Thanks for the great responses. I am so excited about the prospect of army books! With you backing the idea I think there is a solid chance, still probably a few years out though.

 Andy Chambers here?!?! Now this is something really surprising and welcome!

So some of the questions I had have been answered yet... like the "normal" units presence. I really hope there will be space for the common grunts in Dust, it would be very fun to see advanced units attacking a garrison manned only by soldiers that have their M1 Garands and Shermans to defend!

Also, what can you tell us about your ideas for campaign games? Do you think there will be rules for "managing" the frontline like supply lines, C&C lines and modifiers that will affect in some manner the linked games? Or you think more about "railroaded" campaign books?

In the core box of DT there is the "Operation Blue Thunder" campaign that has a fixed developing not dependant by whoever wins or loses the last scenario.

So, I mean, if Axis wins the Americans are going anyway to blowup the Axis base.

Do you think is possible, if not in the Core rulebook of DW, to see a campaign system that will be really flexible?

How many factions you would like to see or add in future? Have you thought yet to some possibilities or wishes that you will talk about with FFG staff?

You would like to add some new dimensions to the game (even if I think is a little early to talk about the factibility), like naval or air sides of the game? Do you think it would be possible in future army books/codexes/faction guides to add different arm branches to choose from? 

There will ever be some space action in the World of Dust? Some fight on the Moon for an exemple?

Do you and Paolo think the background story will advance with time (like Battletech does) or it will remain substantially stuck in the '40s mantaining a sort of perennial rework of the same background without add something really new (like Warhammer 40K)?

Thanks a lot to be here, it is very exciting to talk directly with the designer of a game you are looking forward to.

I'd love to see Dust Warfare go far. I think the models and designs are fantastic and I've been hot for a world war 2 game with weird science for a very long time. One of the things I find most attractive about Dust Tactics/Warfare is that it has a big 'tail' of ongoing releases for it so there's plenty of material for future expansions (I think its fairly common knowledge that the Dust universe has more factions than just the Axis and Allies). Campaigns, air combat, naval combat, going to the moon and everything else would be very cool, and I hope that I get to work on some or all of the above.

As regards the core rules, LOS uses model heights in comparison to terrain height (i.e. my tank is taller than the hedge so I can fire over it) rather than 'true' LOS as that can get pretty cumbersome. Obscured LOS (i.e. you can see past it but something is in the way) gives cover for soldiers but not for tanks - they have to be actually touching terrain to get cover.

For armies the game is designed to be scaleable to anything from core set contents up to pretty big games, in theory there wouldn't be an upper limit. No reason you couldn't have multiple players although each side though you would need an overall commander for the Command Phase. Three or four sided games would be....interesting and I haven't tested with that. In theory it should work out but I'd have to try it out.

Tanks and soldiers both make viable choices in Dust Warfare, although woe betide the infantry commander that comes to a battle without sufficient anti-tank weapons. The limited range on most infantry anti tank weapons does mean that soldiers are reliant on using terrain to their advantage if they want to hunt tanks much as in Dust Tactics.

Do you think, Chris, that there is the "danger" that DW could become a game where some "tournament" gamers will try to exploit the best units combos? And succeed in it? Or you think the game mechanics could encourage to avoid this approach that, on the long distance, can ruin the fun?

 I understand both perspectives on the other WWII vehicles however, I was strongly hoping for rules for these vehicles as I am very into WWII.  At least rules for Halftracks, Jeeps, Bikes...  Can't FFG release models for the common WWII vehicles if they are worried about losing revenue?  Or perhaps include them as rare choices sense the new tech makes them mostly obsolete?

This kind of exclusion could make or break whether I buy the book.  I feel like it could be the same for other players as DT and DW are not just attractive to FFG fans but to WWII and Weird WWII enthusiasts as well. 

It makes sense for both FFG and Dust Studios not to delve in that area much though.  Again, there are going to be unofficial rules aplenty for it (and it sounds like Andy might do a "Chapter Approved" for them somewhere down the line, man I miss Andy's Chapter Approveds).  There are tons of other Weird War games and WWII games that do delve into the pure vehicle rules and models, I personally want Dust and FFG to keep researching and developing more unique units than those types that already abound in other game systems and model lines.

Hello,

Andy Chambers said:

I'm not in charge of a game company that seems to be dominating the market, so I'll speak to this point as a customer.

If I like the world of Dust as a theme and story, yet I'm not thrilled with Dust Tactics rules/play, then Dust Warfare does nothing to change that.  It maintains the same elements that I dislike.   You then have two games that don't appeal to me (the theoretical customer)

If Dust Warfare provides an alternate rules system that appeals to a different type of customer, then you GAIN that customer.  This is a simple matter of "something for everyone" rather than two things for the same group of fans.  No matter which version of Dust one likes (Tactics or Warfare), FFG gets miniature sales. Both games share common product, so adding new customers is presumably preferable to selling an additional book to existing customers

For the record, I don't think that Dust Tactics is a BAD game, but I think it has less dimensions, because of is core mechanics than other tabletop games.  From what I've seen, Dust Warfare has some interesting elements, but I don't see how it broadens the overall appeal.

