Harikaridog said:

That's what people were saying was presented at GenCon and other places, but others have come on saying the game had diverged from that into something totally different as time went on.  A few people that stated they were playtesters noted the game had shifted so unit stats from Tactics were completely invalid, and other rules concepts were being shifted.  Andy Chambers gave FFG a core game design, but FFG would have to hammer out the details, and that would mean additional rules that could cause changes to what Mr Chambers gave them.

Warfare should be a big brother to Tactics, and that is what I hope to see when it is completed.

If it isn't, it will have to be something that really blows my mind on the awesome scale, or I will be amongst those who pass on it.

Fortunately, after hearing various comments that suggested weaker mechanics were being added, we've heard FFG pulled the game back into design.  I'm hoping they're going back closer to what was demonstrated to people at GenCon, where Tactics stats and concepts were valid, but the game shifted in other ways to accomodate larger games and added detail.

Warfare can be an awesome game, because it can build on an awesome game, or it can fall on its face trying to be something completely different that doesn't fit for most of the established fans.

I know there were several groups of playtesters involved in this project and certainly input from all was taken into account.  one of the caveats we had to ensure was that the game did not break or rewrite anything that was considered core in Dust Tactics. 

Weapons stats and vehicle / troops characteristics were policed to ensure that a unit in DW did not perform in any radically different way than it would in DT.

If in the playtest such variances were noted , then modifications were made to bring things back in line.

Some changes were considered too radical., or were found to significantly skew play balance......things that seemed  like a good idea in concept proved flawed when actually tested.

Other items/mechanics were left out...but i guess may return in later products.

In the end of course it is FFG's final call on the content of the finished product so my comments above could be made obsolete when the book comes out....   however the last version I saw was something close to what I believe would be the final product..........  I certainly hope so as that version was a very enjoyable game very far removed from current edition 40K and others.

All the best.

Having to leave out items or mechanics usable in Tactics bothers me.  Tactics runs a very simple interface that allows rules to work well without many extra complications.

If Warfare is adding to complexity to give more depth, what is in Tactics that could not be handled by an initial release of Warfare?

Warfare should not be stepping back to something as minimal as the original Core Set rules.  Nothing currently in Tactics is an overly complicated concept, or anything any other open tabletop game doesn't have to deal with on an initial release.  While some skills would need minor tweaks to fit the reactive mechanic, I don't see any of them as being a difficult shift to make while retaining a reasonable parity in utility or basic design.

Someone else stated that point values, abilities, and stats from the Tactics unit cards were not valid for Warfare, so it's confusing to hear you say they were policed to remain similar, though what constitutes being similar could vary heavily between different observers. 

If core mechanics remain similar, and changes due to the reactive mechanic impact all units, then point values should retain validity. 

If combat mechanics remain similar as shown in earlier demonstrations, there is no reason to change combat stat values. 

Some abilities would not function the same in the reactive mechanic (ex: Artillery Strike would not pre-empt the normal alternating activation sequence), but there is no need for radical shifts to make them fit (ex: Artillery Strike could simply take both actions of a unit in the phase they fire indirectly for a net same effect per turn).

We may well not know what changes actually exist until the book is actually released, but I'll keep hoping for an 'enhanced Tactics' instead of a completely different game from Warfare until I find out for sure.  I'd like to be able to retain the interest to be able to play both games as interesting counterpoints depending on how much time I have to invest in gaming. 

Radical changes simply to be different hold very little interest for me.  Any changes should enhance what is already there, rather than reinvent the wheel to fix what isn't broken.

Gimp said:

Not sure if i have misled you and  I am restricted  by NDA :  But......

There were not  any mechanics left out of DW that are currently present in DT.
There is nothing you cannot do in DW that you currently can do in DT.

From my personal perspective the design process was as follows:

DT contains  some basic concepts / core mechanics that would sucessfully translate to the tabletop with simple stat conversion from squares to inches etc, .

You need to clarify such things as Terrain, LOS, Template effect weapons, cover etc that obviously change in the conversion.

Now that could simply be as far as it goes, however the opportunity was taken in DW to  take the game beyond the DT mechanic that one player activates a unit, then his opponent activates a unit etc.... (this is I may say no the only change/enhancement in DW - Suppression mechanics for example.)

As Andy pointed out some aspects of  his designs are influenced by certain classic boardgames, Squad Leader possibly being the most obvious here
SL works on the basis that a player moves all his units before his opponent, but his opponent does have the option to opportunity fire/react during that movement . (there is a similar but limited option in DT - but the mechanic in DW is much more far reaching).

In DW there is a cost to reacting in that it can limit your actions when it is your turn to be the Moving player so hard choices need to be made.

The concept of Command points/Command phase also gives you the option to perform actions without fear of reaction, however there may not be many of these CP's available so they need to be used wisely. 

As I said earlier there were little if any changes to the Combat stat values that I saw.....

Some units may have gained additional or new traits which are currently specific to DW.

Some points values may have been changed, but that is just a natural evolution ,(quite how a Ludwig and a Pounder have similar points when the Firepower is mostly the same, whilst the Pounder has an additional HMG and the Jump capability is beyond me.... but that is a personal view).

