Major Mishap said:

Well when do they reload their weapons? Again there is a level of abstraction for reloading the rifles, so there should be one for action/reaction.

Major Mishap said:

It is a tun based game, not a physics simulator. It's an abstracted action/reaction mechanic, not superhuman speed.

The unit that is reacting, moving out of range in this case, has watched an enemy unit approach their position and knows, based on how war works, that they are in danger of taking fire. They decide to start moving back to prepare for the ensuing engagement.

They are not moving faster than a speeding bullet, they are reacting to the situation on the ground in front of them.

Maybe so in this one particular situation, but if they saw enemy moving towards them they would react when the enemy moves forward and not AFTER they start shooting, it's a bit to late then. Diving for cover is one thing, but not stepping back because you know you are out of range as all the bullets suddenly stop and drop to your feet.

A reaction move is only 6" so I think of it more as displacing away, in a bounding Overwatch, covering fire method, making them much more difficult to hit as they attempt to get out of effective range. Logic problem solved.

PS I've experienced displacement under fire from both sides of the equation. Hitting a moving target that is returning suppressive fire on the two-way range is truly an heroic feat, which usually buys you a hit back.

Terrain is abstract in this game… it uses TLOS for obstruction but firing through any "area terrain" results in a cover save. Vehicles also gain cover if your firing through terrain as well. So stand your Med walker behind a felt forest with one tree and it still gets soft cover as long as you cant draw a line from the firing units base to the vehicles base. pg 42 has a nice pic and explanation of vehicles, los and cover.

KevinBakon said:

I continue posting simply to keep the discussion going about various issues the fan boys don't want to think or talk about. Without negative feedback, a discussion about game issues becomes irrelevant.

Discussing negative issues only undermines a game if the company involved takes no action to address those issues, and the fan base becomes disillusioned because of it.

I don't know what FFG will do to address the issues with Warfare, but they need people willing to point out things playtesters obviously missed if they want to know about issues.

A reaction move is only 6" so I think of it more as displacing away, in a bounding Overwatch, covering fire method, making them much more difficult to hit as they attempt to get out of effective range. Logic problem solved.

PS I've experienced displacement under fire from both sides of the equation. Hitting a moving target that is returning suppressive fire on the two-way range is truly an heroic feat, which usually buys you a hit back.

I do consider displacement a valid option when under fire. Allowing a reactive move once an attack is declared, but before any effect rolls are made, however, is the equivalent of having a unit able to move after taking fire without the fire having any chance of effect.

The attacking unit is locked into its declared action, but somehow the target unit is able to move out of range or line of sight without the attacking unit able to do anything except fire at their previous, and now obviously vacant, position.

Terrain is abstract in this game… it uses TLOS for obstruction but firing through any "area terrain" results in a cover save. Vehicles also gain cover if your firing through terrain as well. So stand your Med walker behind a felt forest with one tree and it still gets soft cover as long as you cant draw a line from the firing units base to the vehicles base. pg 42 has a nice pic and explanation of vehicles, los and cover.

If they were using true line of sight, with a simple cover save for abstract area terrain, it would be less of an issue. Area terrain, however, gets the proviso that it becomes open terrain for a unit's fire so long as the unit leader is in contact with the area terrain. A forest of any width disappears for purposes of fire, and walkers, classed as area terrain, also become invisible so long as the unit leader is in contact.

Abstraction, I have no issue with. I've been wargaming with abstractions for decades. Impossible physics I have issue with, because it creates highly ridiculous game situations.

If my disagreeing with you makes me a fan boy, so be it. I get sick of people coming on various game "fan" sites, and calling people who are fans of the game, "fan boys" in a derogatory way. I'm sick of the interwebs leet peeps only being cool and knowledgeable if they are haters, where liking said game makes one a naive fan boy. I've tried to remain civil, and even called someone who wasn't on them not being civil, but complaining to fans what's wrong ( from your perspective) with a game, when they don't real you are right, is not only inflammatory, but highly ineffectual in my experience. I know, I've tried it elsewhere. If you have legitimate concerns, I recommend you take them up with FFG directly at this point.

As far as the unit committing to fire on the now vacant position once held by the enemy, that happens all the time irl!!! Bad intel, or slow maneuver has wasted a lot of ammo. We spent years looking for WMDs which were never located. They were either never there, or moved out just before being found. Which it was no longer matters, as an entire war was fought over an unattainable objective!

