Jump to content



Photo

The designer is in.


  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#21 Amaximus167

Amaximus167

    Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 11:25 AM

 I understand both perspectives on the other WWII vehicles however, I was strongly hoping for rules for these vehicles as I am very into WWII.  At least rules for Halftracks, Jeeps, Bikes...  Can't FFG release models for the common WWII vehicles if they are worried about losing revenue?  Or perhaps include them as rare choices sense the new tech makes them mostly obsolete?

This kind of exclusion could make or break whether I buy the book.  I feel like it could be the same for other players as DT and DW are not just attractive to FFG fans but to WWII and Weird WWII enthusiasts as well. 



#22 blkdymnd

blkdymnd

    Member

  • Members
  • 958 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 02:08 PM

It makes sense for both FFG and Dust Studios not to delve in that area much though.  Again, there are going to be unofficial rules aplenty for it (and it sounds like Andy might do a "Chapter Approved" for them somewhere down the line, man I miss Andy's Chapter Approveds).  There are tons of other Weird War games and WWII games that do delve into the pure vehicle rules and models, I personally want Dust and FFG to keep researching and developing more unique units than those types that already abound in other game systems and model lines.



#23 KAM

KAM

    Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 02:57 PM

Hello,

Andy Chambers said:

Relation to Dust Tactics:

One thing I should make clear is that the decision to follow Dust tactics so closely comes from me, it's not like its something being imposed by FF or anything. Looking at the core mechanics of DT I saw something that was well fleshed out, nuanced and distinctive, so much so that I liked the idea of developing it up into a tabletop game that was the same-but-different. Dust Warfare adds a fair bit granularity to the DT formula and completely changes the turn sequence meta-game, so I wouldn't say they are the same game  by any stretch of the imagination. I can't help but think that the benefits that could be gained by breaking the two into very different games are outweighed by having a set of core mechanics that are already known and understood. Widening the pool of potential players is a huge benefit and it pays well to never, ever understimate how important that is to ensuring a game takes off. Quite aside from all this, it means we'll never be in a situation where a released model can't be used in DW.

I'm not in charge of a game company that seems to be dominating the market, so I'll speak to this point as a customer.

If I like the world of Dust as a theme and story, yet I'm not thrilled with Dust Tactics rules/play, then Dust Warfare does nothing to change that.  It maintains the same elements that I dislike.   You then have two games that don't appeal to me (the theoretical customer)

If Dust Warfare provides an alternate rules system that appeals to a different type of customer, then you GAIN that customer.  This is a simple matter of "something for everyone" rather than two things for the same group of fans.  No matter which version of Dust one likes (Tactics or Warfare), FFG gets miniature sales. Both games share common product, so adding new customers is presumably preferable to selling an additional book to existing customers

For the record, I don't think that Dust Tactics is a BAD game, but I think it has less dimensions, because of is core mechanics than other tabletop games.  From what I've seen, Dust Warfare has some interesting elements, but I don't see how it broadens the overall appeal.

The "benefit" of having a core mechanic that is already known, is acknowledging that you are just re-targeting the current players, NOT new players (who wouldn't know the mechanic--because they aren't current customers).  So, this seems contradictory. 

You "Broaden" a player base by gaining NEW customers, who by definition don't already "know and understand" the current core mechanics, because they aren't current customers.

KAM

 

 

 

 



#24 KAM

KAM

    Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 03:17 PM

Grenadier XYZ said:

 

Also, I have to say I am very pleased you tried to stay close to the Dust Tactics rules, even if I'm a bit worried about the I go You go activation. In my opinion, it's a thing of the past in wargaming. You may think it's better than alternate activation and I respect your opinion and will give it a try, but from my experience, just sitting there and looking at the other player playing his turn (sometimes for 15 to 20 minutes) and destroying your squads one by one is just plain boring (one cup of tea is fine, two or three just get on my nerves :) ). I discovered alternate activation while playing Warzone (RIP) 15 years ago and I think it's by far the best system to keep both players alerts and keep the game entertaining all the time.

Now I will try the Reactions System. I remember the challenge of putting Terminators in Overwatch in the original Space Hulk and I hope the Reactions system in DW will be varied enough to keep the "passive" player entertained. 

It's a chance to have to you here. Having the opportunity to discuss with you before the release of the game is just great. Thanks again. 

