Jump to content



Photo

What game do you prefer?


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Flindo

Flindo

    Member

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 09:09 AM

Hey Guys, I am new to the Dust universe and I was wondering what game you prefer, Tactics, or Warfare.

now I will probably play both, Tactics probably first, but I want to know what the community generally likes.


Scum and Villainy W/0 L/0 : X1 Firespray


#2 blkdymnd

blkdymnd

    Member

  • Members
  • 959 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 09:31 AM

 You know?  I can honestly say I love both equally.  When I'm playing one, I don't wish I was playing the other.  They are so completely different, and both so well done, that I don't have a preference and make sure I have my stuff for both at each gamenight.



#3 Loophole Master

Loophole Master

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 09:36 AM

Never tried Warfare, don't have much curiosity about it. Absolutely love Tactics just the way it is.



#4 mgentile7

mgentile7

    Member

  • Members
  • 723 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 11:51 AM

Tactics is very simple like AT43 was. A quick play that relies on strategy more than tricks. Warfare is a good game just a little more complex but a good play.



#5 DoomOnYou72

DoomOnYou72

    Member

  • Members
  • 269 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 11:58 AM

Having played both I can honestly say that I prefer Warfare. Tactics is good but for me Warfare is great.



#6 Flindo

Flindo

    Member

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 12:47 PM

 it seems generally that its mixed between games, I am assuming being a wargamer I will really enjoy warfares deep ruleset.


Scum and Villainy W/0 L/0 : X1 Firespray


#7 felkor

felkor

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,082 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 03:58 AM

Both games are fantastic, and both get deeper the more you play them.  I'm on a Warfare high right now since it's new to me, but am looking forward to getting back into playing some Tactics.



#8 reptilebro1

reptilebro1

    Member

  • Members
  • 245 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 04:38 AM

I prefer Warfare, which I have been playing most since it came out, I have also been playing tactics again lately since I have a SSU force. I imagine that when Zverograd book comes out for Warfare, That will be my main game. But, I would never turn down a tactics game. 



#9 marcemtp

marcemtp

    Member

  • Members
  • 220 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 03:16 PM

I prefer Tactics. Demo of warfare at gen con made me feel like i was playin 40k and at-43. Love both but i like the easy rules and gameplay of tactic. 



#10 SolennelBern

SolennelBern

    Member

  • Members
  • 969 posts

Posted 21 June 2012 - 02:51 AM

I guess it depends on what you're looking for.  I have Tactics and absolutely love it.  It's quick to setup, simple to learn and play, enough complexe and strategic.  Lots of missions available and you can easily create your own.

Never tried Warfare but it's more a minis game than a board game so my guess would be that it's longer but could offer more strategic and tactical choices throughout a game. 

I prefer Tactics just because it's quick and fun but would be curious to try Warfare.  Sadly I don't have the ideal installations to play Warfare but one day i'l try it.  The cool thing is that you can use your Tactics minis and terrains/accessories/buildings to play Warfare so apart from the Warfare rulebook and you could be good to go at first.



#11 Gimp

Gimp

    Member

  • Members
  • 559 posts

Posted 21 June 2012 - 05:56 AM

I enjoy Tactics, but am completely underwhelmed by Warfare. 

It is very different than Tactics, but don't go to it expecting a 'deeper' game.  While it adds some elements, it forgot to deal with several others Tactics has dealt with quite well, and is in significant need of an extensive FAQ and errata.  Adding force restrictions that make little sense, changing things just to be different than Tactics, and leaving gaping holes in the rules do not make a game 'deeper.'  Different, yes, but I found it shallower overall.

I can't classify either game as more than beer and pretzels, but Tactics at least has a far more polished finish to it.

For Tactics: tactics do matter, you have flexibility to create more force options, and most of the game makes reasonable sense.  All of that, with a quick and easy rules set to work with.

For Warfare: the reactive mechanic is interesting, but there are significant gaps in some rules, force structure is restricted oddly as in 40K, and many rules make no sense for people with any military training.

Both can be fun for some players, and I'm happy for those who enjoy Warfare, but I won't invest anything more into Warfare until it gets a significant overhaul.  Warfare feels too much like DUST 40K, and 40K has never been a terribly good rules set.  Popular, yes, but rather mediocre as a rules set.



#12 felkor

felkor

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,082 posts

Posted 21 June 2012 - 01:17 PM

After playing quite a few games of Dust Warfare, I definitely find the game to be a much deeper experience, with a longer learning curve. 

The big difference for me is that co-operation between units is much more important in Dust Warfare than Dust Tactics, partially because of the different turn system, and partially because of the new reaction and suppression rules.  Where Dust Tactics has somewhat of a "Rock Paper Scissors" system on what individual unit type can take out other individual unit types, with Dust Warfare, it feels more like how you combine units and make them work co-operatively to take out enemies.  A unit may be good at one thing alone, good at something else when paired with another unit, and good at something else altogether when paired with a different kind of unit (and perhaps good at something else if paired with a particular platoon upgrade).  It makes for very dynamic game play, and makes army creation a much more thoughtful process.

