This thread has devolved from talking about the game to talking about people who talk about the game (and now I'm talking about people who are talking about people who talk about the game… the downward spiral continues!)

I'm moving on to other threads… I appreciated the discussion though, while it lasted!

I played my first two games today as AXIS powers and I won 1 and lost 1. For the most part I can live with some of the strangeness of the rules as it feels balanced. The UGL's ignoring cover for all attacks in the same action annoys me but so far my opponents seem to like the jump troopers better anyway.

For everything else there is "Master Car…." I mean there are bad dice rolls. By which I mean you will lose more games due to bad dice rolls then any play mechanic written there. Seriously… nothing like being reduced to peeshooters while your opponent is reduced to a wounded but actively moving and shooting walker on the table. Yes sir that happened today and I surrendered at that point even though I mopped up all his infantry and left him with his lone walker…. sigh. Such are the winds of war.

And with that in mind folks this is not a game to be prepared with you monster A Game with your beardy list. It just feels like a beer and pretzles game. In fact I may make that a thing to do in the future with this game. It's fun and relaxing enough to play as such. Unlike many other war games out there that are intense on special rules and spending most of the game eliminating your opponents "I'll murder your whole army with this combo" just so that you can unleash yours. It doesn't even feel like a traditional I go you go turn sequence nor does it feel like the chess style of dust tactics either. It's good and you stay involved and there is no lock down strategy as of yet… I like it.

Harikaridog's response is certainly food for thought. I;m glad that there is someone willing to speak up about playtesting; While I understand non-disclosure format while the product is still awaiting production, I despise the 'gag order' business that seems to be only to bully playtesters into not pointing out the flaws they saw coming (and those they weren't allowed to see in final production), simply to protect someone's ego (or multiple someones).

Interesting, the things that got changed - distance measuring, sniper targeting; all apparently for the sake of some sort of simplification. Hmm.As a matter of interest to me, Harikaridog, were there any area terrain rules in place during the Chambers playtest?

Is there a way to get original ruleset?

So is Chambers responsible for the short weapon ranges? I have a hard time believing that personally …

Excellent post. So FFG dumbed down the game, that's what the delay was about? How sad.

And to hear that the November edition was so much better (I only needed to hear that only flamethrower weapons ignored cover there) is quite frustrating, but also gives me hope that FFG might later atone for its erroneous ways, and introduce a second edition with Andy Chambers' vision intact.

Sami K said:

I think its harsh to say FFG 'dumbed down' the game I personally think they spent the time wisely ensuring that the final format was crisp, easy to understand and play. I think the overwhelmingly positive reviews/responses show this. These guys have loads of experience in putting out quality games and i think Dust Warfare reflects this. As in all editing processes some items are modified, streamlined or even dropped and others are added or enhanced.

To say that the earlier version was so much better is an overstatement… it was different……indeed there were aspects of the final edition that I think improved the gaming experience.

FFG have nothing to atone for and I don't think anybody's vision was broken

I would like to see for myself, I bought the rulebook, is it possible somehow to get the first ruleset?

I rather play version that was at least playtested, not the one rewriten in 3 weeks.

I see that they deleted original Harikaridog post… That was quick.

Please let this thread die. New thread, new questions/issues.

[sami K said:

Excellent post. So FFG dumbed down the game, that's what the delay was about? How sad.

And to hear that the November edition was so much better (I only needed to hear that only flamethrower weapons ignored cover there) is quite frustrating, but also gives me hope that FFG might later atone for its erroneous ways, and introduce a second edition with Andy Chambers' vision intact.

Sigh. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when you have a committee making a game.Can you imagine, say, Arkham Horror dumbed down? (Good lord, imagine that it was! What sort of choice slice of hell, then, would the original look like?)

Warboss Krag said:

Sigh. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when you have a committee making a game.Can you imagine, say, Arkham Horror dumbed down? (Good lord, imagine that it was! What sort of choice slice of hell, then, would the original look like?)

