Peacekeeper_b said:

I expect armor 4 will be uncovered when the Vrill faction comes out. Armor 4 is described as "out of this world" in the rulebook of DTactics.

I had not read the ENORMOUS FFG rant on BBG until just now.  I think Mr Petersen is right on with everything EXCEPT his really poor excuse for not making the Jagluther, Barking Dogs, Fury of Ivans game legal. For one thing, the painted and completed models of these are only $65, and they look awesome. This is only $15 more than a Premium edition Walker from the same site. So $15 is too much a for a player to spend? I have the Jagdluther with the card it came with, and I feel its stats are poorly configured and it is too powerful for what it is.  How many prepainted WH40k tanks can you buy for $65? I am not sure, but I doubt even half of one.

There is some mention of the stats for a Jagluther in one of the Dust rulebooks, as it is the target of an attack, and they are not the same as the card. I need to go back and look at those.

The range and scope of all alternative W.W.2. games are a mine field to players and manufacturers alike .What to build , what  to leave out, who would like a jeep, another a Maus. Only way round this is to use the Forums to list your suggestions amongst each other. For now use any item, or scale  in unofficial play. If it's FFG , bring it just to show. End of the day , the aim is have a lot of fun, and make friends. Can't use it yet, dream, it's their sales loss.

Heh, I thought that was an excellent post by Mr. Petersen.  Unfortunately it also ran into a few other issues that may have distorted the discussion, mainly dealing with customer frustration.  I'm going to add in a few extra comments on the points, I'll skip some of the minor (to me) issues:

1.  FFG Doesn't Talk Well:  The problem here requires a dedicated plan and effort on the part of FFG to stay on top of the updating process without falling into the trap of "making a promise".  I'm sure FFG can make a policy, but for so many games having someone stay on top of all of them for releases, research, direction and customer support probably is a nightmare.  Of course, even if FFG did a perfect job of dealing with that, there would still be the vocal minority screaming at them for being liars.

In this particular case, I'm worried about the continuing effort into expanding only half the factions will mean either lagging support (SSU/Vrill are 24(?) units down through the revised core with more Axis/Allies units in the pipe) or a large outlay for players to try and "build up" one of the unpublished factions up to the current variety of the established faction.  We currently have no clue on how that is supposed to happen.  Granted, the Vrill can be left for in the future since they don't invade immediately, but for the SSU this is a problem and an error (for the gaming system, perhaps not economically) by FFG.  IMO, SSU should be being promoted with a starter kit and all ASAP.  Hmmm, this issue is knotty and requires its own post for discussion.

2. Charity event thing: Skipped

3. FAQ/Rules Questions:  FFG is a bit slow here, it appears partly because of the "we don't talk to the masses" ethic.  I understand why FFG does it, because it is frustrating to deal with a clamoring horde, but it does produce problems like these.  I'm not going to go into a big breakdown on the flaws/benefits of FFG policy, but I will note that DT does have very few rules issues and those can/have been corrected in the current revised Core Rules.  Even those rules issues they have are ones that can be house ruled one way or the other and either way will work, which kind of points out how trivial they are.

I will note on some of the design philosophy behind some rules, I do take exception, but that is something entirely different from rules written so badly that they need a FAQ "RIGHT NOW!!!!".  It is also possible that the revised Core Rules made changes in some units so that they become less playable/efficient and they might need to be revisited.  Example, Axis Gorillas appear to have been designed with the old Charge rule in mind and although I prefer the new Charge rule, it is possible that a unit like the Gorillas could also benefit from Fast as well, but again, another discussion.

4. Official FFG cards for DG resin units: I agree, the price point for the DG units are too high compared to the FFG units to make this a good idea.  It smacks of the "collectible" market and tends toward GW-style overpricing of miniatures.  Yes, I can afford it, but I didn't get in that position by dumping money for overpriced stuff just to play a game.  In the case of the SSU units, as I mentioned in 1. above, the faction is nonexistent in DT terms so tossing a few SSU walker units out is not smart policy.  In some ways this is an issue of problems solving each other, but I concur with Mr. Petersen in this case.

5.  Game Promotion:   Some more local support would be nice, especially outside the LGS framework, but I don't see a viable way of making it happen unless FFG wants to sell things like "Game Night Kits" to individuals.  In my particular case, it would involve finding yet more time to go to the LGS with my set of DT and start playing games.  I do have some ideas, but from FFG's point of view, the economic viability would be lower.  A greater FFG presence at "lower level" 'cons and tournaments would be nice, but they are still in early promotion stages of DT.

6.  Retailer Support:  My LGS just got one (1, single, the only) copy of the original DT core in a couple of months ago.  AFTER, I had bought my copy online.  I'm also not sure of the pricing structure, but I do know that I am buying DT stuff off Amazon for ~17% average off retail with free shipping, but even when I was trying to order almost $300 MSRP for ~$250 (the Amazon pricing) of DT and I was going to eat the sales tax to put money in my LGS' pocket, I was told that they couldn't match the Amazon price.  Lots of details I don't know, but that sounds like it is costing my LGS over $65-70 to get a core set in that they have to then sell for $100.  Gee, no wonder there is no joy about a pricy new game with no local player base at my L(for LOCAL)GS.

