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.

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.

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

Jiltedtoo said:

Does anyone who plays both have a feeling about whether or not Warfare is a little less swayed by die rolls? I really have enjoyed most of the couple Tactics games I've played, but the number of times I've only hit 3 times out of 30 rolls is kind of staggering. I suppose, ultimately, I'd prefer something that reigned in the sheer luck element a little bit more - any chance of that happening with Warfare?

LongDarkBlues said:

Dust Warfare has also taken out some of the really "dicey" mechanics that could have huge swings, like the Command Squad's roll a die to see if you bring a unit back to life or re-activate him, and the phaser weapons don't work in the extremely variable way that they do in Dust Tactics. 

While I've certainly had a game or two of Dust Warfare where it felt like the dice decided the game, I haven't found it to be the case as often as Dust Tactics. 

Also there is the supression factor in warfare, so even if you hit you do something to the enemy unit (some units cannot be surpressed like zombies).

Otherwise its dice on both ends, dice to hit and dice for armor saves.

My advice, pray to the gods of the dice before you play and hope they bless your rolls.