Do you have any idea how a game is made? everything is done via committee. Like Everything.

Actually, Denied, I do know how games are made. From 1986 to 1997 I was a free-lance author. I had the great good fortune to work with some really good editors (a good line editor is worth his weight in iridium. Trust me, I know; I did some editing, and it's not only a very difficult job. it's frustrating and thankless to boot). I did some anthology work (that is, works where I was one of several authors, working on different parts), and I did work that was just me and my editor. Usually, though, my work stood on its own, or didn't; there were very few times that I had anyone else to blame. And I certainly didn't have anyone nerfing my work - instead, my editors would call me, and we'd hash out a reasonable compromise, rather than massive changes behind my back.

I get your point that there are issues with this game, however there are issues with EVERY miniatures game that I have ever played. This game is clearly not the holy grail of mini games, I think we can all agree on that. However, the comments and issues you have raised here haven't really been an issue in any of the few games I have played so far. In fact I have been having a great time with this game and my friends and I have been loving the ability to turn a night of wargaming into a story driven event! We even had allies fighting allies at one point in a mission we called "Blue on Blue" and Axis slugging it out with Axis attempting to stop a rogue group of Nazis from detonating a bomb. This game really goes the distance in selling a cinematic combat experience.

I have never expected to find a 'perfect' game. I play many different games, because I enjoy working with various ways to deal with the simulation of combat. I won't even argue with those who find the game fun, as I expected from my first post. I have issues with the game where it fails for me as a simulation of combat, whether real world or science fiction.

If you aren't having issues with Warfare, I'm happy for you.

Two quick issues:

1) Snipers are not assassins. No matter how crazy video games or movies may make it look, United States Marine Corps Scout Snipers (as well as our sniper counter parts in other branches of the United States Military) are no assassins. If you even talk like that around a bull session you might get your head examined. Snipers ignoring cover makes perfect sense, because that is exactly what it means to be a Sniper, you take your time and plot out shots to avoid cover.

2) Simply put, Tactics and Warfare are different games. Yes they do use the same models and the same fluff, but they are different games. From what I can tell, they were also written by different people. Expecting or demanding anything from these guys is a little presumptuous. I have only played a bit of Tactics here and there and it was an alright game, but it played like a board game. It wasn't nearly as dynamic as what I have come to enjoy in Warfare.

For the first, you don't know very much about snipers if that is your assumption. Snipers in WW2 were not capable of the anti-material kills modern snipers can accomplish, because they were using standard rifles for the greatest part (even if accurized versions for some). Their mission was not just to kill enemy soldiers, but to look for officers, NCO's, and special weapon soldiers (ex: flamethrowers and machine gunners) as primary targets, because eliminating them worked better for disrupting enemy activities. One of the reasons the US has shifted away from the large arm chevrons for NCO's and helmet flashes for officers through the years was to reduce the chance of enemy snipers identifying them.

Many armies, including the US military, gave bounties on confirmed kills for enemy officers, NCO's, or special weapon teams. That information comes from serving snipers I have dealt with and read about, and not games or movies. Having fired weapons, I know cover makes a difference when firing at any target. Ignoring armor can be explained as saying they have developed special ammunition and sniper rifles that are closer to modern equivalents. Making them more lethal is not that big a deal for a science fiction game with modern knowledge of what snipers can do. Eliminating the ability of snipers to do what snipers have been trained to do for as long as there have been dedicated snipers is where I have issues.

For the second, I did not expect Tactics and Warfare to be identical games. I did hope for more crossover capability, so it was easier to remember what specific units could do, and for issues already dealt with in Tactics to start off being dealt with in Warfare, as they had obviously been identified. Their failure to do that was a disappointment.

It seems like the main issue you are having with a lot of this game is the individual aspects of units encountered in a vacuum. I wonder how difficult it really is in a game to make what your propose.