7.  DT minisite:  Well, I think FFG could do it better also, but that is part of another issue.  Otherwise, this is actually a decent website, I don't even need RSS or anything else, just hit the bookmark every day or two and see what's up.

8.  Event support from FFG:  If there was a potential email issue, I'd try to track it down if I was Mr. Petersen, but if I couldn't find it quickly, I'd drop it.  Losing/mishandling an email is one thing, having to support events is another.  Outside of scope: I still think DG and FFG could work together better on this since DG should be able to drop a premium mini prize for this kind of event without FFG's permission, but that is DG & FFG's biz.

9.  DT staff "In Chaos":  Warpstorm in MN?  I thought they had snowstorms but...      Sorry. 

Anyway, if there is a customer support/fanbase management/volunteer supervisor person, then they do need some continuity, but this is part of 1. where FFG has to allocate resources to it or not bother.  What I don't see if gamer playtesting.  FFG (and every other game company) being caught between a rock & a hard place.  Gamers testing is one thing and very valuable.  Gamers gossiping about stuff they have signed NDAs about is another and will cause a game company unending trouble, except when gamers are told to go forth and gossip or go forth and playtest.

10.  Community Program:  Sounds interesting, but again, the resources & commitment issue I mentioned in 1.

11.  New Point System:  Be real, the old one of just counting up the armor value is great for learning the game, but serious stinks for long term larger games.  Mr. Petersen addressed it very well from a game design point of view. 

I only have one big complaint about the new system and that is in playing some of the scenarios, especially the last one in Seelowe.  Since you have to have equal points (new system), but are only allowed heroes and the command squad, for a player like me with just the original core and Cyclone/Seelowe expansions the only choices are Rosie vs. Sigrid/Markus.  Period.  No other options allow for equal points value.  IMO, the advantage is with the Axis since both Markus & Sigrid are superior to Rosie in this situation.  Admittedly, this is a specific issue and it can be handwaved away by allowing this specific scenario to be played with the command squad + an equal number of heroes on each side. 

I don't see an issue with the "mass infantry screen with cheap units" option.  Yes, it has advantages, but the game is still rock/scissors/paper so other options can overrule this.  It becomes a specialty list that can have advantages over certain other builds, but I'm not worried about it.  Take your three Observers vs my Recon.  It will be a fairly even fight IMO and in a bigger game, if I get any IA3 units in CC range, I'll simply rip a team to shreds with zero chance of taking any casualties.

Not to say there aren't any problems with the new point system, but time will tell on that and FFG can readjust the points costs at needed.  In particular, I'll cannot see any reason to take the Allied "Honey" light walker at 28 points.  Unless you have hot dice, the Phaser weapon is just too flaky.  Against armored targets, it averages about like a 1/3 Bazooka with some more range and against infantry it is as good as the 5 point Observer teams.  Whee.  OTOH, the Allied Wildfire is the big bargain among the light walkers, with better AI shooting than the more expensive Heinrich.  Notice that this isn't a slam against the new point system, but at some individual units.

Skipping MC/AT-43 issues, I cannot speak to the details given by Mr. Petersen.

12.  FFG not moving DT forward properly:  I'm in some agreement here.  I think the SSU needs to be developed before a ton more units are popped out for the Axis & Allies (remember the Vrill can be added later as they appear later in the storyline from what I've heard, if they are an elite fast moving heavy force with quality over quantity, then it takes less models).  I also think that "old school" units should be given official cards to make them playable while allowing 1/48 WW2 models from other manufacturers to be used on the board/tabletop.  I'm not going to argue the economics here again, but cards are cheaper than models to produce and could be sold in sets at a higher profit margin.  The biggest obstacles appear to be: Inertia at DG and/or FFG plus the need for new rules for "old school" vehicles.  Tanks and walkers need different advantages/disadvantages vs each other.  Tanks would be more clunky and slow to maneuver (not necessarily slower in a straight line), a bit cheaper (older tech + production lines already running) and possibly have different armor values by facing (IMO walkers do too, but they are much more maneuverable than regular AFVs).  The logic is fairly rapid expansion of available units (since already existing plastic models can be used), including the SSU (which consists of countries that aren't known for their adaptable manufacturing ability, but for their ability to churn out existing things cheaply once they are set up) for relatively minimal expense in a "side market" area for DT.

13.  No personal notification by FFG:  Skipped, it is silly.

14.  No massive active presence by FFG in various online venues:  This one is mixed, Mr. Petersen makes excellent points, but I think FFG could do several things to be more proactive about communicating.  The current stand is the both the cheapest and easiest since it is really just a matter of ignoring the peons who buy the products. NOTE: I know that is not in any way, shape or form FFG's position both officially or unofficially, but it is the way it appears.  I've actually heard from multiple sources that the guys from FFG are great to meet and talk with, it is dealing with the faceless mobs online that causes this situation.  The customer is always right, but sometimes a company has to ask itself if it really wants this customer. 