 

 

Well, I agree with you 100% regarding the one-side activation.  EDITED: I must be wrong about the Alternating Activation, I THOUGHT I saw.  I must have seen a bit where there was some sort of reaction that LOOKED like alternating activation.

If Dust Warfare keeps the core Dust mechanic, but eliminates alternating activation, that is a major lose-lose in my view.

Other people I've tried to introduce Dust Tactics to were REALLY turned off by the slaughter that can happen when you're the first to stick your head out (I know that's not quite accurate once you get the swing of things), but imagine the game stall that can occur knowing that you will be subjected not to just one units blistering attack, but multiple units.

Imagine how fun Chess would be if one player got to move all their pieces, before their opponent got to move their's.

Alternating activation DOES NOT mean that you think only about your next activation.  You've got to anticipate what your opponent might do with their activations, and in what order and determine how best to PLAY your units and in what order.  In my opinion, it makes games more dynamic, rather than turning each player into a spectator for half the game.

Again, just my opinion, but Alternating activation is a must.

KAM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



#25 Peacekeeper_b

Peacekeeper_b

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,478 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 03:29 PM

KAM said:

Hello,

Andy Chambers said:

Relation to Dust Tactics:

 

One thing I should make clear is that the decision to follow Dust tactics so closely comes from me, it's not like its something being imposed by FF or anything. Looking at the core mechanics of DT I saw something that was well fleshed out, nuanced and distinctive, so much so that I liked the idea of developing it up into a tabletop game that was the same-but-different. Dust Warfare adds a fair bit granularity to the DT formula and completely changes the turn sequence meta-game, so I wouldn't say they are the same game  by any stretch of the imagination. I can't help but think that the benefits that could be gained by breaking the two into very different games are outweighed by having a set of core mechanics that are already known and understood. Widening the pool of potential players is a huge benefit and it pays well to never, ever understimate how important that is to ensuring a game takes off. Quite aside from all this, it means we'll never be in a situation where a released model can't be used in DW.

 

I'm not in charge of a game company that seems to be dominating the market, so I'll speak to this point as a customer.

If I like the world of Dust as a theme and story, yet I'm not thrilled with Dust Tactics rules/play, then Dust Warfare does nothing to change that.  It maintains the same elements that I dislike.   You then have two games that don't appeal to me (the theoretical customer)

If Dust Warfare provides an alternate rules system that appeals to a different type of customer, then you GAIN that customer.  This is a simple matter of "something for everyone" rather than two things for the same group of fans.  No matter which version of Dust one likes (Tactics or Warfare), FFG gets miniature sales. Both games share common product, so adding new customers is presumably preferable to selling an additional book to existing customers

For the record, I don't think that Dust Tactics is a BAD game, but I think it has less dimensions, because of is core mechanics than other tabletop games.  From what I've seen, Dust Warfare has some interesting elements, but I don't see how it broadens the overall appeal.

The "benefit" of having a core mechanic that is already known, is acknowledging that you are just re-targeting the current players, NOT new players (who wouldn't know the mechanic--because they aren't current customers).  So, this seems contradictory. 

You "Broaden" a player base by gaining NEW customers, who by definition don't already "know and understand" the current core mechanics, because they aren't current customers.

KAM

 

 

 

 

KAM said:

Hello,

Andy Chambers said:

Relation to Dust Tactics:

 

One thing I should make clear is that the decision to follow Dust tactics so closely comes from me, it's not like its something being imposed by FF or anything. Looking at the core mechanics of DT I saw something that was well fleshed out, nuanced and distinctive, so much so that I liked the idea of developing it up into a tabletop game that was the same-but-different. Dust Warfare adds a fair bit granularity to the DT formula and completely changes the turn sequence meta-game, so I wouldn't say they are the same game  by any stretch of the imagination. I can't help but think that the benefits that could be gained by breaking the two into very different games are outweighed by having a set of core mechanics that are already known and understood. Widening the pool of potential players is a huge benefit and it pays well to never, ever understimate how important that is to ensuring a game takes off. Quite aside from all this, it means we'll never be in a situation where a released model can't be used in DW.

 

I'm not in charge of a game company that seems to be dominating the market, so I'll speak to this point as a customer.