Even without DW, I'm pretty sure as the DT game matured we would see additional points value changes for balance. 

Some people will be happy with the results and others will not, a lot will be based on preconceptions of what or what not DW is expected to be.

Again if the final version resemble what I saw and playtested I think the responses will be favourable.

All the best

Gimp said:

We've been over this so let's not start again (and again and again), but for the opposite reasons. But in a way yes, if the very same combat mechanics are used (with the same dice etc.) then I guess you're right, stats wouldn't necessarily need to change.

But this'd be a downer for me, as I don't like the simplistic defense mechanic in DT, for example, where there aren't enough differences between different values (and please don't start telling me how that a good thing based on some pseudo-realism concept, it's just my feeling of lack of granularity and my own perception of fun and variety (and yes, "realism") in a system and it can't be changed.)

What I don't get is why it's so important for the mechanics to remain the same. I can appreciate that units equate between DT and DW, but that doesn't require them to have the same system with the same stats. For example, going from D6s with the current combat chart to a D10-based chart with granularity on all levels, a certain unit can still perform the exact same role in DW as in DT.

I feel that both of us, Gimp and me (though I can't really speak for anyone but myself), are reinforcing these ideas that "if it goes like this then I'll be disappointed and likely to pass" the more we go over it on the board before the game comes. That was the reason I wanted to distance myself from the previous argument from the matter - we should take it easy and be a bit more open-minded, whether it's the same system and stats exactly as Dust or whether it has a more granular system. We shouldn't let forum discussions "entrench" us too much in our positions.

Harikaridog said:

Your statement that, 'Other items/mechanics were left out...but i guess may return in later products.' was what concerned me.

Everything released through Operation Cerberus is about the minimum I see a TTG needing to address to be fully playable, so anything from that range left out would be a problem for Warfare.  Area of effect weapons don't have to be templates, as other games have successfully shown, though that would be an option.  Terrain effects, including structures, LOS, etc took a while to be fully realized for Tactics, but are not difficult concepts to deal with extending Tactics to Warfare.

I understand Mr Chambers idea to go to a reactive mechanic.  I've played a lot of Squad Leader through the years, and have seen the problems some players can have in decision making for unit activations for an alternating activation system used in large battles from several other alternating activation systems.  I can accept that change as reasonable for larger competitive games.

That idea does not change the core mechanic of Tactics for Warfare.

Changes in point values are more problematic, as if things change for all units in the new rules, the changes would impact all units, so valid point values would remain valid.  While there are some Tactics values I question, as well, few are significant.  New point values for units that work basically the same against each other suggests one set of values or the other is flawed.  If changes are really needed, they are needed for Tactics, as well.

Units gaining new or additional traits is another quandry to wade through.  There really isn't that much difference between unit physical capabilities outside of the equipment they carry.  New abilities may work, but if there was no driving reason to add them to those specific units, they only add confusion between the two systems.  New well structured abilities may well be better on new units for further differentiation instead.

I know I'm in a different camp from Sami K, because I see extreme value in maintaining what similarities are workable between Tactics and Warfare.  That value ranges from decreased expense for developing units due to decreased time and costs for production (which trickles down to the player), and increased crossover appeal for an established group of fans for a niche market game (which trickles up to FFG).

Change just to be different breaks both those chains, and will cause increased costs and decreased sales the more drastic the changes are.

I am quite willing to see what Warfare actually gives us, and have agreed to be point man in evaluating the system for several players that have had growing doubts about it.

If Warfare is a good extension built on what Tactics has given us, I'll be happy. 

If Warfare is a comepltely different game that happens to use the same models, I'll be happy only if it gives enough to be worth it. 

If it doesn't, I will continue to be happy playing Tactics and other games, but will simply bypass Warfare for my game collection.

Warfare is currently still being playtested, and so nothing is set in stone.  All we can do until it gets back from the printers is wonder what we'll be getting as a final product.

Well said, let's wait and see and stay positive.

 It was kind of interesting as we had no contact with the other playtest groups.  I was told this was so they could see how different Meta-games in areas developed on their own.  It was the first time I had done a playtest for a company like that.  It was good I think.

 That's one of the coolest playtest ideas I've heard, hope it totally made a difference.

That is an interesting idea.  Different players in different areas do tend to come up with highly varied ways to interpret and utilize rules.  With enough diversity in playtest groups, you'd still have a nice cross section of player types and styles.

Having no crossover means it would take further releases to get new ideas to other groups, but it would also keep an extra level of control.  It would be a slower process, but certainly a workable one.

Gimp said:

Especially if one group of playtesters have primarily a  miniatures wargames background whilst other groups may have boardgame players in the majority.

Each group has a very valid contribution........   of course when all said and done though its the publisher who makes the final decision as it is their bucks on the line.

Harikaridog said:

Yes, that is why there was some more changes and rules development after the open playtest.  I have no idea what changes were made or if there are any that were revamped since the final document I saw.

It will certainly be interesting to compare what is finally published vs the last proofread edition we saw.

 I'm all for it as an option. A long as FFG doesn't discontinue support and updates to Dust Tactics in favor of DW.