And in game terms, just as in real life, you need to pin the enemy down, or maneuver in such a way as to make it so they can't displace as you start to fire. If it helps, think of it as, they left a token rearguard to keep heads down, or they vacated just as the fire order came about. Some of he best displacement is right when the enemy finishes their move, and is taking up firing positions. Time to bug out if it looks like their fire is going to be effectual! Most soldiers are not suicidal. In a simulated, "high noon draw" the fighter who draws while remaining stationary will be hit nearly every time, even if he wins the draw. The smart fighter, who side-steps as part of his draw, is nearly always missed, even if he draws second, or his opponent, "had the drop on him." I've had a fair number of encounters where I just missed the enemy, and realized as we were about to fire, the tangos were no longer there. I'm equally sure I've escaped a few, where the enemy held fire, as they knew we were gone. People slink away after moved upon, but just before the shots are fired too. It's not impossible physics. Hell, it's not even being ninja'd. It's just smart warfare to not be where the bullets are coming down range, and if you recognize at the last minute you are, you bug out! This game allows you to move out if the enemy moves close, but sometimes, you might think they don't know you're there. You're ready to move, but don't want to unless you have to. Once they start pointing their weapons at you, it's a safe bet they do know you're there, and it's a good idea to displace off "the threat" of fire, and or the first few shots, rather than remain in an untenable position and take their full volley. But hey, I'm just a naive fan-boy who spent 3 years training operators in CQB in the early 90s, and am in my second decade of Law Enforcement as Marshal and as a firearms instructor, and I've only been playing miniature games since 1978. What do I know?

Gimp said:

What your calling impossible physics seems to me to be more stubborn imagination.

A model is placed behind a pile of rubble and gets cover, but he can shoot without penalty = Impossible Physics!

No, the model represents an intelligent person who knows how to use cover. They squat, kneel, or go prone for cover, then they lean out of cover to fire, then duck back in. The model in the cover knows how to use the cover.

In a forest, they use the trees to get cover. Then they lean out, aim, fire, lean back into cover. The forest doesn't disappear.

A walker, or any vehicle, used for cover. They use the mass of a vehicle as cover, lean out, fire, get back behind the mass of the vehicle. The model doesn't move, but the imaginary army man does.

These aren't examples of impossible physics, these are the abstraction of little plastic models moving and fighting a battle. The action does not only happen at the roll of a die, the action is happening simultaneously, over a period of time only perceivable to the plastic army men. Fire from both sides might be exchanged constantly but the only fire that matters is what you roll dice for.

I don't mean this as an attack, but I am tired of the crying foul over abstract game concepts.

even taking into account "real world" abilities to get out of a line of fire, the simple fact is that with pre-measuring in this game, players often state they are moving "as close as possible without being close enough to cause a reaction". The fact is that reaction movement is less about avoiding a bad movement and more about the dance between combats and cover.

Dear Thread,

Please go away….

Regards,

Happy with DUST Warfare 1.0.

I think people are getting way to personal in this thread, and way to mean spirited. My understanding of the genesis of this thread was that someone asked Gimp to post his thoughts as a long time wargamer and someone who has played a lot of different wargamers over his 30 plus years in what is for most of us a pleasurable pursuit. Gimp did that. He had issues with a wide variety of different rules or factors which he enunciated pretty clearly in his inital post. Others have done the same thing in other posts and in other threads. My guess is that there are a lot of others who post on this forum who have as many years invested in wargaming as Gimp. I know I do, I hate to admit it, but I have actually been wargaming for over 4 decades. I just happened to start at a very young age, 12, and played with guys who were almost all over 40. The funny, or maybe not so funny thing is, that despite all the rhetoric here everyone that I have played Dust Warfare with so far, have all had similar problems with the rules. I've traveled a good deal, so as to play with different groups and meet new people that share my interest in wargaming and where ever I've gone, the mere mention of various rules causes eyeballs to roll. I've also noticed that where ever the game is being played or demoed that people watching play have similar reactions.