If I like the world of Dust as a theme and story, yet I'm not thrilled with Dust Tactics rules/play, then Dust Warfare does nothing to change that.  It maintains the same elements that I dislike.   You then have two games that don't appeal to me (the theoretical customer)

If Dust Warfare provides an alternate rules system that appeals to a different type of customer, then you GAIN that customer.  This is a simple matter of "something for everyone" rather than two things for the same group of fans.  No matter which version of Dust one likes (Tactics or Warfare), FFG gets miniature sales. Both games share common product, so adding new customers is presumably preferable to selling an additional book to existing customers

For the record, I don't think that Dust Tactics is a BAD game, but I think it has less dimensions, because of is core mechanics than other tabletop games.  From what I've seen, Dust Warfare has some interesting elements, but I don't see how it broadens the overall appeal.

The "benefit" of having a core mechanic that is already known, is acknowledging that you are just re-targeting the current players, NOT new players (who wouldn't know the mechanic--because they aren't current customers).  So, this seems contradictory. 

You "Broaden" a player base by gaining NEW customers, who by definition don't already "know and understand" the current core mechanics, because they aren't current customers.

KAM

I do agree partially here. If the game is just Dust Tactics with new rules for ranges, movement an dline of sight (all based on inches instead of squares and thats the biggest difference) with some reaction based and morale based mechanics, you might as well as just call it Advanced Dust Tactics or Dust Tactics Second Edition.

My biggest fault with Dust Tactics will remain in Dust Warfare, and that is the fact that troops are defined by their guns not their skill. While to Roll Hit/Roll Damage games have their faults, I feel that you get more variety in troops. Draftees armed with the same rifle as hardened veterans do the same damage, if they hit, which they do at different skills.

But that overall is a very minor issue that I can get over to enjoy the game. It can even be incorporated in the game quite easily with the "reverse" die result which essentially takes the "I hit" roll need from a 5 or 6 to a 3, 4, 5 or 6.

But even the idea of a "book" only release with Dust Tactics Revised Core Set being the "starter set" for the game makes it a double dip game, where I have to buy another game to play this game. Sure, its worth it for the minis, but outside players who are yet to play Dust may find it a put off.

The same argument goes for normal troops and vehicles, in my opinion. Yes there are other games where I can run amuck with troops and vehicles, but I dont play those games and see no reason why I should have to invest in a different game to get my Dust setting kicks. FFG has the resources to make generic Armor Class 1 figures and vehicles and have a serious habit of making license agreements with other companies to turn their IP into a game. There is no real reason why FFG couldnt enter into a contract with a little known model company or even a popular one and have those guys market their figs as "officially sanctioned for Fantasy Flight Games Dust Tactics/Dust Warfare figures" or even let Dust Models get on with that market.

Dust is WW2 based, it is Sci-Fi and Pulp and Steam Punk and Cold War all in one. To say I have to play Secrets of the Thrid Reich or another WW2 game from another company to play "normal/basic" troops or vehicles is ridiculous and weak. And its a market FFG could profit off.

And to say there will be plenty of Fan Made cards and troops and stats is also weak, as I would prefer rules made by the game for the game not by a fan who may have a bias toward one side or the other or for one item over the other. And then why would my friends/opponents agree to let me play something that is not official. I can see it now. "You only won cause you used those unofficial troops!"

 



#26 Peacekeeper_b

Peacekeeper_b

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,478 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 03:31 PM

blkdymnd said:

It makes sense for both FFG and Dust Studios not to delve in that area much though.  Again, there are going to be unofficial rules aplenty for it (and it sounds like Andy might do a "Chapter Approved" for them somewhere down the line, man I miss Andy's Chapter Approveds).  There are tons of other Weird War games and WWII games that do delve into the pure vehicle rules and models, I personally want Dust and FFG to keep researching and developing more unique units than those types that already abound in other game systems and model lines.

So to get the figures and feel of the game I want to play for Dust, I should go to another gaming company and play their game? Yeah, great marketing strategy for FFG there.

I know this is only the internet community, but there has been a lot of voices from fans saying they want this. Even if FFG only sold game cards for these "troops/vehicles" for official stats and still stated that only official dust figures can be used in official tournaments, they would still make money.



#27 blkdymnd

blkdymnd

    Member

  • Members
  • 958 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 03:55 PM

Peacekeeper_b said:

 

So to get the figures and feel of the game I want to play for Dust, I should go to another gaming company and play their game? Yeah, great marketing strategy for FFG there.

