Rolling a few simple dice doesn't exactly slow the game down, DT moves plenty quick enough with its cover rolls, and besides they added in an uneeded armour save roll even though the weapon stat-lines incorporate armour class. All this cover rule means is that a beaten up squad cannot kill anything in cover.

They slow the game down more than you think. I play another game with another army that in competitive play forces me to roll out each models attack in a squad of 5… 30 sec - 1 min extra time dosnt seem like much until you have to repeat that over 5 squads and 5-7 turns. This game uses a cover mechanic that results in a threshold, and as a bonus your awesome solo will never get tko'd by a luck shot from one dude and pistol. The armor system was also needed to scale things like lasers back down to playable as well.

The suppression/break mechanic is also very streamlined and easy, reducing the system to something more predictable for you and your opponent over other games that have a min 4% flee rate on veteran super humans. Less rolls = less random.

Azrell said:

Less Rolls=Less Random=Less Fun for some. As was mentioned above, if you think cover rolls are too much extra rolling, then why add armor rolls as Mishap said, when Armor is already calclulated in? You ditch armor saves you will save even more time.

I am fine with te mrale mechanic as a base, just wish veteran, elite and so forth units had better recovery or could withstand more suppresson before being A) suppressed or B) Routed.

A lucky shot from a lone guy is how many wars/battles are won.

I played 40k for years and the attack, damage, save system was never the breaking point of the game. It was the number of attacks models had to make, the uber ninja death rules in every new codex and conflictng game mechanics (leadership is a different mechanic than the rest of the game, vehicles rules were a different game style entirely, etc).

Besides, cover only blocks 1 or 2 points of damage, so a weapon that does 2/1 or 3/1 or even 1/2 or 1/3 could still penetrate soft or hard cover.

More Rolls=More Random=Better IMHO

I'm with Azrell. It's refreshing to not have to roll so much. Reliable cover saves supports tactical gameplay. Also, medics are more valuable in this system.

Another thing that I think helps Azrell argument is if we look at the size of the two games and then contrast them. Dust Tactics is very much a squad based game played at them platoon level (absolutely NOTHING wrong with this) so by nature there are less models to manage and you want to get the most out of each of them which is part of the reason the stats in Tactics for most weapons are more deadly, to force those cover saves Peace mentioned. I will agree that Tactics is a very streamlined game however Dust Warfare is a different animal. We are now dealing with forces at the company level and even at the small game size of 150 Army Points you can field a lot of men (or Zombies, Gorillas, ect). Then general idea it seems is that the designers wanted to keep the game just as streamlined, enter in the unit cover/armor saves where all your are doing is rolling once set of dice to determine the out come of shooting or close combat. As well, with the unit save we get a reduction in weapon damage and ranges from Tactics so one unit doesn't super mega over power said unit saves. The idea, at least to me anyway, is to portray fierce and fast pace combat. Not to mention that from how the rule book is written there is a heavy focus on each unit of men (or zombies, gorillas, ect.) working together as a Squad.

I was a little turned off to the group save, but as soon as I started getting in a few games in I was all about it. It really did make the game faster and though the results can be very brutal I kind of enjoy that sort of game play. I want the game to be brutal and for units to get wiped out, it makes for a more visceral and cinematic game I find, all while keeping the game turns quick. Part of the reason I don't really like 40k anymore is that it tends to take at least an hour or two to make it though a game, half the time you don't get to do anything besides watching your opponent and then roll armor or cover saves. Every game of DW I have played so far has had me truly engaged, and since it only takes 30-45mins per game it is easier to experiment with forces and try out new ideas. Is it a perfect game? As the topic of this thread states there is some serious confusion with a few of the rules it seems, however the FAQ was out after only two/three weeks after the main rule book came out shows that FFG is trying to take this game seriously.

Now if only SSU would come out…

Resv said:

Actually, 150 points of Dust Tactics and 150 points of Dust Warfare would be the same amount of troops as the prices have not changed that much (other than Zombies).