The big knock on this game as I see it, is that it bills itself as World War II but with a twist. Whether it's in the art work, the comics, the fluff generated by the stories creator and his team, the names of things or the histories, everything tells us this was our WW II with just the discovery of an alien ship leading to new technologies as the only variating point. So many people who have followed Dust's long and rocky road as I have (I bought and still have the original 1/20th scale playsets and comics) were expecting just that, a WW II game with new cool technologies added to existing weapons. In other words a Grenadier actually has grenades as novel as that may seem. Weapons that have the exact same name as a real WW II era weapon actually do what the real weapon did, i.e… an antitank rifle is an antitank rifle not a sniper rifle; an obstacle clearing short range mortar is just that and not a long range combat weapon etc…, and they fire at the same effective ranges, with the same rates of fire doing the same kind of damage as they really did. Weapons that are fictional successors of real WW II weapons i.e… fictional Stg 47 vs. actual StG44 have somewhat improved stats, and weapons based on the story twist i.e. phasers, lasers, zombies, trained apes, carbonite armor, and walkers well with them anything goes. Unfortunately the people who expected that have been disappointed. Those who have watched the games I've played hoping for such a game will most likely never buy a Dust product.

Some responders ask why post those views here? A lot of people have already posted those same views to varying degrees both here and in different threads. There are actually a few reasons, besides being asked to as Gimp initially was. My guess is that most of the people posting do so because they have a hope that FFG will make changes to the game that will bring it back into alignment with the Dust story and fluff and make this an even better game than it currently is. I don't see those posts as bashing the game I see them as constructive criticism and I would hope that anyone from FFG looking at this forum take them that way. Some others responding in this thread ask repeatedly, why play the game if you don't like it? Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I happen to love, love, love the mini's, and they came long before the warfare rules did. So now that I have an almost completed German and allied army what do I do with them if the game fails to meet my expectations. I can sell everything Dust related in a fit of anger and wash my hands of Dust for good, I can take the rules as published and modify them into something that more closely fits what I was hoping for and find people of like mind to play them with, I can use the mini's in perhaps another game by modifying those rules, or I can post in this forum and maybe write FFG with constructive criticisms and maybe sway them in some small way that leads to their improving the game

I think most of the people who have posted here expressing their views, concerns and problems with small sections of the rules have done so in the hopes of doing just that and any name calling or personal criticisms are completely unwarranted.

Dear Thread,

Please go away….

Regards,

Happy with DUST Warfare 1.0.

Shouldnt be any reason to post here then ..? Ask for more and speculate the games potential instead of just sitting around being happy about everything.

Hatamoto said:

I am also happy with Dust Warfare, doesnt mean it couldnt be better and that I shouldnt comment on what I dont like or would like to see fixed. I am happy with my dog. I would be happier if she didnt pee on the carpet.

Gunther, very well said. Gimp's initial post was equally very well said. Most things said here by all have been well thought out. I just get a tad upset when people demand I respect their opinions, then call folks who, while respecting them, disagree with them, "fan boys!" in a way to mean we are ignorant of the warts inherent in all games.

Is Dust Warfare perfect or even the greatest miniature game ever? No. However, it is currently my favorite. I too have been following Dust for a long time. Aside from loving the setting, I've found the game to be imminently playable, thoroughly enjoyable, intuitive, accurate (as one poster said to the level of plastic men and what they'd be doing irl), and it's easily taught in just a few minutes. All of these are important concepts to me. Plus, the models are gorgeous!

Could it be better? Yes. Could changing it ruin it? Far too easily. The last game I liked this much was destroyed when too many cooks got in the kitchen, and simple playable rules became a compendium of contradictions. When I try to point out why the perceived flaw still works for me from both a real life logic level, as well as a game balance level, calling me a fan boy is taken as as insinuation I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm pretty sure Gimp and others on both sides of this discussion, know what we're talking about. I too, began playing miniature games when I was 12 with military personnel who were in their 40s. I've also been on the sharp end of the stick, and taught CQB tactics to others on the sharp end of the stick. I'm a fan the Dust world and can suspend disbelief for the Gorillas & Zombies (really the only complaints locally). I can reconcile most of the OP's stated weaknesses of this system, and in some cases consider them strengths. This doesn't mean I think the OP or others who feel the same are naive, dumb, or even wrong. It just means we have a different perspective and expectations of what a truly great minis game should be. But as true as that us, it's also true I've found mine for the foreseeable future.

Now you durn kids get off my lawn!

