I don't see the need for any  morale rules all the troops we are using are elites anyway, so any difference in moral would be minimal and units don't last long enough to worry about it, most being obliterated in one or two shots at them. 

Major Mishap said:

That sounds kind of, well, dull and boring. I imagine in Dust Tactics this is a fact of life, but in Dust Warfare I get the feeling that movement and cover wil be even more important and survival even more so important.

It is true that these are all elites and veterans (the words Ranger and Grenadier seem to confirm that), but I cant accept that Grenadiers and Gorillas and Zombies all use the same stat/value for morale.

Also, its not like I invented or made up this concept. It was in one of the "what we saw of DW at GenCon" posts. Where units had tomake "morale" checks to avoid falling back/being pinned.

I think if the game goes too simple on morale/leadership and so forth it makes infantry even less interesting and if it goes with the notion that "units don't last long enough to worry about it, most being obliterated in one or two shots at them" then it will become RoboNazi vs RoboUSA and be a very balnd game.

"Hey nice grenadiers, looking good on the paint jobs. Sadly, I have ten walkers in my army, so good luck!"

I think DW is supposed to be a slightly more "tactical" and "complicated" version of Dust Tactics and there wil be ways to keep your troops alive longer (better cover rules, line of sight rules, medics and so forth).

But the overall concern is not just about morale. Its about special resolutions using "specialty dice".

I think the issue here is audience.  Looking at the tidbits that have been thrown out there, FFG isn't going to try to create an complex grognard style game.  They seem to want to port DT into DW, throw in a few extra rules put it out there.  The lack of expansive stat lines and the use of the DT dice hints that that is the direction they want to go.

It's not necessarily a bad thing.  If it's done correctly, it can still be fun.

Well RWWingate, I think there is plenty of ways they could go with using most of the current rules as the start. The primary way is to redevelope the units as book entries over card based stats. The addition of extra skills for units can solve many of the problems.

Even with the existing dice as a limitation there are ways around its inherit foibles. For example, there is nothing preventing them from creating a third degree of cover. Soft, needs a hit result. Medium, needs a miss result. Hard, needs a miss result, failures can be rerolled and then succeed on a hit result.

Or to differentiate good markmen from average (and we all know, these are all elite troops thus far and are not joe average trooper) they could have Marksman as a skill. Allows the reroll of a missed shot per round, per shooter.

And I hate it when people use the term grognard like we all want to sit down and play a game of DUST AVALON HILL! Im not looking for rules that affect my weapon line based on time of day, temperature, direction and wind speed. But I am looking for something more then just the rules from Revised Dust Tactics elaborated a bit, made into inches and then covering line of light. I want some table top wargame rules. Movements, cover, obstacles, line of sight, orders, morale, and so forth. And I think if FFG was going for a more "Dust Tactics Expanded" game they wouldnt have hired Andy Chambers to do it.

The bringing in of such a veteran (as some would say Charismatic Legend and Champion of Table Top Wargames) like Andy Chambers reflects a serious concept of a real wargame here. Undoubtedly a lot of the demo shown at GenCon was a toned down version with many elements of Dust Tactics thrown in for ease of teaching the demo players and getting it all moving fast and furious to get as many people exposed as possible.

I think the reason FFG hasnt released "normal" stats for the game thus far is they are trying to set up Dust Warfare to be a serious contender to take on other table top games, Not dethrone them, but contend with. By releasing Dust Tactics first, it enabled them to pre-create a market for the wargame. Now when the game is released, people can jump right in and not wait.

I look forward to Dust Warfare (and future Dust releated games, especially a RPG). And I will be greatly disappointed if they ignore the Grognard Questions.

[QUOTE efidm=538960]
Well RWWingate, I think there is plenty of ways they could go with using most of the current rules as the start. The primary way is to redevelope the units as book entries over card based stats. The addition of extra skills for units can solve many of the problems.

[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying FFG can't do it. I just believe they aren't going to do it. The impression I get is they want to take DT, drop the grid, add a few bells and whistles culled from other systems. I'm not saying I want that, or that it's a good thing, just that's what it sounds like what the signs point to.

