Skip to main content

Home Forums The Gaming Room Dust Tactics Battlefield rules (and basic strategy if you want) assistence Reply To: Dust Tactics Battlefield rules (and basic strategy if you want) assistence


1. As for the Dust Warfare vs. Dust Battlefield preference, I personally like Dust Warfare more, but only up Operation: Icarus (the last thing FFG put out) with some exceptions of the stuff in Operation: Achilles. However, I think Operation: Babylon sort of when off the track at least in terms of the Force Org. If you want to give Dust Warfare a try, I would suggest sticking to only the stuff in the Core Rulebook for a start, although; there is nothing too bad in Zverograd, Hades, or Icarus unit wise. I would play a nice 150 point game with no aircraft (which aren’t in the core book) or no vehicle 5 or greater (they are too hard to counter at such a low point game) to see what you think of the core rules. At very least you will experience the genius that is the Battlebuilder.

My guess is, that you will still prefer Dust Tactics Battlefield even after trying out the Warfare rules. I would hazard to guess Will might like Warfare a little more than but will probably also prefer Battlefield. However, I don’t have much to go on except how I perceive him in the Battle Reports. So, even though I like Warfare over Battlefield, with gaming time being a premium, I think your, ‘don’t bother’ consideration is apt.

I could go into some of the issues with Dust Warfare, but I think that is long enough for another post I don’t know if I want to write. The TL;DR of it would be unit balance had issues even from the beginning (poor Hermann) that only became worst (mostly post-FFG). I still think their are a lot of good ideas in there and if I had my druthers, I would try to make a pure historical WWII game out of it.

2. I think the reasons for squishy vehicles was many fold. I think vehicles were done that way to keep the focus on the game being an infantry game without putting a Force Org making players take a minimum number of infantry before they could get the cool toys (which I can appreciate). I also think it was done to make Dust a fast paced game. After all, Dust Battlefield really built on top the board game (I don’t mean that in any disrespect) of Dust Tactics which I am sure wants to keep the play time pretty tight. Making the game bloody also makes it fast.

I have never played any of the original versions of Dust Tactics so I have no concept of how unit were changed. As difference in the way units handle between Dust Warfare and Dust Battlefield, I think many units were greatly tighten up. I think Battlefield did a great job with lasers, but at the same time, did a horrible job with aircraft.

It is hard to say if it is more realistic or not. The concept of Dust is elite troops with elite equipment battling it out for precious resources for the future of mankind. It is very easy to say that VK infused weaponry out strips VK infused armor (if they bother adding the mineral to armor at all given how rare it is). Under those conceits they game would be very bloody and the fluff is constantly talking about shortages of resources and even of troops given the prolonged war.

On Damage Resolution:
If could be from the previous edition, I know how you were applying damage is how it works in Dust Warfare. However, in Dust Battlefield, when an infantry squad is attacked, the defending player after rolling Saves (if any) gets to decide which models those hits are applied (unless the attacker is a sniper) to until the hit kills them. Fluff wise this is due to every member knowing how to do the job of everyone else. Snipers also disable the weapon, I guess.
The Damage part of a weapon only matters if the unit has more than 1 Damage Capacity. So when your Death Dealer’s Bazooka hit the Flak Boys you only are concerned with the number hits since all the Flak Boys only have 1 Damage Capacity even though the weapon does 3 damage. The 3 damage only is a concern against heroes (or vehicles/aircraft that have more than 1 Damage Capacity).

If you search the Dust Forums, this is why SSU players think the Babushka is a terrible unit (they’re not wrong) as its Gatling Guns cause 5/3 damage which no better than a Matrioshka firing at any 5 man squad. If you look through you cards, you see that realistically Soldier 1 are almost always no worse off than Soldier 2s. Sure if they happen to have 2 Damage Capacity they would be, but so far only heroes are multi-Damage Capacity soldiers in Dust.

I learned about how damage was applied largely from my gaming group. Originally, I was resistant to playing Dust Battlefield as I have already mentioned I like Dust Warfare more. I had played nearly a dozen games before I even bought a rulebook for myself. I will admit, coming from Warfare I found the way damage was applied a little bewildering as someone went to all the trouble figuring out damages against infantry, yet they matter so little of the time.

Instant Death (the little skull and crossbones damage thingy):
With the Instant Death (I don’t know what the official name for it is), the way Will used it against you Blackhawk was correct. When an attacking player gets hits with ‘Instant Death’ the defending player must make any save (if allowed) or be instantly destroyed. Unless the defending unit has Damage Resilience. If a unit has Damage Resilience skill and is hit by an attack that would instantly kill it, it rolls a number of dice equal to its current Damage Capacity. Any Faction Symbols the defending player rolls in this case is the Damage Capacity the unit has remaining. It is only if the unit has Damage Resilience that comes up.

I brought it up because the SSU KV-47 is a Vehicle 3 with Damage Resilience. As you saw, many weapons can instantly kill Vehicle 3 or lower units so this comes up quite a bit. Or at least is does for me since we have like 4 SSU players. The KV-47s can feel like they are more armored than Punishers (a Vehicle 7) if the wrong weapon is used on them. To combat KV-47, you want a weapon with a large number of attack dice that don’t necessarily cause a lot of damage (such as lasers). Because units with Damage Resilience only roll amount of damage up to their current Damage Capacity the rest of the damage is wasted.

So say a unit with 5 Damage Capacity is hit by a hypothetical weapon that does 1/6 damage six times. The first Damage Resilience roll would be 5 dice (the current Damage Capacity). Say the Damage Capacity unit makes 4 of the five damage. It now has a Damage Capacity of 4 when it rolls the second attack of 4 dice. This time its Damage Resilience prevents 2 damage leaving it with 2 Damage Capacity remaining. Third and Fourth hits are soaked completely. The fifth attack Damage Resilience rolls is made only soaking one leaving 1 remaining Damage Capacity. On the sixth and final hit the defending unit rolls 1 die since it only has one Damage Capacity left which it fails finally destroying the unit. I hope that wasn’t too confusing. I know it took me a long time to understand it an longer to explain to my gaming group what we were doing wrong.

Damage Capacity is what Dust Warfare calls the health, hit points, or wounds of a unit (the little crosses). I am not sure if that is what Dust Battlefield calls it. If it doesn’t, what I wrote would be super confusing. Anytime I write Damage Capacity what I mean is the amount of damage it would take to destroy the unit at that given moment. Starting or Max Damage Capacity would the level where a unit has no damage on it at all. I hope that clears up the terms I’m using.

Instant Death (the skull and crossbones thinger) isn’t used in Dust Warfare. I apologize on my imprecise language. Like I said, I’m not much of a writer, less so when talking technically. I hope this helps decode what I am trying to say.