One of the things I really like about Dust is the ability to at least react to close combat assaults. You get the same ability (sort of) in Warhammer Fantasy Battle, but not in 40K (which I've been playing since 1989). Assault has been evolving into the prime tactic - indeed, the only tactic - which is less than satisfying to those of us who have studied warfare, and feel better with tactics that have proven successful in reality. Not to say I'm giving up my orks any day soon, but I'd like my Tau to be just as relevant. However, with the changes in GW's rules and business tactics I've been hearing about, Dust is well-positioned to become a contender, commercially. The new 2012 price increases are going to sting ($75 Land Raiders, $40 transports, $66 large monsters, etc.). I have been advocating Dust to my 40K-playing friends, not just on the basis of the fun of the game, but also on the basis that a 300-point tournament army can cost less than $200.

Just never forget that a tank company can slay even the largest titan. Oh, well, an Imperitor maybe not, but anything smaller is in for a world of hurt.

No kidding! Have you seen the RPG stats for the Tau rank-and-file guns? Egad! They're almost the equivalent of heavy bolters, without the need for bracing! (2d10+5 E damage, I believe.)

Oh, heavens, yes, As I've said before, the quickest way to encourage people to argue over rules is to make them 'implicit,' requiring interpretation. Stops a game right in its tracks (and even the explicitly-written intent can fail if not explicit enough. I remember a tournament at a convention in '86 where, before Turn 1, Phase 1 had even started, the three-ring binders of official errata came out to start deciding rules questions. The game was Star Fleet Battles).

Considering that electronic media readers are now emminently portable, having the PDF version as well as the printed one is merely a modern necessity.

Ah, another old grognard. Yes, I miss them, too. Particularly the staggered approach you mentioned to learning the game; remember Starship Troopers?

Don't forget chainswords, power swords, power fists, targeters, apparently advanced medicae kits, thrown demolitions (make sure you have a Fate point or two standing by! One for re-roll, one for burning in case the first doesn't work…). All from command and other specialty squads. And then there are the vehicles. A lot of Dark Heresy characters would kill (and often have to) for this sort of kit. Veteran friend of mine opined that your kit was 'whatever you could get your hands on and whatever you command would allow.'

Azrell, unless a rule is stated clearly and explicitly (I use the term explicitly to avoid the term implicitly, which means implied), then it is subject to interpretation, and we get threads asking questions about it. That is, hands down, my largest gripe with this game, that it uses a format I call "British conversational," where more effort is made in writing the game in a fashion that is easier to read (and write), rather than in clear, precise, case-by-case statements of rules and their specific applications. Warfare is by no means standing alone in this guilt; "British conversational" seems to be the norm for games now-a-days, and I rarely see any games that don't have reams of errata (yes, it is writing errors, not 'Frequently Asked Questions.' The first place I saw that euphamism used was Games Workshop, back in the 90s, and my reaction is the same: Anyone using the FAQ euphamism is basically implying that they don't make mistakes, only their end users make mistakes in interprestion) in this day and age. For those who want to see game rules writing that does its best to avoid this problem, check out an old Avalon Hill war game, or an old SPI war game, from 1986 or before. Yes, they're no fun to read, but they avoid the pitfall of 'open to interpretation.'

I agree that this needs to be addressed in the errata. I'd like to see how it was used in the first place.

I would personally love to use conventional, non-VK vehicles. Of all the walkers available (short of the Ghost In The Shell multi-ped monsters - tell me that the Punisher isn't one aft-turret shy!), the most universally effective is the Mickey, because its main gun has HE shells. The Pounder and Ludwig stock only AP (a game feature that surprised and impressed me; someone was paying attention!). Imagine if you had a Chaffee running around, with a gun that had a 36" range, anti-vehicle attacks slightly less than a Pounder's, and anti-infantry capability, too (something on line with the stubby 75mm on the Mickey). That would be pretty useful.

I haven't played with the dozer blade Punisher yet, but I'm grateful this came up, for now I have a better handle on it.

Two, I would say.The one from the squad is "additional."

I had interpreted it as all one action, which makes Markus so effective with a unit of affen.

Call me crazy, but I think painting is some of the fun. Certainly some of the ownership. Although the Americans are driving me crazy. Ever seen any WWII GIs in color? We made everything different shades of olive drab, and it all faded unevenly. They're taking a lot more work than my Germans did.