That said, I don't like it better than Dust Tactics.  Dust Tactics is a "fast and dirty" game, where as often as not the game is won by a single roll of the dice in the final round.  It's a wargame you can set up and teach someone how to play in less than 10 minutes, and that is a very rare and wonderful thing.  Dust Tactics has this interesting yet bizarre "Chess with a bucket filled with dice" feeling that I have not seen in any other game. 

Asking me which one I prefer is like Sophie's Choice - I can't choose, and best of all, I DON'T HAVE TO.  If you have Tactics, Warfare is not a huge investment.  And what's also great about having both of these games, is that they are both doing quite well for FFG, which means there's going to be a steady stream of awesome new units, expansions, and campaign books coming out for both games for a long time.



#13 SteelWarri0r

SteelWarri0r

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 21 June 2012 - 04:46 PM

 Warfare seems to be a great game to run tournaments and do matches against other players.  It is my choice.

 

RwO



#14 SolennelBern

SolennelBern

    Member

  • Members
  • 969 posts

Posted 21 June 2012 - 04:57 PM

DAMMIT GUYS STOP IT!

Now I want to go buy Warfare…it's all your fault!!!!!!!!!!



#15 Jiltedtoo

Jiltedtoo

    Member

  • Members
  • 155 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 12:11 PM

Tactics, it really is just a fun relaxing game.



#16 KiltedWolf

KiltedWolf

    Member

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 12:19 PM

 For a $20 investment (PDF), why not go ahead and buy Dust Warfare? If you don't like, you won't be out much cash. I absolutely would NOT purchase the hard copy -- it is very poorly written (just from a gramatical standpoint, not to mention the rule set has holes requiring house rules), with one-third of the forces (SSU) left out. No doubt a rewrite will be forthcoming in the not too distant future; I am waiting to see if Mr. Martian can apply a bit of high school math to the next version…

That being said, they are two different games and I enjoy (mostly, ignoring the stupid gaffs and applying house rules as needed) warfare when I want a "larger" game requiring more interaction between units, or because that is what is being played that night. My go to is Dust Tactics -- the rule set is polished and works, providing an enjoyably quick and ferocious game play. I would say I remain 80% Dust Tactics and 20% Dust Warfare. If you come from a 40k or FoW background, you might enjoy Dust Warfare as it will seem more familier.

Cheers!



#17 blkdymnd

blkdymnd

    Member

  • Members
  • 959 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 03:13 PM

 Well, that's not terribly accurate.  Yes, there are a few typos, but there really are no holes in the rules.  We have over 10 games played and haven't house ruled anything.  And they didn't 'leave out' the SSU.  The SSU get their own book, which is forthcoming.



#18 Gimp

Gimp

    Member

  • Members
  • 559 posts

Posted 23 June 2012 - 06:24 AM

Considering the SSU was ready to be shipped, and had to have been through playtesting before Warfare went to the printer, saying they were left out would be quite accurate for many people.  The fact that they are being held back for a second book is simply GW style marketing, requiring players to buy yet another book to get the rules for units that were ready.

The number of typos is much more apparent to anyone who has done editing, perhaps, but Warfare is rife with them.  Grammar and logical structure is just as much of an issue that will increase with rules lawyers in competitive play.

Every assumed rule interpretation is a house rule until the actual intent is made clear by FFG.

As for missing rules, compare it to issues dealt with already in Tactics (ex: artillery in or against units in buildings), or the obvious omissions like anti-mine attacks, and the number of rules missing or poorly worded grows.  Poorly designed rules are equally evident, and extremely troublesome.  Holes that a playing group do not use or manipulate due to playing style are still holes in the rules.

Army selection is more complex in Warfare, because arbitrary restrictions were created to limit force structures.  People who like 40K can be happy with that.  I'd be happy with it, if the force restrictions made sense from a military perspective, as opposed to an arbitrary game perspective.  Otherwise, I'd prefer being able to create a force that makes more sense. 

I have little interest in force structure that someone else arbitrarily assigned just to have restrictions instead of building logical unit structure.  Some players will be quite happy with the platoon lists, but I'm an ex-soldier and a military historian, so I prefer restrictions that make military sense.  Only my opinion, but my opinion matters to me.  I have little interest in a 40K style of army creation, especially one that appears far less polished than 40K's.

I find Warfare more complicated than Tactics, but not really deeper or more tactical.  Complicated is only deeper if it adds to the tactical complexity, which I do not find with Warfare.  I have no interest in DUST 40K.

Warfare is different, and will appeal to some players.  It will stay far down my list of games enjoyed until at least some of the rules issues are addressed.



#19 Jiltedtoo

Jiltedtoo

    Member

  • Members
  • 155 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:58 AM

They may have delayed the new book to add the new Axis and Allied walkers. So those would be playable as well.



#20 felkor

felkor

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,082 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 09:03 AM

Jiltedtoo said:

They may have delayed the new book to add the new Axis and Allied walkers. So those would be playable as well.



The other possibility is that it got delayed so they could reprint the original Core Rulebook, as it sold out at the distributors extremely quickly.






© 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