 

yes, because so far that is not in their plans. I don't go to AE-WWII's website and demand that they release rules for giant walkers because thats not part of their plan for their game. If I want giant walkers, I would have to pick up Dust or Secrets of the Third Reich, etc. But I am also a person that doesn't use models from other sources to play a different game unless it's a conversion of some kind, so if they went the route of making cards for models they didn't make, I wouldn't really be their target anyway.  There just isn't many companies out there (large ones like GW, PP, FFG, etc) that make rules for models they don't plan on producing themselves and it's their right to not make those rulesjust because a vocal few people want them.  There will be plenty of homemade rules for those, and again, Andy said at some point he might be even willing to help produce some unofficial rules for them.  Thats more than you would get a whole lot other places.



#28 KAM

KAM

    Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 04:16 PM

Peacekeeper_b said:

I do agree partially here. If the game is just Dust Tactics with new rules for ranges, movement an dline of sight (all based on inches instead of squares and thats the biggest difference) with some reaction based and morale based mechanics, you might as well as just call it Advanced Dust Tactics or Dust Tactics Second Edition.

My biggest fault with Dust Tactics will remain in Dust Warfare, and that is the fact that troops are defined by their guns not their skill. While to Roll Hit/Roll Damage games have their faults, I feel that you get more variety in troops. Draftees armed with the same rifle as hardened veterans do the same damage, if they hit, which they do at different skills.

But that overall is a very minor issue that I can get over to enjoy the game. It can even be incorporated in the game quite easily with the "reverse" die result which essentially takes the "I hit" roll need from a 5 or 6 to a 3, 4, 5 or 6.

But even the idea of a "book" only release with Dust Tactics Revised Core Set being the "starter set" for the game makes it a double dip game, where I have to buy another game to play this game. Sure, its worth it for the minis, but outside players who are yet to play Dust may find it a put off.

The same argument goes for normal troops and vehicles, in my opinion. Yes there are other games where I can run amuck with troops and vehicles, but I dont play those games and see no reason why I should have to invest in a different game to get my Dust setting kicks. FFG has the resources to make generic Armor Class 1 figures and vehicles and have a serious habit of making license agreements with other companies to turn their IP into a game. There is no real reason why FFG couldnt enter into a contract with a little known model company or even a popular one and have those guys market their figs as "officially sanctioned for Fantasy Flight Games Dust Tactics/Dust Warfare figures" or even let Dust Models get on with that market.

Dust is WW2 based, it is Sci-Fi and Pulp and Steam Punk and Cold War all in one. To say I have to play Secrets of the Thrid Reich or another WW2 game from another company to play "normal/basic" troops or vehicles is ridiculous and weak. And its a market FFG could profit off.

And to say there will be plenty of Fan Made cards and troops and stats is also weak, as I would prefer rules made by the game for the game not by a fan who may have a bias toward one side or the other or for one item over the other. And then why would my friends/opponents agree to let me play something that is not official. I can see it now. "You only won cause you used those unofficial troops!"

Yes, if this is little more than advanced options, then it isn't what I'm looking for.  Dust Tactics has already added a lot of new options.

I've got to be honest...I've been waiting on the Tabletop rules since I started with Dust Tactics, because DT just doesn't measure up to a full-blown table top game.  I can't be sure, but what I'm hearing about DW...it doesn't either. 

If DW doesn't use Alternating activations, then this game quickly becomes the worst of both worlds.  Also...if there is such a benefit from using the existing mechanic, then how do you justify this change? 

When I saw the Banner for Dust Warfare, I almost jumped out of my seat, and pounded out e-mails to my friends (who aren't hot on DT).

I went to GenCon and was not at all thrilled with what I saw--keeping all the elements of Dust tactics that I find to be...less than ideal, and now I hear (and apparently somehow missed) that this game is dumping one of the GOOD mechanics (alternating activation) in favor of an outdated one that REQUIRES special rules (reactions--which in themselves are cool) just to make up for the change.

In the span of one week this game went from a "Must have" to what's quickly looking like a "won't buy."   It might not be wise, but I've stuck with Dust tactics (buying every product) because of the promise of new tabletop rules.  If that's a no-go for me, then I'm likely to drop the product altogether.  Great miniatures, and really cool story, but not enough to justify buying a game that I really don't love.

We will see, but I'm going to carefully review Dust Warfare before buying it, and I'll probably put all of my Future Dust purchases on hold until this is resolved.

