Dust Battlefied Night Thursday October 2nd.

[Thel]

A couple people are interested in a game night to try out the new BATTLEFIELD Version.

 

(Tristan, Alex, myself...)

 

Proposing Thursday October 2nd next week as a potential night to get together.

 

Bring you 100 point lists and lets have at it.

 

There is still a Battlefield pdf online, though it is far from complete. The rule book is relatively cheap as far as rule books go $30.00 and is more comprehensive. The only thing you need is actually your Tactics Army Cards. Those define points, stats and powers etc.

 

 

[Huzzah]

I will post it on facebook to see if we can get more people out.

Chris

Huzzah Hobbies

[Thel]

Sounds good to me

[Karl Schmidt]

I'm interested to see how the new rules hold up.

Is there a battlefield force builder?  I didn't see any platoon structures in the PDFs.

Karl

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Thel <tsch...@comcast.net> wrote:

Sounds good to me

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DUST NOVA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dust-nova+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to dust...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dust-nova.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Tristan Slagle]

The earlier the better for me on the 2nd, could we meet around 4?

[Thel]

Heya,

 

I will be out at Huzzah around 4 ish on Thursday.

 

I am not aware of any Force Builder for Battlefield as of yet, but I can't say I have looked much either.

 

I have put together two 100 point AXIS armies regardless and am ready to rock it.

 

Also if anyone sees Alex, let him know I have his Dust Models for him and will bring them Thursday as well.

 

 

Thel 

[Karl Schmidt]

I got stuck at work until late.  How did it go?  What did people think of the Battlefield rules?

--

[Thel]

Heya,

 

Tristan and his brother Cameron showed up to play Battlefield. Also, Alex came by to watch a bit and also pick up all his Dust Models, which I had been holding for him. Anthony checked in briefly.

 

I have some more games scheduled for next week, so the jury is still out for me, but I have some initial thoughts so far, comparison wise between Warfare and Battlefield V2. (Or is that Dust V2...??)

 

If you were a big Warfare player, like most of us were, then the very first thing you will notice when building armies is that the points, platoon structures and abilities are all In general, everything is cheaper. As a base line, I think roughly 100 points in battlefield is close to 200-250 points in Warfare. In Battlefield you will find that unit abilities, powers, and even special weapons to be updated, streamlined and overall improved. A lot of powers and abilities have been upgraded significantly. I really appreciate this aspect a lot. Platoon Structure....Forget Warfare completely. It is vaguely similar, but only cause it shares the word, Platoon. You basically can play what and how you want in this game.

 

No Command Turn Phase. Alas.

 

Alternating Activations. I dig it.

 

No reaction tokens. Suppression is present, but it is not the board control aspect it was in Warfare. Reactive fire is present, it also is very different from Warfare, but still useful. You can use it to your advantage. There is no reactive movement.

 

Dice. Just about everything rolls more dice, does more damage. There are no armor saves. Units, including Vehicles and Aircraft get cover saves, if they benefit from cover. So, positioning is VERY important. When making a save, you SAVE hits, not damage. So, if I blast your vehicle with a 3/5 and get 3 hits, if you get a save, and make 3 saves, you take no damage. There is no Vehicle Damage chart, sad, but it was really just a fluff thing in Warfare. Vehicles in the open get NO save. Positioning and terrain like warfare are very important.

 

Damage Resilience (AXIS Heavy Troops) is very good, especially if the troops are also in cover. They are frigging hard to kill.

 

No battle builder. This is a big loss in my opinion.

 

Airplanes. Very different. Really they are in essence very fast vehicles who can't sustain.

 

Overall, initial thoughts. It is a fun game. While Warfare was more strategic with board control and objectives using suppression and reaction as primary mechanics to help you achieve your goals, Battlefield and Dust seem to be about shooting/killing. You can't lock down units. You can't guarantee they are ineffective unless you blow the crap out of em. Battlefield gives you that. Your tools of defense are positioning and firepower.

 

I want to play more games, so let me know if there are any takers.

 

Thel

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mike Schaefer]

Thanks for the review, Thel.  I've been eager to hear your impression of Battlefield and its comparison to Warfare. 