The "benefit" of having a core mechanic that is already known, is acknowledging that you are just re-targeting the current players, NOT new players (who wouldn't know the mechanic--because they aren't current customers).  So, this seems contradictory. 

You "Broaden" a player base by gaining NEW customers, who by definition don't already "know and understand" the current core mechanics, because they aren't current customers.

KAM

Grenadier XYZ said:

Well, I agree with you 100% regarding the one-side activation.  EDITED: I must be wrong about the Alternating Activation, I THOUGHT I saw.  I must have seen a bit where there was some sort of reaction that LOOKED like alternating activation.

If Dust Warfare keeps the core Dust mechanic, but eliminates alternating activation, that is a major lose-lose in my view.

Other people I've tried to introduce Dust Tactics to were REALLY turned off by the slaughter that can happen when you're the first to stick your head out (I know that's not quite accurate once you get the swing of things), but imagine the game stall that can occur knowing that you will be subjected not to just one units blistering attack, but multiple units.

Imagine how fun Chess would be if one player got to move all their pieces, before their opponent got to move their's.

Alternating activation DOES NOT mean that you think only about your next activation.  You've got to anticipate what your opponent might do with their activations, and in what order and determine how best to PLAY your units and in what order.  In my opinion, it makes games more dynamic, rather than turning each player into a spectator for half the game.

Again, just my opinion, but Alternating activation is a must.

KAM

KAM said:

KAM said:

I do agree partially here. If the game is just Dust Tactics with new rules for ranges, movement an dline of sight (all based on inches instead of squares and thats the biggest difference) with some reaction based and morale based mechanics, you might as well as just call it Advanced Dust Tactics or Dust Tactics Second Edition.

My biggest fault with Dust Tactics will remain in Dust Warfare, and that is the fact that troops are defined by their guns not their skill. While to Roll Hit/Roll Damage games have their faults, I feel that you get more variety in troops. Draftees armed with the same rifle as hardened veterans do the same damage, if they hit, which they do at different skills.

But that overall is a very minor issue that I can get over to enjoy the game. It can even be incorporated in the game quite easily with the "reverse" die result which essentially takes the "I hit" roll need from a 5 or 6 to a 3, 4, 5 or 6.

But even the idea of a "book" only release with Dust Tactics Revised Core Set being the "starter set" for the game makes it a double dip game, where I have to buy another game to play this game. Sure, its worth it for the minis, but outside players who are yet to play Dust may find it a put off.

The same argument goes for normal troops and vehicles, in my opinion. Yes there are other games where I can run amuck with troops and vehicles, but I dont play those games and see no reason why I should have to invest in a different game to get my Dust setting kicks. FFG has the resources to make generic Armor Class 1 figures and vehicles and have a serious habit of making license agreements with other companies to turn their IP into a game. There is no real reason why FFG couldnt enter into a contract with a little known model company or even a popular one and have those guys market their figs as "officially sanctioned for Fantasy Flight Games Dust Tactics/Dust Warfare figures" or even let Dust Models get on with that market.

Dust is WW2 based, it is Sci-Fi and Pulp and Steam Punk and Cold War all in one. To say I have to play Secrets of the Thrid Reich or another WW2 game from another company to play "normal/basic" troops or vehicles is ridiculous and weak. And its a market FFG could profit off.

And to say there will be plenty of Fan Made cards and troops and stats is also weak, as I would prefer rules made by the game for the game not by a fan who may have a bias toward one side or the other or for one item over the other. And then why would my friends/opponents agree to let me play something that is not official. I can see it now. "You only won cause you used those unofficial troops!"

blkdymnd said:

So to get the figures and feel of the game I want to play for Dust, I should go to another gaming company and play their game? Yeah, great marketing strategy for FFG there.

I know this is only the internet community, but there has been a lot of voices from fans saying they want this. Even if FFG only sold game cards for these "troops/vehicles" for official stats and still stated that only official dust figures can be used in official tournaments, they would still make money.

