I have a friend who is going to buy Dust Tactics this coming year and some of the figurine expansions.

I saw this Dust Warfare book and read a couple articles, but I still am not sure what it is in relation to Dust Tactics. Is it similar to an RPG core manual, an expansion on rules...? Could anyone help me fill in the blanks? I'm sure my friend would appreciate it and I would prefer to be more well versed in explaining it to him next time I see him.

It'sa table top wargame of the Dust Tactics boardgame (although DT doesn't have to be a boardgame as you can use the same scenery).  Dust Warfare is a more detailed and complex version of DT and uses tape measures instead of a grid for moving and shooting.

 Same figures, same background, different rules set that takes it from a miniature board game to a Wargame.

Gobbo said:

Let's be fair; DUST Tactics is a wargame as much as DUST Warfare will be.  One plays on a grid, and the other on an open tabletop, but both are simulations of an alternate history WW2 war, and so are wargames.

The most complex tactical warfare simulations I know are boardgames instead of tabletop games, so I can't consider TTG's more wargame than board games.

TTG's allow more freedom of movement in exchange for limitations in other areas, so neither is inherently superior to the other.  They are simply different ways to approach wargaming.

DUST Warfare has promised more complexity than DUST Tactics, but I doubt it's getting to the point of tracking all ammunition, fuel, fatigue, or any of the other things that I've seen in some board game wargames.

DUST Tactics plays fast on a grid, but you still need to use good tactics for continued success.  DUST Warfare is supposed to do the same on an open tabletop with additional rules for those who want them. 

I'm hoping DUST Warfare is as good as I can imagine it being, but it won't be a reason for me to stop playing DUST Tactics, as that is a solid tactical wargame.  More complexity means more time for a similar sized battle, so DUST Tacics will still work great for faster games and portability of terrain.

Gimp said:

{Pats his copy of SPI's Campaign for North Africa and nods agreement with great vigor}

The only, and I mean ONLY way we contemplated playing even the smallest scenario of that was with full computer support.  Suggested *minimum* players was ten, five per side and one of the things you were supposed to photocopy for game use was a requisition form to be used by the other players on a side to request supplies from the player being the logistics officer.  You want to win battles so you can recover the wrecked vehicles (of either side) to repair and put back into the fight.

In fact, my running joke for the 40K crowd is my "popsicle stick" Marine.  Bit of wide stick stuck into a 25mm posterboard circle with "SM, 1st Sq, Mg" written clearly on it.  Can actually be recognized more readily for what it is than a pretty painted fully WYSIWYG official GW mini meltagun Marine from across the table. 

Tabletop games are niche market holdovers that have a bit more appeal for those that aren't "pure" wargamers (as in they are here to play a wargame and as long as the rules work and everything is clear, who cares what the media is).

 Here's a pic of our Dust Tactics game in play 800pts a side on a 7' wide table and Dust Warfare will look exactly the same, except that I doubt that I will be able to play such large games quickly and easily due to the more detailed rules of DW, either way, nobody can tell me this is a just a boardgame :)

Well, fortunately or unfortunately, from Gobbo's last comment, I'm won't have to try to deal with DW.  After all, as far as making it a "Wargame" of the tabletop variety, all we have to do is agree on the conversion of squares to inches and everything else pretty much falls into place for a tabletop game.  Wow don't even have to buy a new book for that.

I'll be checking out Warfare, because it has the potential to add interesting levels of complexity to Tactics without destroying the flavor.

If they stray too far from the feel of Tactics, they will lose appeal for me.  I want Warfare to stay true to Tactics, while giving me more detail for when I want it. 

The further the system changes, unless there are shown to be very good reasons for it (ex: the reactive system instead of full alternating activation to reduce analysis paralysis slowing down the game in large battles too much), the less interested I will be.

I don't need DUST 40K, with stupid TO&E's that make no sense, new special rules out the wazoo that only serve to cause confusion, and new guidelines that make all of the DUST tactics units obsolete.  I don't know that any of that is actively being considered, but I've seen other games kill themselves by trying to be 40K remolded.  40K is beer and pretzels without real meat other than pretty models and a market share gained because nobody was there to compete with it at the beginning.  Build something better, instead of rehash an old and outmoded concept for gaming.

Build on Tactics to make Warfare stronger and more capable, and I'll be happy.  Simply add new rules to make a different product, and I'll instead convert Tactics for the tabletop, as well.  That' or simply be happy playing on a larger grid with regular Tactics.

Major Mishap;  DUST Tactics is just a boardgame (but that's ok, because it's a very good boardgame that looks awesome on the table).  That's ok, as well, because some of the best wargames out there are boardgames, including DUST Tactics.

Your battle looks very cool, by the way. 

We are in agreement here Gimp, except since you are wanting to check it out more than I do, then I'm going to let you do the review for me.  You have point.

Algesan said:

Not a problem.  You've probably noticed by now that I'm not worried about sharing my opinions about things.

 No, but some of your posts are rather short and without detail. Like that one. 

-Jeff

Hanomag said:

ROFL!    Would you like me to promise to try and do better, with longer and more detailed posts?  I might be able to swing that...

Hanomag said:

Leave Gimp alone.  Gimp's posts with heavy verbosity so that I don't have to.  I have enough trouble with that elsewhere.

Algesan said:

There are advantages to being retired.  If I couldn't take some teasing, though, I'd be a pretty lame gamer.

I am wondering if the reactive action is going to be like Infinity? Since it sounds like the turns are changing from alternating to yougoigo. if this is true I like that. the one thing i hate about yougoigo is i have nothing to do other than read stats off to my opponent. IMO. That is what I liked about DT and games like AT-43. I always had something to do with less downtime

Hi, I was lucky enough to playtest this ruleset, and I beleive the command point and reaction mechanics of Dust Warfare greatly enhance the tactical challenges and tactical options of the players whilst maintaining the fundamental core concepts of Dust Tactics.

This is not a 40k wannabee but rather a big brother of Dust Tactics presenting additional options and mechanics. 

All the best!