I'm sad that Battlefront abandoned Warfare (and disappointed that the community did, too, given the fact that the final-release cards allow the game to be played with as complete a range of options as when everyone loved the game!), but I'm glad to hear that Warfare's replacement is at least viable, so that we can continue to use these awesome models in this excellent setting. 

It sounds like Battlefield offers a different kind of fun.  It's a shame that it's geared more towards simpler shoot-em-ups instead of a strategic game.  But at least it's still fun!

[Thel]

Hey Shades! Long time no see.

 

I feel my complete verdict is still out, the above are some initial impressions. I don't think it is quit fair to say BF abandoned Warfare...However, at best, they have it on minimal life support. I suspect they don't want to completely alienate potential customers. What can I say, gamers are fickle. We like to play games we know are supported. Sure, we all have lots of different games, and occasionally pull the odd one out for a one off. But, in the end, we play what is being supported and advertised the most.

 

Example would be Mordheim. Everyone I talk to always laments this game or wishes to play it. But we are not playing it....Imagine if there was a re boot. There would be a lot of leagues starting.

 

 

[asalc...@gmail.com]

I'm skeptical about the future of warfare too, but to be fair to Battlefront they've said at every turn that they're not killing off warfare.  They say they want to get tactics locked down and rolling first before turning their attention to warfare.  The kickstarter had options for warfare players and as mentioned they've released a set of warfare cards.

We've previously gone over how similar warfare and battlefield are and collectively wondered why Battlefront would put out a new product that so closely resembles one that they recently acquired, but battlefield is not an exact copy of warfare and if they intend to kill off warfare it would have been easier to say so upfront instead of putting out products and stringing customers along.  

Battlefield and warfare occupy a similar design space but feel different on the table.  Battlefield is more of a 40k style beer n pretzels, buckets of dice, swathes of dead sort of game and, in my admittedly limited experience, lacks the complexity and nuance that makes warfare appealing.  That said it plays much quicker because it doesn't have an orders phase and reactions have been mostly neutered.  Alternating activations keep you involved in the game but allow a more relaxed atmosphere where you don't have to worry as much about missing an opportunity to react or ending up an inch too close.  

TL;DR is I'm ready to take Battlefront at their word that warfare is in line but not yet at the front.  Ultimately I think it will shake out as tactics, tactics plus (battlefield), and advanced tactics (warfare).  

Sent from my iPhone

--

[Mike Schaefer]

FWIW, my "abandoned" comment is partly based on what Brian Sayman (of Battlefront) told me at their booth at Historicon.  He said that the card-release for Warfare is Warfare's "last hurrah".  I tried to make a case for Warfare that he could relay to his bosses, but his body language was, like, "sorry, play Battlefield...".

As for fickle gamers, yeah, I think you're right -- that's par for the course.  I just always thought it was odd that we gamers demand "support" for miniatures games, whereas a crap game like Monopoly can have an 80-year successful run, with no revisions, expansions, new tokens/cards, etc. -- just 700 trite "re-skinnings".  :P

There are basement groups in the Falls Church area that have strong momentum for Saga and Malifaux.  I regularly play with those groups, since I can reach the area in 30 minutes.  Let me know if you're ever interested in playing one of those games!

Shades

[Thel]

Shades,

 

I hear you on the last hurrah thing. BFs site, when these discussions come up used to express that there is a contract between them and FFG whereby they cannot develop new content for Warfare until all the existing Warfare books are sold etc. Which sounds like hogwash to me. Even if that is the target, well, there is still a lot of that product available in the market. I think that is as polite as BF can say, we are not doing anything, other than this minimal crap.

 

Since, I accept that in the above terms is why I am experimenting with Battlefield. That and to get some use out of all the awesome AXIS Walkers and Jet Fighters. LOL

 

I will let you know. Those games are pretty healthy out here even in Loudoun. I have been playing Warhammer Conquest and Warhammer Diskwars. LOL.

 

 

 

 

[John Hermansen]

Okay, so... I have learned a whole hell of a lot about Battlefront and Dust in the last week or two. I signed onto the Kickstarter, and with all the confusion going on in the Pledge Manager tried to seek out a refund. I've been pretty unimpressed with the way the Kickstarter was run (note: I've gone Kickstarter crazy the last 3 years and have backed 70+ projects) and due to the communications issues, wanted to get out of the whole thing.