KAM

 



#29 blkdymnd

blkdymnd

    Member

  • Members
  • 958 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 04:26 PM

Sometimes you also have to be honest with yourself.  If you're playing a game that just doesn't have enough to make you happy just to play it, then maybe you need to play something else.  Infinity was like that for me.  Models are fantastic, background is really cool, I just could not get to enjoy the rule system at all.  For me it was overcomplicated and just complex for complexity sake.  After trying it a bit, I finally just realized that the game wasn't for me and I haven't played it since.  Dust Tactics in it's current form, and sounds like Dust Warfare, has everything that I enjoy in a game right now and in the year since the last Gencon when we picked up the advanced copy of the original core set, I have played little else other than Dust Tactics.  Again, there are other games that have lots of "normal" troops and vehicles.  This game focuses on the more supernatural side of Weird War, and not the normal side.

And remember (for those that played) that the normal troops in AT43 were the armor 2 troops (the more line troops of the game), and even the very expendable Red Blok/Russian troops were Armor 2.  The only Armor 1 models in the entire game that I remember were the small Therian spider bombs, and they were very small.  I could almost assume that the Armor 1 troop models in this game might be some type of remote/slight in stature Vrill fighter.  There are still a few similarities between the two game systems that at one time had plans to be interchangeable with each other...



#30 blkdymnd

blkdymnd

    Member

  • Members
  • 958 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 04:34 PM

KAM said:

Peacekeeper_b said:

I do agree partially here. If the game is just Dust Tactics with new rules for ranges, movement an dline of sight (all based on inches instead of squares and thats the biggest difference) with some reaction based and morale based mechanics, you might as well as just call it Advanced Dust Tactics or Dust Tactics Second Edition.

 

My biggest fault with Dust Tactics will remain in Dust Warfare, and that is the fact that troops are defined by their guns not their skill. While to Roll Hit/Roll Damage games have their faults, I feel that you get more variety in troops. Draftees armed with the same rifle as hardened veterans do the same damage, if they hit, which they do at different skills.

But that overall is a very minor issue that I can get over to enjoy the game. It can even be incorporated in the game quite easily with the "reverse" die result which essentially takes the "I hit" roll need from a 5 or 6 to a 3, 4, 5 or 6.

But even the idea of a "book" only release with Dust Tactics Revised Core Set being the "starter set" for the game makes it a double dip game, where I have to buy another game to play this game. Sure, its worth it for the minis, but outside players who are yet to play Dust may find it a put off.

The same argument goes for normal troops and vehicles, in my opinion. Yes there are other games where I can run amuck with troops and vehicles, but I dont play those games and see no reason why I should have to invest in a different game to get my Dust setting kicks. FFG has the resources to make generic Armor Class 1 figures and vehicles and have a serious habit of making license agreements with other companies to turn their IP into a game. There is no real reason why FFG couldnt enter into a contract with a little known model company or even a popular one and have those guys market their figs as "officially sanctioned for Fantasy Flight Games Dust Tactics/Dust Warfare figures" or even let Dust Models get on with that market.

Dust is WW2 based, it is Sci-Fi and Pulp and Steam Punk and Cold War all in one. To say I have to play Secrets of the Thrid Reich or another WW2 game from another company to play "normal/basic" troops or vehicles is ridiculous and weak. And its a market FFG could profit off.

And to say there will be plenty of Fan Made cards and troops and stats is also weak, as I would prefer rules made by the game for the game not by a fan who may have a bias toward one side or the other or for one item over the other. And then why would my friends/opponents agree to let me play something that is not official. I can see it now. "You only won cause you used those unofficial troops!"

 

Yes, if this is little more than advanced options, then it isn't what I'm looking for.  Dust Tactics has already added a lot of new options.

I've got to be honest...I've been waiting on the Tabletop rules since I started with Dust Tactics, because DT just doesn't measure up to a full-blown table top game.  I can't be sure, but what I'm hearing about DW...it doesn't either. 

If DW doesn't use Alternating activations, then this game quickly becomes the worst of both worlds.  Also...if there is such a benefit from using the existing mechanic, then how do you justify this change? 

When I saw the Banner for Dust Warfare, I almost jumped out of my seat, and pounded out e-mails to my friends (who aren't hot on DT).