Second it is slower to roll armor saves every time you get hit then it is to roll cover saves if and only if you are in cover and are entitled to a save. Armor is already figured into the attack matrix, so to have a second armor save is redundant. I am not saying it doesnt work, I am saying it is not intuitive. Yes, armor saves allow more of a variety in weapon damages against specific armor class types. And it doesnt make sense (even if it is a fictional setting in a alternate timeline with dead hitler, zombies, talking apes, walking tanks and alien tech) that the quality of your armor grows greater with the fewer you have in your squad and weaker with the more. Armor in a AC2 squad could only save everyone if 1) the damage was 2 or less and 2) if there were 2 or less people in the squad. While there is no way a bunch of guys hiding behind hard cover can ever benefit from the cover unless the damage inflicted was incredibly low.

So you go from cover being good to being "useless" in some situations (mass shooting makes it useless as its doubtful that the attacker will do less than 2 wounds on a sustained attack) while if you use the old blank/hit hard/soft cover rules and no armor save from Dust Tactics then you would, on average, be rolling less dice.

Its a IMHO thing. Its not right, its not wrong, Its the way the rules are written, and I believe, IMHO that this rule (cover/armor save) as well as CC verticle are bad poorly written and would benefit from some DT mergers.

So I dont buy the idea of its saves time to reduce cover saves to static numbers. You would still be rolling your armor saves every attack anyway.

My problem with the cover saves as they stand is this: An anti-tank weapon of the non-big-tank-cannon sort usually only rolls 1 die, and can therefore only sustain 1 hit. Period. No more. Which means a vehicle target in cover is totally immune to that weapon, unless said weapon has a rule that negates cover.

In addition, I also agree with the throng that is of the opinion that armor saves are less than reasonable, considering that armor is already factored in to the weapon mechanism.

I surmise that the reason for the big Warfare change from Tactics is the sheer amount of fire with a larger amount of units at higher point levels - a 300+ game is a busy battlefield - and the sheer murder rate using straight Tactics rules (no armor saves, cover is chancy, etc.). I would guess that someone was appalled to find a casualty rate that more closely resembled 40K - 70%+ - in a game, and wanted greater unit survivability? I have noted in the games I've played that the wipe-out rate isn't nearly as high.

I am still disturbed by the cover-totally-negates-single-shot-AT weapons business…

Warboss Krag said:

Cover counts as an extra save on the armor roll and armor rolls negate a single point of damage not hits. So a 1/3 that hits a target in soft cover still does 2 damage potentially.

Id like to point out too that i might not have made it clear that im most likely contrasting DW vs other games not DTs. I don't have all that much exp with DT as i do with say 40k or hoarmachine. That said.

I do think the cover and armor saves will scale nicely in this game, mostly for the reason that your always rolling the same # of dice and taking the same # away for cover. No charts, graphs or maths. All three of those slow a game down considerably when applied in abundance.

Warboss, part of your argument is flawed. Your anti-tank weapon normally rolls one die, but usually does 2-3 points of damage. You save vs damage, not hits, so your vehicle in cover (which getting a vehicle fully in cover is very tough) isn't completely immune.

Azrell said:

But if you remove the armor save (since damage is already calculated as a part of damage anyway) and return cover saves you still roll less dice. You only roll cover saves when in cover and there are plenty of times when you are not in cover or cover is ignored by weapons.

Attack guys in open in DW as is: Roll attack dice, roll armor save.

Attack guys in open in DW with DT Armor/cover rules: Roll attack dice.

Attack guys in cover in DW as is: Roll attack dice, roll armor dice, add cover save.

Attack guys in cover in DW with DT armor/cover rules: Roll attack dice, pick up the ones that hit and roll cover.

And DUST WARFARE (and TACTICS) are chart games as is anyway. Cross weapon with armor class, find intersecting die code, roll dice.

blkdymnd said:

To be honest though BLKDYMD the argument is only flawed because that rule is flawed. IMHO.

blkdymd's argument being flawed or not is immaterial; the answer I was looking for was given by several already. I went back and looked up the rule, and lo! it seems armor negates damage after all, not just hits. Illogical as it is (I was going for logic - with cover, you either hit or you don't, there's no 'partial hit' more often than not), it does fit the game, and I am relieved. Thanks for the heads-up!

I don't mean to derail the new direction of the thread but…

I think the rule for not measuring vertical distance may have something to due with the upcoming aircraft rules.

Something along the lines of: Measure to the base, altitude of the aircraft doesn't matter. That is a lot easier to deal with than having some form of altitude mechanic for range. The "don't worry about vertical distance" thing, while slightly annoying for close combat, makes more sense when you think about aircraft.

ItsUncertainWho said:

Aha! Excellent point. I do believe you're onto something.