Peacekeeper_b said:

yes, because so far that is not in their plans. I don't go to AE-WWII's website and demand that they release rules for giant walkers because thats not part of their plan for their game. If I want giant walkers, I would have to pick up Dust or Secrets of the Third Reich, etc. But I am also a person that doesn't use models from other sources to play a different game unless it's a conversion of some kind, so if they went the route of making cards for models they didn't make, I wouldn't really be their target anyway.  There just isn't many companies out there (large ones like GW, PP, FFG, etc) that make rules for models they don't plan on producing themselves and it's their right to not make those rulesjust because a vocal few people want them.  There will be plenty of homemade rules for those, and again, Andy said at some point he might be even willing to help produce some unofficial rules for them.  Thats more than you would get a whole lot other places.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Yes, if this is little more than advanced options, then it isn't what I'm looking for.  Dust Tactics has already added a lot of new options.

I've got to be honest...I've been waiting on the Tabletop rules since I started with Dust Tactics, because DT just doesn't measure up to a full-blown table top game.  I can't be sure, but what I'm hearing about DW...it doesn't either. 

If DW doesn't use Alternating activations, then this game quickly becomes the worst of both worlds.  Also...if there is such a benefit from using the existing mechanic, then how do you justify this change? 

When I saw the Banner for Dust Warfare, I almost jumped out of my seat, and pounded out e-mails to my friends (who aren't hot on DT).

I went to GenCon and was not at all thrilled with what I saw--keeping all the elements of Dust tactics that I find to be...less than ideal, and now I hear (and apparently somehow missed) that this game is dumping one of the GOOD mechanics (alternating activation) in favor of an outdated one that REQUIRES special rules (reactions--which in themselves are cool) just to make up for the change.

In the span of one week this game went from a "Must have" to what's quickly looking like a "won't buy."   It might not be wise, but I've stuck with Dust tactics (buying every product) because of the promise of new tabletop rules.  If that's a no-go for me, then I'm likely to drop the product altogether.  Great miniatures, and really cool story, but not enough to justify buying a game that I really don't love.

We will see, but I'm going to carefully review Dust Warfare before buying it, and I'll probably put all of my Future Dust purchases on hold until this is resolved.

KAM

Sometimes you also have to be honest with yourself.  If you're playing a game that just doesn't have enough to make you happy just to play it, then maybe you need to play something else.  Infinity was like that for me.  Models are fantastic, background is really cool, I just could not get to enjoy the rule system at all.  For me it was overcomplicated and just complex for complexity sake.  After trying it a bit, I finally just realized that the game wasn't for me and I haven't played it since.  Dust Tactics in it's current form, and sounds like Dust Warfare, has everything that I enjoy in a game right now and in the year since the last Gencon when we picked up the advanced copy of the original core set, I have played little else other than Dust Tactics.  Again, there are other games that have lots of "normal" troops and vehicles.  This game focuses on the more supernatural side of Weird War, and not the normal side.

And remember (for those that played) that the normal troops in AT43 were the armor 2 troops (the more line troops of the game), and even the very expendable Red Blok/Russian troops were Armor 2.  The only Armor 1 models in the entire game that I remember were the small Therian spider bombs, and they were very small.  I could almost assume that the Armor 1 troop models in this game might be some type of remote/slight in stature Vrill fighter.  There are still a few similarities between the two game systems that at one time had plans to be interchangeable with each other...

KAM said:

If you're not currently happy with Dust Tactics, then i don't think Dust Warfare will be for you either.  From day one, when AEG had still planned on distributing the game, the plan was to put out a PDF for a tabletop version, which the way they described it at the time, would be just a conversion of the tile rules to go tileless. 

When you have a fantastic core system already (which, I know you don't think is so great, and doesn't make for a great tabletop game, which my opinion and our gaming group opinion is the exact opposite.  We have yet to have a real rules arguement, but we watch our 40k buddies do that all the time), there is no reason to scrap the core just to make it an alternate version.  Privateer Press, Spartan Games, and even Games Workshop to an extent have used the same core of their rules system for multiple games.  In our area, the Warfare rules will only bring some of those 40k players over, who love the smooth mechanics, but hate the tiles.

Hello,

blkdymnd said:

Well, you're right, and ultimately, that's what might happen.  Dust tactics is "good enough" for me, but not for other people I game with.  They are sufficiently unenthusiastic about the game that they aren't even interested in playing with me buying all the product.  I've been talking about the Tabletop rules coming out as something they might be interested in.  They're likely to be less forgiving than I am.

As I've said--I think Dust Tactics is ok.  It just doesn't happen to have the depth and custom elements that I prefer (I'm a VOR player).  It was enough to keep me going, but it will be a disappointment to discover that the thing I was hoping to lock me in to this game will be the thing that will ultimately push me away.

If so, well, it isn't; the end of the world, and I won't hold a grudge against FFG or anything but they will lose a customer.  You can't please everyone of course, but the point of me posting what I am is that what I'm hearing as reasoning doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and I'd like to think that someone might consider these issues.  Of course, who am I?  Nobody--just one customer.  The question is whether my views are shared by other customers--and that I do not know.

KAM