However, I want to point out something here. This is a Sci-Fi game with talking Gorillas, Zombies, Lasers, and Maoists controlling China before 1949. It seems that you are asking a game based in fantasy to be a little less fantastic. Yes, Airborne troops hate to drop into a hostile DZ. Though if you have a Rocket Pack and are able to Jump a thousand feet into the air and land in your powered armor you might not be bothered by a hot DZ. If you are just in your Cammies with your vest on is one thing, a full suit of power armor is completely different. If you want a realistic game then maybe you are looking at the wrong product. Just saying.

I don't mind playing a game with the fantastic. What I prefer, however, is for a game that reflects realistic combat , even if in a science fiction or fantasy version, to try and reflect the way realistic combat works. Outrunning bullets when someone fires at you by reactively moving away. Troops flying through the air like ***** being the safest way to advance. Smoke screens turning the entire battlefield into a light fog. Fantastic I can be quite happy with. Ludicrous bothers me.

While I wouldn't say that only Tactics players don't like Warfare, I do think there is some justification. You clearly don't like Warfare, I don't really like Tactics. What I think I am going to do is not play Tactics, it isn't my cup of tea. Why don't you just not play Warfare? Why continue to punish yourself with rules you don't like and don't agree with? I don't get why you have pushed your arguments into 11 pages of forums when you did such a good job outlining your thoughts in the first page. The issue is that you have come back to defend your complaints, over and over again. However no matter what is written in this thread your arguments don't really change. Sure you drop a few issues here and there but no matter what is said it isn't going to magically change your opinion. However no matter what you write, it probably wont change the way I think about Warfare.

Again, I am not trying to troll you or this thread. No insult was intended or should be taken from what I have written above. I just feel that this whole thread is a giant pit of quick sand and we might be better off moving away from it. Threads like this only start to breed hate and negitivity after a while and I would love to not have this fantastic forum fall to that.

My dislike of what has been done with Warfare comes from multiple things. As simply a wargamer, I could look over the rules for Warfare, and simply decide the rules were not something I would be interested in playing, and leave it alone. I would still be willing to look over the rules and give my opinion (and contrary to assumptions, I have done more than read the rules), but could leave it at that.

As a Tactics player, I have more invested in Warfare than I would as a separate wargamer, whether I want to, or not. Squad boxes were orignially $15 for Tactics. As Warfare went into further production, that price increased to $20. While that may have been due to some other reason, the fact that the miniatures line has to support development of two distinctly different games, with a resulting increased development cost, gives a very logical reason why Tactics players got a price increase. Warfare is making Tactics miniatures cost more, and vice versa.

FFG is just getting into the development of miniatures games for their company, and is likely to be running with a staff that is doing double duty developing products for both games. With the issues of completely different rules, they are more likely to comtinue with first draft errors that will need errata for both games. That reduces playability for both games. The limited develoment staff also brings the issue of slowing down release of new material because each product will have to be developed for two separate systems. Warfare is slowing down new material for Tactics, and vice versa.

If enough people decide that Warfare is wonderful, that's great, as it could mean continued viability for both games. If enough people decide Warfare is botched workmanship, and don't trust FFG enough to give them multiple tries to fix it, it might kill both games. Likewise, FFG could decide to drop Tactics as a game they did not develop in house, and just continue with Warfare. Warfare could kill Tactics, and vice versa.

As a wargamer, I could simply be unimpressed with the shoddy product Warfare is. As a Tactics player. I can be more frustrated because I can see the issues Warfare will cause for the game they did a decent job on. I would see the same issues as a simulationist wargamer either way. Tactics does not change that view, but it does magnify the problem and add additional issues.

I have spent this much time on the thread discussing my thoughts because that is the nature of discussion and debate. I put forth thoughts. Others disagreed with counter-arguments of varied validity. I put forth counter-arguments acknowledging where I had been in error, and explaining my reasoning where I felt others were in error. That's what a forum is for: a long distance discussion from widely varied locations that trys to do the same things a discussion around a gaming table would allow. Hate and negativity only intrude when specific individuals decide to make personal attacks, rather than debate the actual issues.