Turns out I caused a huge ruckus and ended up speaking with John Matthews over the phone for a half hour about my complaints. He's the General Manager for all of Battlefront, 3rd in charge beneath the two owners, and he clarified several things for me.

1. Dust Studio owns Dust and all development work. Battlefront is simply the distributor, executing what Paolo Parente directs for them. This means Kickstarter decisions, release cycles, etc. are all owned by Dust Studio. Battlefront certainly takes on some responsibility as a partner, but Dust Studio is the owner.
2. Fantasy Flight Games still owns a significant amount of Dust items in stock. Until that stock sells out naturally, Battlefront and Dust Studio are legally obligated to take no actions that may devalue or otherwise affect the sales of that remaining stock. This has several secondary effects:
1. Take a look at and compare what Battlefront is currently selling for Dust versus what models are still available on the FFG website. It's no coincidence that the only products available through Battlefront are ones that were either never offered by FFG, or that have officially sold out of stock.
2. Battlefront cannot distribute any of the Warfare rulesets until they sell out of stock. If they were to release a "Warfare 2.0" it would devalue the existing Warfare rulebooks, thus violating their contract with FFG.
3. The Kickstarter orders entered production almost immediately after the close of the Kickstarter and receipt of funding. This is different, as most companies wait until they close out the Pledge Manager before entering production. Dust/Battlefront is trying to turn around orders in an impressively quick fashion, and so ordered most of the product line before fully verifying quantities. When I asked about a refund of my pledge before completing the pledge manager, they were aghast at coordinating the return as my order is apparently already on a boat heading this way.
   
4. Allowing store contributions remains a massive headache. This is one of the primary reasons I elected to back and give the company another shot, but it's been hell for them. Kickstarter is none too pleased that they have so much money outside of the project funding that Kickstarter isn't receiving a cut of. They've been skirting some very tight lines between stores, customers, and Kickstarter/Amazon. Should they do another crowd funding project in the future, it would be structured very differently.

What does this mean for Warfare? They can't do crap with it until those books sell out. It's no surprise that, as a result, they've been developing Battlefield as a new game system. Sure, they'll continue to support Warfare, but all they can really do is print the cards for it. We still have to buy and use the rulebooks from FFG, which cannot have a version update in case the update devalues the existing stock... The Battlefield system, however, they can do whatever the heck they want with and update/tweak whenever they want.

Learning more of the background here has helped me understand many of the decisions Battlefront has made.

Personally, I'm feeling a little burned on the whole transition and don't know where I stand. I'll try and get in on one of the future Battlefield learning days to try things out though. I really, really wish this information was covered somewhere in a public release. You can find it all if you dig, but egads, hiring a Community Manager or something similar would seem to help out quite a bit.

[Mike Schaefer]

John, thanks for sharing that information.  It's the most thorough and objective explanation I've seen (or anyone has seen, probably!).  

I'm sure that everyone can see the irony here -- in that the sidebar discussion about fickle gamers comes into play, because the whole situation is a Catch-22.  Dust Warfare remains in limbo until FFG sells remaining Warfare stock.  FFG can't sell Warfare, if no one is playing the game.  No one is playing the game, because no one is selling Warfare. .... ..... .....

Every Warfare fan should just go order another Warfare book from FFG, just to clear out the inventory and break the cycle!  Give the book to someone who you hope will play the game down the road....

[Thel]

John,

 

Yup, sounds about what I have pieced together from other members of the Dust Warfare community. Your story is the same as theirs. I have one other 'feeling' if you will on that. I don't think Battlefront minds the agreement. They would not have signed the contract if they thought they wanted to make changes to Warfare.

 

Warfare is in my mind, a dead game, albeit a good one.

 

As a group we can keep playing it. I have been working with the team that is putting together the Babylon updates for Warfare. It is another FREE PDF, but it is really just that. Taking the new nits and putting Dust warfare stats and rules around them.

 

They can't change abilities, update rules, make FAQ rulings or any of the things that Warfare needs.

 

The whole system sort of 'invites' you to try Battlefield. I literally was going to ebay my stuff earlier,  but thought, for $30.00, why not get the rule book and see what there is.

 

In all honesty, it is not bad. It is not as high level that Warfare is, but it is enjoyable.

 

 

Thel