[QUOTE efidm=538960]

And I hate it when people use the term grognard like we all want to sit down and play a game of DUST AVALON HILL! Im not looking for rules that affect my weapon line based on time of day, temperature, direction and wind speed. But I am looking for something more then just the rules from Revised Dust Tactics elaborated a bit, made into inches and then covering line of light. I want some table top wargame rules. Movements, cover, obstacles, line of sight, orders, morale, and so forth. And I think if FFG was going for a more "Dust Tactics Expanded" game they wouldnt have hired Andy Chambers to do it.

[/QUOTE]

I played and loved "Advanced Squad Leader" back before I discovered minis games. I meant grognard as a descriptor, not an insult.   If you read the announcement in the news section, it certainly sounded like FFG was setting out to create DW as a traditional Tabletop Wargame. But if you look at the feedback from Gencon, Andy Chambers posts and the other bits of info out there, they went the safe route and ported DT directly into DW.

[QUOTE efidm=538960]

I think the reason FFG hasnt released "normal" stats for the game thus far is they are trying to set up Dust Warfare to be a serious contender to take on other table top games, Not dethrone them, but contend with. By releasing Dust Tactics first, it enabled them to pre-create a market for the wargame. Now when the game is released, people can jump right in and not wait.

I look forward to Dust Warfare (and future Dust releated games, especially a RPG). And I will be greatly disappointed if they ignore the Grognard Questions.

[/QUOTE]

Maybe FFG has a grand strategy, but It doesn't look like it to me. To me it looks like FFG considers DT to be a winner and DW is meant to build on that formula, not re-write it.

To be clear, I think we actually want similar things out of Dust Warfare. I just don't believe they'll come to pass and am trying to keep my expectations in check.

Reading throught eh AT-43 rulebook last night, I can see some suggestions for Dust  Warfare as they are somewhat similar rules (somewhat, not 100%, not even 50%, maybe 33% or so LOL).

Morale checks based on unit size/health. If a 5 size/health unit, test when reduced to 3 troops/health left. Of a 3 health/size unit test when reduced to 1 model.

Heroes health losses do not count, only modles left. So if a unit takes 3 damage, and they are all taken from the hero, the unit is still a 5/6 models so it is fine.

When testing morale roll 1 dice, a hit result is all  you need to pass. If you fail, you spend an immediate move action to fall back. This action is taken from your next available action. If falling back, you will continue to fall back until in hard cover or out of line of sight. On your next activation you can check morale again to regain composure. This counts as an action, but if you fail, you also fall back as above.

Armor 3 units get a bonus morale dice. Heroes add a bonus morale dice. Behind cover adds a bonus morale dice. If behind hard cover you count misses as hits. A coomad squad with the radio intact can issue the order "Back to the Fight you Gold Bricks" allowing a unit to immediately recover if it is successfully activated (as normal command squad skills).

Again, I dont expect FFG to look at this and go "yeah, like that!" I am just thinking outloud of ways morale and other actions could work and who knows, maybe it will get Andy and FFG to rethink or redo and change things a bit.

rwwingate said:

Yeah, while I would like a drastically different system (still dont like weapon lines LOL), I think it is a safe bet that FFG is trying to make the difference minimal enough to attact the DT gamers as well as TT gamers to the same game. But I dont think DW will be the forgotten son of the line. I think it will eventually be the main one. Course, I think a lot of things that dont happen.

Peacekeeper_b said:

I agree and I don't have a lot of confidence in the direction of DW based on what I've seen.  I'm pretty rare in my gaming circles.  I enjoy a good boardgame and I like minis games.  There is not a huge overlap between my different gaiming circles.  I have an equally hard time selling friends on either side of the divide with DT.  If DW could make a bigger leap toward something like AT-43 in terms of complexity, I think it would have greater appeal.

If I describe what I've heard about DW to the people I've tried and failed to get interested in DT, I don't see it changing a lot of minds.  Which leaves me right where I am now, without a local player base.