Jump to content



Photo

Will these rules get an overhaul?


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Hatamoto

Hatamoto

    Member

  • Members
  • 58 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 09:12 PM

I would like to be able to play the game on a larger scale, meaning also longer ranges for infantry weapons. Will this ever happen or will it always be a short range game set in an epic alternate timeline?

Does anyone have ideas on other games to use Dust minis in? I have alot of allies and axis, walkers and infantry … would like to put them to use under rules that are actually well written.



#2 em_en_oh_pee

em_en_oh_pee

    Member

  • Members
  • 110 posts

Posted 28 April 2013 - 02:35 PM

Hatamoto said:

I would like to be able to play the game on a larger scale, meaning also longer ranges for infantry weapons. Will this ever happen or will it always be a short range game set in an epic alternate timeline?

Does anyone have ideas on other games to use Dust minis in? I have alot of allies and axis, walkers and infantry … would like to put them to use under rules that are actually well written.

Warfare is a stellar rule set. Possibly one of the better tabletop wargames on the market, in my opinion. And I have played almost all the others - 40K, WHFB, Warmahordes, etc. 

And you can play it on a larger scale - just play 450 AP and up. Not sure what ranges have to do with that.



#3 Dakkon426

Dakkon426

    Member

  • Members
  • 762 posts

Posted 28 April 2013 - 05:34 PM

I've gone up to about 800 points before and the rules still work fine.



#4 Hatamoto

Hatamoto

    Member

  • Members
  • 58 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 03:45 AM

Id just like the option to have longer than 16" infantry combat. Especially if im using a large table. Im sure ww2 was more than short range combat, but how am i supposed to get any realism into the combat with range like that? Id just like the option to have the guns feel more real. Probably works in tactics, but looks stupid on the tabletop. Dont think ill ever get over it sadly ..

#5 em_en_oh_pee

em_en_oh_pee

    Member

  • Members
  • 110 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 05:07 AM

Hatamoto said:

Id just like the option to have longer than 16" infantry combat. Especially if im using a large table. Im sure ww2 was more than short range combat, but how am i supposed to get any realism into the combat with range like that? Id just like the option to have the guns feel more real. Probably works in tactics, but looks stupid on the tabletop. Dont think ill ever get over it sadly ..

Gunfights in WW2 were generally at shorter ranges and mostly were done to keep the other people's heads down while they advanced. If you want long-range, use Snipers or support units like Walkers. 

Worrying about realism in a game with Zombies, alien tech, and lasers seems a bit silly to me. :P



#6 Hatamoto

Hatamoto

    Member

  • Members
  • 58 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 05:33 AM

Those zombies and aliens wouldnt be nearly as cool without an element of realism .. imo zombies and aliens dont justify my axis and allies carrying BB guns to war.

#7 jb11

jb11

    Member

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 11:52 PM

I'd suggest playing in another scale then.  All 28mm games with gunfire have ludicrously short ranges.  16" in 1:48 is about 20 metres in real scale.  However if you were to make it more realistic then you would need huge tables for anything to be out of range.  One f those realism vs practicality ones.



#8 Hatamoto

Hatamoto

    Member

  • Members
  • 58 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 10:58 PM

jb11 said:

I'd suggest playing in another scale then.  All 28mm games with gunfire have ludicrously short ranges.  16" in 1:48 is about 20 metres in real scale.  However if you were to make it more realistic then you would need huge tables for anything to be out of range.  One f those realism vs practicality ones.

 

So asking for just a little bit of realism automatically means i have to use HUGE tables? there is no middle ground?  I have never played a 28 mm game where a standard assault rifle fires 16", i think 40k has this down better with 24". It doesnt feel as gimped. There is also the option to make rules that have guns fire longer but with penalties at longer ranges (AT-43 for example). Infinity is also 28mm, without the feel of shooting paintballs at eachother.

As for the play on a different scale comment; FFG should have made the game at a smaller scale with the BB-gun ranges they went for. It would look less stupid for sure.

If melee units wants to get close then have rules in place to allow use of cover and special movement to do it … dont gimp weapon ranges to balance it.

 

I hope FFG giving up Dust means better rules as well



#9 em_en_oh_pee

em_en_oh_pee

    Member

  • Members
  • 110 posts

Posted 05 May 2013 - 03:01 PM

In 40K and other games, longer ranges make more sense. Back in WW2, people often just shot to keep the other guy down until they got close enough to capture/kill them. Think of the mechanics in the game to basically reflect that concept, imo.

I think the rules are damn good and the shorter ranges are suitable and give the game a good variation without making it a shooting gallery.


  • TechPr1est likes this

#10 ItsUncertainWho

ItsUncertainWho

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,888 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:39 AM

em_en_oh_pee said:

I think the rules are damn good and the shorter ranges are suitable and give the game a good variation without making it a shooting gallery.

I agree.

 

Take into account that from the stand point of the miniatures, that 16" range is perfectly reasonable for what constitutes a clean line of fire. The guns very well may be able to shoot across the table you are playing on, but that does not mean that the soldiers shooting can get clean shots or be effective beyond 16". Weather, terrain, and just keeping your head down are all good reasons why weapon ranges aren't longer.

 

 



#11 Hatamoto

Hatamoto

    Member

  • Members
  • 58 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:26 AM

em_en_oh_pee said:

In 40K and other games, longer ranges make more sense. Back in WW2, people often just shot to keep the other guy down until they got close enough to capture/kill them. Think of the mechanics in the game to basically reflect that concept, imo.

I think the rules are damn good and the shorter ranges are suitable and give the game a good variation without making it a shooting gallery.

 

Shooting doesnt have to guarantee kill effectiveness at longer ranges, there could be penalties in place that lessens the chance of the game being a shooting gallery … But if i want to take the chance, id like to be able to do that and still be in cover, instead of having to run up and press a gun barrel up someones nose. Sure, quick and effective rules work well for game flow, but sometimes a game can be made really interesting with mechanics nodding towards some realism. Why are reactions only allowed at 12" for example? all of a sudden my already gimped weapon can only fire 12" instead of 16", for no reason even attempted to be explained in the rule book.

Balance and fun is great, but sometimes this game just feels too much like only a "game" , imo there should be a nice balance between logical mechanics, balance and fun. I would like to be able to play the game in all possible ww2 scenarios if i want to. I think there is much more potential in these rules, if not in the rules then for the Dust setting and characters … it just deserves more than what it got, imo.  



#12 em_en_oh_pee

em_en_oh_pee

    Member

  • Members
  • 110 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 11:55 AM

What you want is added complexity, which doesn't always translate well into the rules. Why the way things are they way they are is to ensure a good mix of realism, fun, balance, and function in the game. You can't lean to much to realism without causing problems elsewhere (be if fun or function) and the same applies to the others. Sometimes, fun games aren't always balanced. Or function makes a game bland and takes away the fun.

What I see in Warfare is a good, smooth blend of all four. Other tabletop games just don't have it all. If you want more realism/complexity, play something like Bolt Action or Flames of War. Dust, though, has one of the strongest rulesets for competitive/balanced play I have seen, so I don't see any need for changes.



#13 Mel Westbrook

Mel Westbrook

    Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 12:38 PM

I agree with Hatamoto, the main reason the weapon ranges are as they are is simply game mechanics.  The game was designed to be small unit battles on small tables so the weapon ranges were disigned for that purpose.  Allowing weapons to fire out to maximum range, i.e. say beyond its effective range "double its current range" can be easily done by having to reroll all hits.  I have played many games, WH40K, FoW, etc; in addition I have 14 years of Army experience.  I will tell you that the current ranges are ok for the weapons "effective" range as firing at units beyond it become difficult to hit.  A man sized target "stationary" at 300 meters is a challange to nail over open sights, add in visibility issues, terrain and movement and it becomes very difficult.  If you wish to play larger games i.e. bigger tables/distances just use the method above if everyone agrees.  It will take more concentrated firepower to get results but it would be realistic. 


Edited by Mel Westbrook, 03 October 2013 - 12:40 PM.


#14 Master Tugun EGB

Master Tugun EGB

    Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 14 April 2014 - 08:53 PM

Just get your opponents to agree to the same House Rules you propose. DONE.

 

I think the balance of Soldier weapon ranges and effectiveness for this system is fine as it is, but if you and whoever you play it with agree on any house rules, then play it that way.






© 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