I went to GenCon and was not at all thrilled with what I saw--keeping all the elements of Dust tactics that I find to be...less than ideal, and now I hear (and apparently somehow missed) that this game is dumping one of the GOOD mechanics (alternating activation) in favor of an outdated one that REQUIRES special rules (reactions--which in themselves are cool) just to make up for the change.

In the span of one week this game went from a "Must have" to what's quickly looking like a "won't buy."   It might not be wise, but I've stuck with Dust tactics (buying every product) because of the promise of new tabletop rules.  If that's a no-go for me, then I'm likely to drop the product altogether.  Great miniatures, and really cool story, but not enough to justify buying a game that I really don't love.

We will see, but I'm going to carefully review Dust Warfare before buying it, and I'll probably put all of my Future Dust purchases on hold until this is resolved.

KAM

 

 

If you're not currently happy with Dust Tactics, then i don't think Dust Warfare will be for you either.  From day one, when AEG had still planned on distributing the game, the plan was to put out a PDF for a tabletop version, which the way they described it at the time, would be just a conversion of the tile rules to go tileless. 

When you have a fantastic core system already (which, I know you don't think is so great, and doesn't make for a great tabletop game, which my opinion and our gaming group opinion is the exact opposite.  We have yet to have a real rules arguement, but we watch our 40k buddies do that all the time), there is no reason to scrap the core just to make it an alternate version.  Privateer Press, Spartan Games, and even Games Workshop to an extent have used the same core of their rules system for multiple games.  In our area, the Warfare rules will only bring some of those 40k players over, who love the smooth mechanics, but hate the tiles.



#31 KAM

KAM

    Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 04:41 PM

Hello,

blkdymnd said:

Sometimes you also have to be honest with yourself.  If you're playing a game that just doesn't have enough to make you happy just to play it, then maybe you need to play something else.  Infinity was like that for me.  Models are fantastic, background is really cool, I just could not get to enjoy the rule system at all.  For me it was overcomplicated and just complex for complexity sake.  After trying it a bit, I finally just realized that the game wasn't for me and I haven't played it since.  Dust Tactics in it's current form, and sounds like Dust Warfare, has everything that I enjoy in a game right now and in the year since the last Gencon when we picked up the advanced copy of the original core set, I have played little else other than Dust Tactics.  Again, there are other games that have lots of "normal" troops and vehicles.  This game focuses on the more supernatural side of Weird War, and not the normal side.

Well, you're right, and ultimately, that's what might happen.  Dust tactics is "good enough" for me, but not for other people I game with.  They are sufficiently unenthusiastic about the game that they aren't even interested in playing with me buying all the product.  I've been talking about the Tabletop rules coming out as something they might be interested in.  They're likely to be less forgiving than I am.

As I've said--I think Dust Tactics is ok.  It just doesn't happen to have the depth and custom elements that I prefer (I'm a VOR player).  It was enough to keep me going, but it will be a disappointment to discover that the thing I was hoping to lock me in to this game will be the thing that will ultimately push me away.

If so, well, it isn't; the end of the world, and I won't hold a grudge against FFG or anything but they will lose a customer.  You can't please everyone of course, but the point of me posting what I am is that what I'm hearing as reasoning doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and I'd like to think that someone might consider these issues.  Of course, who am I?  Nobody--just one customer.  The question is whether my views are shared by other customers--and that I do not know.

KAM

 



#32 KAM

KAM

    Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 04:52 PM

blkdymnd said:

If you're not currently happy with Dust Tactics, then i don't think Dust Warfare will be for you either.  From day one, when AEG had still planned on distributing the game, the plan was to put out a PDF for a tabletop version, which the way they described it at the time, would be just a conversion of the tile rules to go tileless. 

When you have a fantastic core system already (which, I know you don't think is so great, and doesn't make for a great tabletop game, which my opinion and our gaming group opinion is the exact opposite.  We have yet to have a real rules arguement, but we watch our 40k buddies do that all the time), there is no reason to scrap the core just to make it an alternate version.  Privateer Press, Spartan Games, and even Games Workshop to an extent have used the same core of their rules system for multiple games.  In our area, the Warfare rules will only bring some of those 40k players over, who love the smooth mechanics, but hate the tiles.

 

Again, you may be right.  if it's not for me...well, then its not.  That's just the way it may be.