I'm pretty happy with the rules. Then again, I didn't have many expectations on it. I'm not much of a fan of Dust, but I thought I'd give the rules a try based on Andy Chambers's past work.

I don't want to dismiss anyone's criticism, but a lot of the negative comments don't sway me too much. I'll admit that the rules system isn't perfect, but it's on par with the quality of it's competitors(40K and Flames or War) Better than 40K; maybe not quite as good as Flames.

I don't think that Fantasy Flight should be in any rush to revise the rules. The games has only been out for a few weeks, and in my opinion a lot of potential problems people are seeing will get ironed out as the meta-game improves. Most people have played less than a dozen games at smaller point sizes with whatever initial units they happen to have. I think we'll also see that some of the issues resolve around edge cases that you won't see in the majority of your games. Honestly, how many 3+ level ruins are people playing with to make the melee combat horizontal only measurement an issue?

As long as we're all flaunting our geek cred, I'm a veteran gamer with a decade of experience and many game systems under my belt. Even then, I found this game to require some actual models on table experience to really get a feel for. There are several concepts in this game that I found to be rather odd, until I put them in context with some other unrelated concepts. That probably indicates that the rules are not quite as well organized or annotated as they could be, but nevertheless when you put the whole thing together it plays rather well. This game does a very good job of providing tactical depth without layering on too much complexity. It's easy to see complexity when you read a rule system, but tactical depth isn't always apparent just from reading the rules.

The people I've played the game with in IRL have enjoyed it. It's not Advanced Squad Leader, but not every game has to be. It's a quick and dirty rules system for a pulp and cheesy setting. I like that.

Gunther, your post is pure gold. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I really like the premise of the game and my disappointment in the rules led to the disappointment of several friends that we would not be picking the game up after all, but I still hold out hope that FFG will revise the rules for the better in the future, and that's the primary reason why I follow and contribute to this thread.

This is why I cannot understand people who say things like "this discussion must die. Only positive and happy things or specific rules questions should be discussed".

Reaction movement to take the unit out of the range of enemy weapons has been the latest sticking point here. I think it's important that we differentiate between moving out of range or out of LOS - the former is irksome, the latter is good tactics and reflective of real warfare as our resident combat vet just attested to. The problem is not the capability to react by movement, but the fact that weapons have a really limited range.

A simple fix would be to "lock" the range in when the fire action is declared, and regardless of reaction movement, the firing unit will be in range - provided it has LOS. This enables the reacting unit to get to cover or maybe even close with the firer, but not slink "out of range".

These are the sort of things I'm hoping to see down the road as the ruleset will hopefully evolve, and I'm wondering what would be the best way to collate and discuss those outside this thread?

Sami K said:

I could get behind this, if, and only if mind you, a myriad of other, "simple fixes" don't creep in. The entire ruleset must be viewed as a whole, and once we start down the, "minor change here & there" rabbit-hole, we're really opening Pandora's box, and the whole thing can implode in on itself.

I like the thought process that came up with this though. I wonder what Andy Chambers would have said about something like this. I miss his presence on the forums. It'd be nice to hear his take on it. Heck, I'd love to see Mack Martin jump in here for that matter.

*Edit to add*

My guess is they'd say, "suppress them first, and it's a giant non-issue." I think the design intent was to teach folks to, "fix" the target in place with suppression fire, followed up by effective close range combat. It's why my Lasergrenadiers have been so fearsome for me in the games I've played. I suppress things with my Walkers, Snipers, and Stg 47 dudes, then move in with my lasers for the kaput maneuver.

We've read GIMP's views and either you agree or disagree with them. I personally want this thread in the dust heap, because :

1. The game has been out 2 weeks. No one has played enough games to find true game play issues. GIMP has not played any.

2. The issues listed here are thematic in nature (reality vs. game, etc.)

3. If you don't like the game either play with your rules with your group or sell off your minis and get out.

4. The argument of this thread is irrelevant (both sides), the book has sold out of print and mini's continue to fly off the shelf.

None of my comments have been a personal attack on the author or those engaging in the discussion (including myself). It just seems to me that the Gronards are most disappointed with the rules set. Many casual fans like myself love the game and the ruleset. This will bring the more gamers from 40k over to this universe then I'm for it.