Any other options, including some minimal engagement here on the FFG forums that I will discuss in a post about point 1 above (when I get around to writing it up) all require an investment in time & money from FFG that may be profitable in the long run and may not, but will almost assuredly draw another level of internet rage as some doofus (there will be several) raises heck all over the Internet because their doofus ideas are ignored for being obviously stupid to everyone reading them.  Hmmm, invest company resources for a potential long term gain vs an at least equal potential for short term negative promotion...

Guess what, maybe ignoring the peons who buy the products is a wiser business decision.  I disagree, but it is simpler and more manageable.

I find this whole debate really strange, people want to use a model that doesn't have official rules and isn't produced by the company that releases the rules and the product range.

This is equivilent to wanting to use warmachine models in warhammer 40k or pokemon cards in magic.

I personally wouldn't want my opponent fielding something against me that isn't official at a tournament because it won't have been playtested by FFG who are in charge of game balancing and controlling the overall impact of a unit on the game. FFG CEO never said you can't play them for fun between friends but not officially, so they are on the same grounds as home-brewed stuff - ask your opponent first.

Finally lets look at two of the more materialistic points -

1st - why would you allow another company (even one you work with) to create and release products for a line you own/pay licence for and potentially release units with better rules so people will buy them and not your stuff? This point is not about the models it's the rules. Releasing control of your IP is a really bad idea.

2nd - FFG make this game. FFG products only. Simple rule. They do so much work to get interesting and balanced units out every month whilst trying to avoid new units warping the game or power creep (i'll admit power creep is going on though) why would you let someone else come in and potentially change that?

Nobody has said you can't field unofficial mechs in unofficial games but there have to be limits. FFG are a massive company it has to be one rule for all otherwise where do you draw the line, what if they said the dust games mechs are ok and another company comes along making tanks for dust? are they allowed?

Just my opinion but I do think some people are moaning about this without looking at the bigger picture of what's good for the game.

finally I leave you with the thought - maybe some of the stuff that is in the process of dust games having made and ffg playtesting might show up in dust warfare? and be legal from book release. it's what used to happen with 40k codex's when Andy Chambers ran GW - rules for things that didn't have official models yet.

jakimaru said:

Not really equivilent.  There are no warjacks in the 40K universe.  There are real tanks in the dust comics and all of the "unofficial" walkers from  Dust Studos website are straight from the dust universe.

jakimaru said:

No.  Dust Studios produces the game and produces all of the miniatures.  FFG markets and distrubutes the game.  It's not quite that bright a line and FFG seems to have some hand in development, but no, FFG does not run the show by themselves.  It's a partnership.  So ALL of the models are Dust Studio models, the tournament legal and unofficial alike.

rwwingate said:

I seriously doubt FFG playtests or even edits this product line.

Grand Inquisitor Fulminarex said:

As a playtester for the Dust line, I would argue that point.

Gobbo said:

Both DT & DW? 

 Only one at a time.  I am currently on the DW team.

I don't get why people are so hyped up on support for unofficial stuff. I can understand that you want more & different minis, but why should FFG support something they're not, um, supporting?

Sorry for the snark, if you view it so, but I come to DW from DT, & I just want whatever FFG is producing for the game. I'm not some big WW2-head--I like DT & DW, and I'm not going to be converting tanks or whatever for the game. What's in the game is in the game, no?

I guess I just don't get mini wargaming culture.

There can be lots of different reasons.

Some people want to add something of their own to the game to make it more 'theirs.'

Some people like the concept, but want it expanded to include other ideas that FFG hasn't had the time to add, even if they want to.

Some people know that FFG would have a harder time expanding into the established WW2 model market, but would like the units that would logically still be around and having to face the DUST units.  FFG may add historical vehicles, but I would expect them to come as unit cards rather than as models.

Some people like the core game engine, but want to explore more what ifs from before or after the game setting.  Walkers made their first appearance at Stalingrad, but there were years of war before that, and years between Stalingrad and the current setting.

There can be lots of reasons people are interested in adding unofficial stuff.  I threw out just a few I could see quickly.

Most popular games come with variety, because variety adds more to keep interest.  Whether that is through scenarios, random set up, special rules, new units, or whatever, gamers enjoy variety.  Some people will be quite happy with the variety included with DUST, but others will want more.  Few people like to wait for something they want.

 I agree 100% and buying cards with stats would be fine and if FF did not want to produce the models it would be nice for them to link up with other sites were those who wanted could find other models and include them in their armies. Like dust studio does with links to other well established model companies, but would those models even if the right scale be official ?

And it is nonsense  to think that a card for every military device and weapon will be made. As some have already done making cards on a DIY basis is the way to go in my opinion.

And when FF does come out with aircraft and tanks don`t be surprised if they look nothing like what any of us think they should look like it is their game to make and ours to buy.

Only time will tell and most of this is speculation and the wait and see attitude just makes me anxious. I can`t wait for the core rules for warfare and for Christmas when i pray the book comes out ( fingers crossed )

feildmarshallolberhus said:

The problem with the home-made stuff is that it doesn't transport well.  As long as it is thee and me playing against each other, then whatever we are happy with in house rules is cool.  It is when we try to go elsewhere, especially for a tournament, that problems start showing up.