Yes, I see. International copyright laws would be a problem. I was, in the past, only dealing with U.S. laws. Real crying shame, that. Especially since those diverse copyright laws get used so often to allow outright copyright piracy, as well as monopolistic practices…it's a mess. Isn't it fun, trying to deal with a world-wide communications system using essentially 19th-century (or older) legal systems?

Ah. A simple misinterpretation of whose edit window… Yes, I do indeed hope FFG stays on top of this, and keeps the errata questions up to date. Warfare is a good game; it's glitchy, but I've grown used to that feature in modern games (I still don't like it, but I'll tolerate it if the game's fun). As I've said before, I don't expect a second edition until next year at best, so keeping the errata updates coming is a good way to keep the game developing, and viola! the second edition should be really killer…

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!

Um, since the FAQ errata file is just that, a data file, can't it be amended without having to worry about issues like "edit window?" As someone who was involved with paper publishing issues in the past, I assumed that with data files, such issues could be side-stepped, or at least resolved with more ease. My point being that unless there's some difficulty I am not aware of, couldn't the FFG people simply amend the FAQ every week or so to clear up valid issues such as this one?

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…

I think that the true measure (pun intended) of the Astarte's size wasn't really made into an issue until, surprise of surprises, Deathwatch did them right. I had hoped (and dreaded) that they would be supermen, and by gum, they were! If you look at the original Marine lore, it becomes clear that they were supposed to be super-sized from the word go. Of course, it's not like Citadel (the minis company) ever had issues of scale, ever, and since… As for cool Guard gear, fooey on not getting the good stuff! The farther you are from administrative command, the more, um, options you have for culling and using captured and oddball gear. Of course, I'm American, and the British classically hate that business ('a messy battlefield'). Fooey on them! What other country would produce nutballs that would overarm aircraft to the point where a simple field modification becomes sort of standard issue? (The B-25.) I could easily see an experienced unit, far from administrative command, hauling all sorts of stuff - hey, I even still have lead models of Space Marines with shuriken catapults!

wrkrparasite has a very good point. Some decades ago, during the mid-90s, a friend of mine had a wonderful rejoinder to a number of UK 40K gamers online who rigidly defended the 'house rules' tradition of British gaming, and decried Americans for their obsession with 'rules writ in stone:' He simply postulated that, if they were so enamored of less-than-exact rules, and so willing to spout, "it's just a game!." then the next time Nottingham went to Bremen, perhaps the Bremen team could trot out some 'house rules' of their own. That'd be okay, right? The response was predictable and immediate, since, at the time, the Nottingham football team was tops in the UK: He was quite lambasted for his heresy. His point was made, though. When it turns from a game to competition, unclear and imprecise rules are the single best way to induce dissention.

I love mein kampfaffen, and mein untertoten have a charm of their own… I hope the FAQ site will be amended on a routine basis. The close combat weapons/vertical reach is a question that will affect play. The 'funny' thing is that Op. Cerberus actually dealt with this question for Tactics already…

Hmm, perhaps for reaction ranges. I really miss the ability to deny areas with weapons specifically meant to fire at long ranges - heavy machineguns, meaning those with mounts, extra barrels, lots of ammo, and a gun crew. For them, either an overwatch action or a specifically designed area sweep action would be useful (there's actually a decent one of the latter in the 40K RPGs).

Recon grenadiers, in order to pin down enemy units so they can't run away from the zombies. The flakvierling light walker is also king at this (as is its quad .50 cousin, for the other side). And slip in a unit of apes, particularly if you have Marcus. And I hope you're using pioneers; they got better with the new errata.

We tend to have strong undergrowth here in Missouri, the sort of stuff that truly makes going through the woods Difficult Terrain, unless you're on a path. Even in winter, although all you're left with is stems and branches. Our bus system is still efficient, I guess. We don't have enough of it, because it's run by our City Utilities, a quasi-independent monopoly run by professional business execs who think everything is for profits only, despite being awarded a public monopoly and public funding. As for longer ranges turning into snipe-fests, that's why you have terrain you can't see through. The average rifle in WWII was quite accurate over 400m, and there were a lot of machineguns to boot, and yet there were still close encounters and skirmishes. Imagine. (Ever been to Shiloh? Shudder.) Interesting, trying to handle a rush army with artillery. I'll have to try it. And as for taking the re-roll on the 22cm artillery, every time, man! I don't consider that an option!