This is Pablo Parente's universe. His name is on the box, he creates the mini molds and consults with the developers on what is what in the universe. Who are we to say his universe is not how it should be. It's his IP.

All wargames have to handle a few basic issues. The first and probably most difficult is game mechanics. Those mechanics determine how the game flows, the sequence of how it plays. If those mechanics are overly complex or tedious then the game will most likely fail, as it will appeal to a very small audience, to small to make it a viable long term investment for a gaming company. To simple and you might as well be sitting on the carpet with some little green plastic army men making shooting sounds and telling people they're dead. For all the submissions that I've seen in these forums the fact that only the reaction mechanic, and specifically the reaction to being shot at and then outrunning a speeding bullet (It's superman, faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than….) has been complained about is a pretty clear indication that the vast majority of people playing like the mechanics and overall flow of the game. In the games I've played the mechanics have never been an issue, other than in not understanding all the time how they worked, which will happen with any new game. I for one really want to applaud Andy Chambers for the job he did in constructing these mechanics because this game is so, so very much more than simply moving all your men, then rolling dice to see how many men you kill. It's more like a masters level chess match where you have to plan several moves ahead for all the things that your opponent might do and how to react to or take advantage of each. However I haven't run into anyone out running a bullet so far, and I can certainly understand how hokey that sounds.

Most of the other issues are more technical and mathematical in nature and are usually because of this the easiest things to get right. You start with a ground scale, let's say 1" on the table top = 30 meters. You decide how long a turn represents in time, say 1 turn = 10 minutes, and then you have to decide how far or fast things can move in that time frame, and do different terrain features slow down or totally impede that movement. How far do things shoot, using that ground scale, how far can things be thrown, how big of an explosion occurs when something blows up, can a weapon type penetrate a particular piece of armor etc… The reason I say this is easy is because we usually know how far a man can walk or run within a fixed time frame, or can easily look it up. We know how fast vehicles are or if it's a sci-fi vehicle like a walker the game designer can simply make this up. We know how far a man can throw a grenade and how far a panzerfaust can fire and we know what it's rate of fire was. Some of the rule books I have, contain page after page of tables both because of the vast array of weapons types that were available as well as the lengths they go to trying to figure the exact armor penetration on each weapon at incremental ranges. Of course when you play those games you do get an accurate representation of what would or should happen but that accuracy comes at the price of having to wade thru way to much data which gets overly tedious and in some games having to keep 8x11" sized record sheets for each vehicle you are fielding. OMG, I just had a flashback to the original battletech game with a full letter sized record sheet for each mech, you could spend more time filling out record sheets than playing. So the key is to have something that makes sense and seems right and logical without getting bogged down in endless charts or record keeping. And yet it is in this area, the one that should have been the easiest to get right that the game fails for me. Now having said that let me give you a few examples. How far can a man throw a grenade, this isn't a trick question because nothing in the story suggests that these are anything other than ordinary men, they haven't been gene enhanced or implanted with extra organs or glans and they don't have superhuman strength. Well the common answer when you look it up is 30 meters on average, some sources claim the german stick grenades could be thrown up to 50% farther but our Germans no longer know what a grenade is. Again assuming a ground scale of 1"=30 meters a grenade would have a range of 1". Do you need line of sight to throw a grenade at someone that you hear on the other side of the wall your next to or should you be able to simply lob the grenade over the wall. In real life you would lob the grenade. How far could a flamethrower shoot it's jet of flame, if you look it up effective range was 20m and maximum range was 40m. How far could a M-9 Bazooka fire, according to General Patton they were all but worthless and should only be fired in defense and at a range of around 30 meters. How far can you throw a demolition charge, well that was a trick question as demo charges weren't meant to be thrown, you could but not even close to as far as you could throw a grenade. All of these weapons were and still are close combat weapons (demo charges aside), not melee weapons but close combat. Does melee occur at range, no, you can't kick, punch or headbutt someone that your not in contact with. How far does an M1 AR fire, don't know it's a fantasy weapon, but we do know how far a modern day M16 fires and how far WWII weapons fired and using those stats the M1 AR would have a range of somewhere around 18", a little higher than it's current stat. Lastly how far did a .50 cal dual or quad mounted MG fire, effective range was 1800m, 60" on the table top, which is why I choose 1" to represent 30m to begin with, as this weapon was highly accurate at very long range as was true for a number of other weapons as well.

