to marker)

4. snipers

5. allied long tom

6. seemed like a gorrilla/zombie force can abuse the mission chart thingy

7. phaser and rocket gloves are beter than their axis versions. not really an issue but an oservation

inqDunn said:

Im pretty certain you have to use both your actions during your turn. Deciding to not act counts as an action. So you cnat save your actions for reaction. Also, reaction costs and action, so if you have no actions you cant react.

I dont thin any game should allow premeasuring. THis game does, but I would rather it didnt.

I agree with 5 and 7 but 6 is supposed to be that way. A gorilla platoon is marcus and 1 to 4 squads of gorillas, a zombie platon is Totenmeister and 1 to 4 zombie squads.

Snipers are fine, though I would prefer they change it to be more like Dust Tactics (doesnt ignore coer, but can pick victim).

Yes, do not like the Long Tom at all.

1.

There has to be *some* unit in front to hit that isn't being given cover. Also, suppressed units don't grant a cover save. And you can use weapons that ignore cover. And if you're Allies, use the Long Tom that hits 2 units within 6" of each other and punish them for having units so close.

2.

Sounds like you're just playing with jerks? There are no 13" weapons. The next range up after 12" is 16" - you shouldn't have to do crazy pre-measuring to get a unit in a 4" range.

3.

Going second has some advantages and you need to capitalize on them - mainly it's the command phase. If you're the responding player, you can use orders in the command phase to attack and suppress the initiating player before the unit phase. The initiating player then can't regroup because his command phase is already done.

I don't have enough experience with the other things you mention to talk about them. But there of what I know about, there are ways to counter the perceived inbalances and deal with the issues that you mention.

inqDunn said:

Well let's jump right into this…

1. Checkerboarding units as Felkor said someone inevitably has to play the role of chicken or the egg and there will end up being someone who inevitably came first. Shoot them, take them out or use weapons like sniper rifles to take away cover.

2. Premeasuring is an option that I actually like. It's a tabletop game, it's meant to be fun. 40k will most likely have premeasuring and honestly, with time and playing the game often the distances needed can just be eyed. As to it feeling wrong… why did it feel wrong? was it because your opponent was moving 12.1" and that portion felt wrong?

3. How is going first over powered? You use all your moves and then your opponent gets a turn to bare back you depending on what the army is.

4. What's wrong with snipers? They ignore cover so that helps first the issue you have in the 1st.

5. Again… what's wrong with the Allied Long Tom?

6. You say the Gorillas/Zombies can abuse the mission chart… but then number 7. you say that Phaser and Rocket Gloves are better than their axis versions. You say this is not an issue but rather an observation. The fact that 6 and 7 seem to balance one another out I'm confused how either of them are issues.

I'll tell you what though… Dunn the one thing I'm curious about that you didn't answer in your post is, Did you like the game other than the broken checker boarding, the terrible premeasuring, the overpowering first move, snipers, long toms, broken zombies and gorillas and strong phasers and rocket gloves? Other than those issues did you enjoy the two games you played?

You know what I like about these forums is at least all the Trolls seem content to sit in one thread QQing about a game that they don't have to play, but feel it is essential they share their discourse with the world, while everyone else can look at this thread and say "Okay not going to bother reading it" :-D

I don't really get the long tom hate. Its certainly good, but in a vacuum if I had to choose I would choose Blitzkrieg and its free 6" of movement (without gaining a reaction marker) and works 100% of the time over the Long Tom which only works 1/3 of the time without upgrades (of which you get very few) and gives you a reaction marker regardless of success or failure. Even with the Additional Resources ability, it only works about 50% of the time.

And sure, rocket punch is better than Panzer gloves. But Zombies and Gorillas are FAR better assault units since they ignore suppression and have abilities like fast, charge, and blitzkrieg to use. A unit of Gorillas could potentially move 24" in a single activiation regardless of enemy action and still hit a unit with ~10 attack dice. Gorillas can also recieve orders from further than 12", which frees up your very valuable radioman order. Conversely, Allied units with Rocket Punch do not ignore suppression and would require both of their actions to target an enemy squad not already within 3". A single sniper shot(ignoring both armor and cover) in the command phase from an opponent can foil any planned assault the majority of the time from Allied heavy infantry.