However, where I do not agree is about "scraping the core" to make an alternate version.  They ARE making an alternate version--Dust Warfare, not Dust Tactics. If it isn't going to be an alternate, then why bother pretending that it is?  Eliminating tiles and using a tape measure doesn't justify a separate title in my view.

Further...if the goal is to provide a means for players with different preferences to have a reason to buy Dust Tactics miniatures, there actually IS a reason to present something that actually has a different appeal.  That's what my earlier post was about.  If you want to broaden your appeal, then by definition appealing to your existing customers isn't what you're doing.  You are simply providing one additional product for that existing customer base.

Also--I disagree with the characterization of having an ALTERNATE (significantly different) set of rules is "scrapping" it.  It is providing a means to reach NEW customers who have different preferences, but without the need to create a completely different line of product. 

Increasing the number of customers for a wide range of crossover product--basically all of the miniatures is beneficial.  Selling one additional product to the same group of customers is still a benefit, but a smaller one.  Which would you rather do?  Sell a book to all your existing DT players, or sell a dozen or so different miniature sets to X number of additional new players?

KAM



#33 Andy Chambers

Andy Chambers

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 04:56 PM

I'd ask you to hold off rushing to judgement about Dust Warfare until you can at least give it a try. A level of abstraction doesn't automatically equal bad (think about it - EVERY game has a degree of abstraction) and overt complexity (by which I mean long stat lines, charts, tables, dice roll modifiers and using polyhedral dice) doesn't automatically equal good. In my experience the reverse is usually true.

Dust Warfare is being developed from Dust Tactics mechanics, but the key word here is developed. Having worked on a few ruleset developments in the past I can say with some confidence that the same stats and mechanics can be used to produce very different games by changing a few key elements. There are a number of very long running, popular games that have been around for a large number of years that have been successfully redeveloped from their core mechanics . Whenever this happens quite often some people will say things didn't go far enough while others say the development went too far. Even in this one thread we can see posters that want to pull in diametrically opposed directions.

So what's a poor, yet highly talented  and hugely charismatic, games designer supposed to do? Fundamentally you rely on experience and try to create a cool game anyway, in my opinion preferably by building on whats aleady there and honing it. Other folks' opinions about what makes a cool game might well vary from mine and, I have to admit, that sometimes I might even be wrong (unthinkable), but I do feel like Dust Warfare is one of the best games (possibly the best) I've designed to date. 

 



#34 blkdymnd

blkdymnd

    Member

  • Members
  • 958 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 05:04 PM

It's good you've managed to stay humble all these years, Andy 



#35 KAM

KAM

    Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 07:42 PM

Hello,

Well, I'll take a look at the end product and decide.  However, the purpose of demonstrating something is to provide information to the prospective customer.  I left there thinking "this isn't significantly different from Dust Tactics."  It may be that the version demonstrated doesn't do justice to the final product you've designed (are designing).

Clearly, you've got to deal with the fact that players have different desires, and can't please everyone.  So, I'll just say best of luck, and I'll be looking forward to seeing the finished product.

KAM

 

 

 

 



#36 Peacekeeper_b

Peacekeeper_b

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,478 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 12:53 AM

blkdymnd said:

Peacekeeper_b said:

 

 

So to get the figures and feel of the game I want to play for Dust, I should go to another gaming company and play their game? Yeah, great marketing strategy for FFG there.

 

 

 

yes, because so far that is not in their plans. I don't go to AE-WWII's website and demand that they release rules for giant walkers because thats not part of their plan for their game. If I want giant walkers, I would have to pick up Dust or Secrets of the Third Reich, etc. But I am also a person that doesn't use models from other sources to play a different game unless it's a conversion of some kind, so if they went the route of making cards for models they didn't make, I wouldn't really be their target anyway.  There just isn't many companies out there (large ones like GW, PP, FFG, etc) that make rules for models they don't plan on producing themselves and it's their right to not make those rulesjust because a vocal few people want them.  There will be plenty of homemade rules for those, and again, Andy said at some point he might be even willing to help produce some unofficial rules for them.  Thats more than you would get a whole lot other places.

AE-WWII's setting has nothng to do with giant walkers. FFG's Dust has everything to do with normal units still existing. I can buy that joe normal troops would most likely never encounter any special axis or allied weapons, but I cannot accept that special heroic walker/super soldier would never encounter normal troops.

To put it simply, a Stormtrooper in the Star Wars universe is very unlikely to run into Luke Skywalker. Luke Skywalker is very likely to run inot a Stormtrooper. When you dont have your normal units about, and they could all be Armor 2 for all I care, then your special units dont feel so special. They become the normal.

GW has made plenty of rules that they never made models for, they usually (up until recently) were called Dark Elves or Dark Eldar.

And most o fyour argument against this seems to boil down to the fact the YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED in it. There are plenty I guarantee who are. Tanks especially would bring in other fans. I would be more inclined to buy more armor models if I could field a few tanks instead of walkers. So there is my I AM INTERESTED argument. And there have been plenty of people asking for this, including, it seems, Mr. Chambers.

But one thing I have learned over the years, is no matter how much you want something, just saying it on a forum isnt going to make it happen. But here, for one of the first times I can remember, one of the designers of the rules is actually listening and talking.



#37 blkdymnd

blkdymnd

    Member

  • Members
  • 958 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 01:47 AM

Peacekeeper_b said:

And most o fyour argument against this seems to boil down to the fact the YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED in it. There are plenty I guarantee who are. Tanks especially would bring in other fans. I would be more inclined to buy more armor models if I could field a few tanks instead of walkers. So there is my I AM INTERESTED argument. And there have been plenty of people asking for this, including, it seems, Mr. Chambers.

But one thing I have learned over the years, is no matter how much you want something, just saying it on a forum isnt going to make it happen. But here, for one of the first times I can remember, one of the designers of the rules is actually listening and talking.

 

No, I made one comment that I wouldnt be their target for it, i'm allowed to speak to what I want for the game, just as you are.  My main point is that large companies don't really make rules for models that they don't produce, and that the theme of the game isn't really about normal troops, it covers the more heroic side and supernatural side of alt WWII.  And yes, Andy is interested, but make sure you mention everything that he said.  He also said it is normally a bad idea for a company like FFG to go down that route with a game. 

Again, there are going to be plenty of alternatives unofficially to use normal troops and tanks and such, I just don't expect FFG to produce them unless they have some of kind of weird war flair to them.



#38 rwwingate

rwwingate

    Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 02:22 AM

I don't think it's about being fair or unfair to FFG.  I also don't think just because other companies don't do it is a valid arguement either.  There are plenty of companies that have rule sets where you can use models that they don't produce.

There are many voices here and on the DT site that want classic troops and walkers from the Dust Models website.  The justification from Christian, backed up by the feedback from Andy doesn't hold water for me (i.e. I don't believe including these will confuse retailers or cost sales).  If FFG can't figure out how to make that work even in some sort of unofficial "can't use this in organized play" way, then it tells me they don't want to listen to the community.



#39 blkdymnd

blkdymnd

    Member

  • Members
  • 958 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 03:01 AM

rwwingate said:

I don't think it's about being fair or unfair to FFG.  I also don't think just because other companies don't do it is a valid arguement either.  There are plenty of companies that have rule sets where you can use models that they don't produce.

There are many voices here and on the DT site that want classic troops and walkers from the Dust Models website.  The justification from Christian, backed up by the feedback from Andy doesn't hold water for me (i.e. I don't believe including these will confuse retailers or cost sales).  If FFG can't figure out how to make that work even in some sort of unofficial "can't use this in organized play" way, then it tells me they don't want to listen to the community.

Not listening to the community, really?  So I guess that wasn't the CEO of the company that I saw on Boardgamegeek, taking his time to address multiple issues that Grand Inquisitor Kris was spouting off about.  It's not about listening or not listening to the community, it's about their vision for the game, and what they think is best for the company (not what we think is best).  I don't care either way, I've never been a straight historical guy, so the idea doesn't really push me either way. 

And give me one of any of the huge gaming companies that make rules for models they don't produce, and name me one game that FFG produces in their entire catalog that allows you to use something outside of what they produce.  It may be there, but I can't think of any.  Again, i don't care either way, I just don't want FFG to spend energy developing stuff they aren't going to make, and keep production of what they are making up.  If they make a halftrack, then more power to them, add it to the game and give me a card for it.  If not, then keep all energy in what is being developed and leave the other stuff for the fans to make.



#40 Fenrir Kitsune

Fenrir Kitsune

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 03:31 AM

Any one got a date for when the book is actually coming out? The rules are, what, Beta testing now?

Does mean theres likely to be any major last minute changes, or it's just a fine tuning period?






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS