40k has an unbeaten player support, the best and most characterful IP along with Warhammer Fantasy (to me), great models and I don't mind the basic resolution mechanics (perhaps just because I've gotten used to them over 20 years) and while they certainly have room for improvement, I wouldn't call the wounding / armour resolution the simplest of all. Say what you will about save modifiers, for futuristic 40k armour they aren't completely required (and especially not with a d6 system, now, with a d12....) when resolving basic weapon fire, because the assumption isn't that a soldier taking a hit goes down anymore, regardless of armour.

But for the final time, my example of offering the armour mechanics as a rule I found not to my liking was not an invitation to debate that opinion over multiple posts, because it feels like you're trying to find a way to undermine my opinion. Besides, it hardly matters, because DW is a separate game and can do things differently.

Frankly I'd rather read the book and make up my own mind rather than speculate about it over and over on the net. Like I said, it can just lead to a further loss of enthusiasm IF the game turns out the way you want. It's too late to do anything about it at this point, but serves me right for going on the forums about an upcoming game.

So.....UH....How about that street date?

Sorry if I came across poorly for you, as it wasn't my intent.  As I said, I come to forums to discuss and debate concepts, because I enjoy seeing other people's opinions and trying to understand them as well as sharing my opinions.  I wasn't trying to undermine your opinions, but simply to understand them.

I don't see 40K's mechanic as the simplest, I see it as one of the most simplistic.  The actual mechanic is rather clunky, but quite workable for those who get used to it.  The simplistic part is where they gave up on modifiers to armor, so something like power armor is either 67% effective, or not effective at all, with no variation in between, even when the weapon doing the wounding may be varying from a base 17% up to 83%.

I've played it, and am more likely to play WHFB an earlier edition of 40K, or a converted rules set, but I see nothing wrong with people who still enjoy the 40K roller coaster ride.

I enojoy the 40K fluff, even when I find myself laughing at the absurdities and inconsistencies, but that isn't surprising for a shared universe with lots of people adding thoughts and opinions from within GW, as well as everything players think.

I can be happy with Tactic's rules, even when I find them simple, because they allow tactics to work as tactics should, and the game carries a great visual appeal.  I want more complexity from Warfare, but want it to stay true to its roots, rather than branching into something that bears no resemblance to Tactics.  It could work if it was done extremely well, but that's a very high bar to reach.  Otherwise, it would dilute the appeal of both Warfare and Tactics. 

One of my nightmares would be seeing Warfare somehow try to becomes a 40K clone as a few other games have tried to do.  I've never seen one of those games do well, nor would I have much interest in it.

reptilebro1 said:

I heard a rumor they decided they needed to do more work on the rules, but have no idea how extensive that might be.

I don't mind, because I'd rather see it late and great than on time but a crime, but official word would be nice.

Yes, 40k is very absurd at times. It isn't immune to criticism.

But let's wait and see. I'm ok with them working on the rules, but they need to let us know now if they've done so.

Gimp said:

Thinking about the works of Chambers I cannot see this come true. Warhammer 40,000 second edition is a great game, Starship Troopers (now dead but living in Battlefield Evolution) is the best game I played so I know that DT will be a great game too.

Yes, Andy always does best in games which involve totalitarian communist(ish) factions. Go figure....

alien said:

I think you mean Dust Warfare will be a great game. 

You know, your glowing report of Andy Chambers record of game designs isn't necessarily so wonderful.  Besides 40k (general rulebook + separate army books required to play), Starship Troopers (miniatures) also ended up in that GW style hole of requiring multiple book purchases to field armies and it is on the scrapheap.  It doesn't matter how good the game system is, the only reason GW gets away with it is because GW achieved a relatively massive market penetration back in the days when White Dwarf published how to scratch build stuff and paperhammer was perfectly viable on the tabletop.  You know, back in the day when lots of gamers got WD because GW had some nice products and excellent articles in WD. 

 yes, I mean dust warfare, sorry for the typo :)

Beside this in my opinion the game system is a great part of the game. 

Army books/sourcebooks are from my personal point of view very usefull to add background to the factions.

The thing to remember is that Any Chambers designed the core games, but very probably did not fill in all of the details, nor did he necessarily design the games to require the obnoxious purchase of every book to keep up with all of the additional rules.

I liked Starship Troopers, so I'm willing to go with a reactive mechanic instead of alternating activations for Warfare because I can understand how that could speed play.  

I don't blame Mr Chambers for the ridiculous additions to Starship Troopers, nor do I know if he was at fault for any of the rules SNAFU's that caused issues at the start, because I know game design is normally a team process, and others would be handling peripheral ideas so he could concentrate on core mechanics.  He was lead designer, but probably not rules editor nor in total control.

I would expect things to be the same with Warfare, with Mr Chambers creating a core rule set, and someone else adding to it to finish the product.  That would be where problems were most likely to occur, because it adds another cook to the kitchen that may not really have a clue about what Mr Chambers was working to create.

A 40K fanboy could take an excellent product and turn it into a 40K clone that wasn't worth playing.  That is my greatest fear for Warfare, that it goes to hackneyed mechanics borrowed from 40K to add 'polish' to the core game, and turns Warfare into a travesty instead of a glorious tapestry.

There is a lot from Tactics that can be polished to create a solid mechanic for Warfare that is quite playable, yet unique instead of a clone of 40K.  Time will tell, and hopefully it will tell a good tale.

I only wish they will support it, looking at what's happening with expansions, they are going wrong direction, I hope they will release heros that came with all expansions separately as well as buildings, and some terrain. I am not willing to buy an expansion that adds useless tiles and 3d cover's that I allready have pleanty, just to get 2 heroes... They were supposed to separate those two things, why won't they release expansions just like terrain tiles now with rulebook and new tiles???

....Terrain tiles? What is he talking about? 3D terrain?

Are we talking about Dust Warfare here or Tactics?

Sorry if I wrote it in confusing way, english is not my native.

Let me explain, you get 2 heroes in every campaign expansion for DT, as well as some 3d cover (crates and tank traps) and tiles. Now those heroes at the moment cant be obtained in other way than buying those expansions. There is Rosie and Manfred in Cyclone, Ozz 117 and Markus in Seelowe, and Angela and Chief in upcomming Cerberus, there are rummors that Cerberus will come with 3d buildings as well but don't know if its true (seen it at beast of war).

What you get in heroes (miniatures only) expansions is : Action Jackson, The Priest, Johnny One-eye for allies, and Granadier X, TotenMeister, and Stefan for Axis.

I just hope all miniatures be released as an separate miniatures only expansion because its crazy if I would have to buy expansions full of stuff (tiles, and cover) I don't need just to get miniatures, also if there are plans to release 3d buildings in cerberus why not selling buildings alone as well?

My point is ... why arent they selling campaign expansions just like they've released terrain tiles expansion, just a book and tiles? If they are serious about serving both miniature gamers and board gamers, why forcing the first ones to buy stuff they won't need just to get miniatures?

I also hope they will release 3-d terrain in a box, like walls, and buildings, could be used in both games, and in other miniature games as well, so should sell well.

Ah, so you're saying they shouldn't force DW players to buy DT-only stuff alongside the miniatures. Well that's a definite in my book as well, good for pointing that out. Better to bundle those with the scenario books only. Or alternatively at least release the miniatures independently alongside the DT bundles (Again, if they're serious about DW).

They do have two "hero packs" on the way, though I believe they are mostly the game nights figs. But it's a sign that they are making at least some heroes available individually. I would guess more of those may be in the works, especially since Joe and Sigrid are now out of print.