As I noted at the beginning, I'm happy for those who like Warfare. I think it's garbage, but I want it to succeed, as the game I do like is now tied inextricably with Warfare's success.

I will continue to debate my views, because I believe in those views, or I would never have posted them. If FFG pays attention to them, fine. If they don't, at least those views were expressed for them to consider. A forum is a place to express views, and should not be limited to only positive views, or it loses all meaning.

I think with Dust Warfare, it's very difficult to give a rule similar to Dust Tactics. Armor and cover work differently in Dust Warfare in that they are static amounts (i.e. the number of attack dice rolled don't affect them), and make a single attack hit almost impossible to get through. So snipers *have* to ignore both armor and cover. Once you have a weapon ignoring cover and armor, though, that becomes uber-powerful and now it would just be too powerful to have the sniper *also* be able to pick the miniature that it takes out. So I can totally see why they ended up ruling the sniper ability the way they did.

This is not to defend them on how they did it, or to complain about the new armor/cover system - just saying I can understand why they did it the way they did.

while i agree this particular thread is a dark hole of arguments, id like to say everything I have seen gimp post (of which there is a lot) has been done in a civil way indeed. Id buy you a pint, gimp.

The game has problems, FFG need to get in touch with the community ASAP and apply modern practices to a wargame that so many competitors have not. Failure to do so will potentially see the game see vast early sales, followed by a serious flop. None of us want that flop.

Denied said:

Check here:

SSU Products

While I disagree with many of Gimp's issues, the price increase for units arrived with the SSU. I don't believe it's clear proof to assign blame to DW for this, but the timing could be argued thus.

* Edited broken link and rude comment.

Actually, a lot of squad packs were priced at $20 months ago - The Gunners and Battle Grenadiers were that expensive last year.

Warboss Krag said:

They both come with an extra miniature.

But when Red Devils, Heavy Recon Grenadiers came out, that is when the MSRP went up to $20 for a squad size (3 A3 soldiers) that previously (i.e. Gorillas, Grim Reapers) were $15. So it was definitely before Dust Warfare - I don't think the price jump is related. It is more likely related to China's economic boom over the last couple years.

felkor said:

Hadn't noticed their regular price. I bought the Premium of those two. They just looked to cool to not do so. Same with the Core Officer sets and Heroes, all $20 unpainted. DW was scheduled for November of '11 release, so the hike with these might still be related. (Not my peronal belief, but there isn't proof either way, so I'm open to accepting it could be).

Outrunning bullets when someone fires at you by reactively moving away.

Gimp,

How do gather that this rule equates to outrunning bullets?

An enemy unit declares an Attack action that includes
the unit as a target. The unit may only react if at least
one miniature in the attacking unit is within 12” of one
of the unit’s miniatures.

It's a tabletop game not a simulation, actions and reactions are happening with a level of abstraction. They are essentially happening at the same time. Do you really think if a squad was watching a superior force get into position to open fire that they would fall back after they were set?

To satisfy what you want would make action and reaction take an hour. NO FUN.

So Gimp, if you don't like the game, why do you keep posting on these forums? I do not like Candyland very much, but I don't really feel inspired to write huge posts on their forums about how the lollipop slide isn't fun.

Also, you've stated that you want Dust Warfare to succeed, but you are undermining that position by crapping on the game so much here. FFG isn't going to change a game they just released because there's a loud guy on their forums. There's some obvious editorial issues in the book, but the core mechanics of the game are really fun for most people.

You have a lot of opinions on what would make a great miniature game. Go get funded on kickstarter and make it!

Now THIS is realistic game combat:

http://www.theonion.com/video/ultrarealistic-modern-warfare-game-features-awaiti,14382/

paradiddlebob said:

pfft, thats still twice as fun as ARMA

thejughead said:

I'm guessing that a unit fires, and the target reacts steping back out of range and therefore can't be shot, effectively moving faster than a speeding bullet..

Warboss Krag said: