So, Gimp writes a solid review detailing both the issues and highlighting potential solutions that were botched by Andy Chambers under FFG. Immediately there come the response of the know-nothings who cannot address the issues but simply say "it is a 'sci-fantasy' game" without a clue to game design or world consistency. So let me point out something hard and real for the know-nothings…
Dust Warfare fails the test of the real world marketplace. In less than one month, I say again less than one month, I tell you three times less than one month, Dust Warfare has gone from a hard cover rulebook release to a half-price downloadable PDF. Rather amusing since there would probably be a greater amount of support from the DT side of the house for print on demand unit cards to use "regular" WW2 vehicles and troops in DT to simulate the great mass of non-upgraded troops both sides must rely on to support the relatively small percentage of VK enhanced technologies. Probably be in the bargain bin on Amazon before the summer is over.
Do you want to play Dust on the tabletop? Really? Okay. Each point of movement or range equals 6" (or 4" or whatever you want). Use TLOS and if models are less than half obscured they get soft cover and if half or more obscured they get hard cover. Real gamers who understand games and gaming could work this out in ten minutes across the tabletop. You know, people who can read a book and comprehend it without having to do practical exercises for homework by "playing some games".
Now, I will admit there is one concept DW did that strikes my interest as worthwhile. Platoon organization. An excellent concept that will avoid some of the abuses inherent in the current DT system, although if the truth be told, give the size of most scenarios and tournaments I've seen, it is really kind of trivial since 200 points per army limits abuse. That idea should be developed rationally.