Now I have the exact same concerns as Shadow4ce, I like the mechanics and flow of the game and would hate to see endless nit picky changes made that would destroy that flow. But my question as a starting point is, does using the correct historical ranges and characteristics of actual historical weapons, and slightly improved stats for the upgrades of actual historical weapons in any way change the mechanics or flow of the game? I actually already know that it doesn't, because I have a revised weapons chart for each side and have play tested it. What using more historically correct ranges does is make the game more real and yes it also does change some of the strategy a bit. If your a German player you most certainly don't want to be caught in range and LOS of a quad .50 cal MG that had a rate of fire of 1840-2540 rpm. They were called meat cutters for a reason.

If anyone would like to test this for themselves, I would be happy to send them the 2 weapons charts with the corrected ranges as I have already done the grunt work of researching each weapon.

I like Pepsi. Coke is bad. Any Coke fan boys are wrong. Maybe someone has an educated/experienced opinion on this?

My experience drinking tasty beverages is decades long. I started drinking things as an infant in the company of people much older and more experienced than anyone alive… I have been drinking things in hostile environments. Drinking Pepsi while playing DW is far more realistic than drinking Coke during DW. No self respecting German WWII zombie would be caught drinking Coke… even though Coke existed during WWII and Pepsi did not. Drinking Pepsi within 3" regardless of horizontal or vertical lines is always more realistic than Coke.

@ Neebs - Dr. Pepper

@ Gunther - Question: In adding to the weapon ranges, did you add to the Reaction range? I think you'd have to consider it. Which brings me back to my point of going down the rabbit hole. Once you change one thing, it logically leads to changing another, and eventually a slippery slope rapidly approaches where core mechanics get changed and the system bogs down. That's my concern. I can think of one way to change the reaction range that might accommodate longer weapon ranges, and have considered implementing it with weapon ranges being a multiple of 6" per DT square, the original stated ranges by Mr. chambers last fall. Basically, have reaction to movement stay at 12" or possibly 15" but allow return fire or go to ground reaction at any range if fired upon and you have the weapons to shoot back at hat range, only targeting the unit targeting you.

@ Everyone - Many of Gimp's issues were issues I had when I first read through the rules. I was ticked my DT cards were worthless. I was dismayed at the short ranges. I was incredulous the grenadiers lost their grenades! (I mean, really)? Many of the issues he listed in his OP were my thoughts on first read through. But, loving the setting and owning the models, I gave it a try, and another, and another, and so on. Playing as often as I could with anyone I could get to try it, and Lo and behold, something magical happened… All but a very few issues were imaginary, the system itself made them either disappear entirely or happen so infrequently they're irrelevant. ( The last issue to resolve for me to truly think this game is the Cat's Meow are the unit cards which several folks in this community have corrected, and are now perfecting).

For me, Dust Warfare is fantastic as it is. I like having to use real world tactics to consistently win. I like how it allows for a new player to, after only a few plays, focus more on their tactics and those of their opponents, than on rules mechanics.

This system is a synergy system, the sum of its whole is far greater than its parts. Any issues I have left after a number of plays are easily wiped away upon remembering one simple thing, it's a game designed to provide a few hours of entertainment in my spare time, and if it wasn't fun, I wouldn't waste my precious spare time playing it. The fact I own hundreds of really good games, yet only want to play this one, tells me the most important thing about this game…

It's fun!

After all, fun is why we play, isn't it?

Just a quick note to Gunther, the biggest problem for me remains the whole cover ignoring spray / grenade / sniper hero weapons debacle and overall uneven balance between units (though not necessarily sides with correct unit selection, that is something for playtesting to determine).

The latter can easily be fixed over time, while the former is something I hope that they'll take another serious look at later.

I haven't seen anyone who even knows what Dust Warfare here in the Helsinki region…

He eyed his units objective across the tortured landscape. Where once there had stood a small and peaceful town now there were only shattered buildings, craters, pools of raw sewage and mangled trees all now frozen in place and covered by a thin sheet of ice. A powerful stench, the smell of decaying bodies mixed with the odor of the now frozen sewage covered the entire field. But Sergeant Oliver "Jughead" Norton, ignored all these, he was focused with laser like precision on the German command bunker 700 meters away. He looked around him, his squad of assault rangers looked as ready as he felt. He only had to nod once, his men knew what that nod meant, and as one his squad was up and racing across the twisted landscape.Across the frozen tundra they sped reaching the 1st line of long abandoned trenches. These they easily leapt over and raced onward within seconds reaching the now crater filled town. Thru craters, over piles of debris and the remains of once manicured hedge rows they sprinted quickly reaching the base of the hill upon which the German command bunker lay. Clearing the rusting hulk of some long dead behemoth they raced onward up the steep and now frozen incline past the dug in German troops deployed in a defensive ring but now to stunned by their heroic assault to even move. Within minutes they had raced across almost 500 meters of blasted terrain and past wide eyed German troopers. Leveling the shotgun he held in his right hand Oliver armed the demolition charge he carried with his left hand while rushing onward up the hill knowing instinctively that they were almost in range. As he did so 3 of his men did the same while the 4th ignited and leveled the flamer he carried one handed while arming his demo charge with the other. At a range of just under 200 meters they stopped as one and let loose on the stunned occupants of the bunker firing one handed with precision thru the narrow observation slit in the bunkers front wall, while simultaneously hurling their demo charges. The command unit in the bunker never had a chance, the close assault weapons of the assault rangers were devastating inside of 200 meters.
Welcome to the world of Dust Warfare.

He eyed his units objective across the tortured landscape. Where once there had stood a small and peaceful town now there were only shattered buildings, craters, pools of raw sewage and mangled trees all now frozen in place and covered by a thin sheet of ice. A powerful stench, the smell of decaying bodies mixed with the odor of the now frozen sewage covered the entire field. But Brother Sergeant Oliver "Jughead" Norton, ignored all these, he was focused with laser like precision on the Chaos command bunker 700 meters away. He looked around him, his squad of assault marines looked as ready as he felt. He only had to nod once, his men knew what that nod meant, and as one his squad was up and racing across the twisted landscape.Across the frozen tundra they sped reaching the 1st line of long abandoned trenches. These they easily leapt over and raced onward within seconds reaching the now crater filled town. Thru craters, over piles of debris and the remains of once manicured hedge rows they sprinted quickly reaching the base of the hill upon which the Chaos command bunker lay. Clearing the rusting hulk of some long dead behemoth they raced onward up the steep and now frozen incline past the dug in Chaos troops deployed in a defensive ring but now to stunned by their heroic assault to even move. Within minutes they had raced across almost 500 meters of blasted terrain and past wide eyed German troopers. Leveling the blaster he held in his right hand Oliver armed the demolition charge he carried with his left hand while rushing onward up the hill knowing instinctively that they were almost in range. As he did so 3 of his men did the same while the 4th ignited and leveled the multi melta gun he carried one handed while arming his demo charge with the other. At a range of just under 200 meters they stopped as one and let loose on the stunned occupants of the bunker firing one handed with precision thru the narrow observation slit in the bunkers front wall, while simultaneously hurling their demo charges. The command unit in the bunker never had a chance, the close assault weapons of the assault marines were devastating inside of 200 meters.
Welcome to the world of 40k.

Some people claim not to like 40k but also seem to hate even the slightest mention of reality. Without reality what you have is 40k.

I hate the music of the Foo Fighters. I don't think they can write themselves out of a wet paper bag. Perhaps, if they wrote their songs by committe, it would help.

Was that in the spirit of this thread?

@Gunther,

Nice story …but you forgot one thing, ALL the German troops would have gotten a reaction opportunity, including those in the bunker (if not suppressed).

I've said before and I will repeat it. If a minority want to poo-poo about the reality, there are other popular systems (FOW) or not-so popular (DIRT!) pick one you like and use the minis for that. Let the people who are paid to design, DESIGN. Its their but not yours and frankly, Andy Chambers body of work says more than anyone's post and their lifelong claims to know how to play much less design a game from the ground up.

My point is nothing is as broken with the game as some people would lead us to believe. Stretch the imagination, yeah a little. Those of you that want it black and white, I hope they never listen to you. The narrative in my head as I play makes sense to me. I don't want Gimp's or Gunther's vision (no offense), I paid for Paolo Parente's and Andy Chambers vision. It's theirs to screw up, and so far they are in the lead with me.