I am trying to understand a conflict like warfare. Can someone give an example and explain how it affects the quality of an asset?
Basically, warfare works exactly the same way as any other form of conflict.
All of them follow the same rules, just reskined with different assets and zones.
So a duel uses personal weapons as assets and guard areas as zones.
Warfare uses tanks, weapon emplacements and ornithopers as assets, and strategic areas of territory for zones.
Other than that the system to use them works in the same way - define what zone is the critical one and whoever can take control of it with an asset wins the conflict.
Iām a little confused on your question though. The different conflict has no effect of the quality of an asset. Assets have a quality which you can sometimes adjust with abilities and momentum. But that is the same in each conflict type and warfare doesnāt offer any special difference.
As an example in the campaign I ran we had a warfare combat in the capital city of House Sindri.
The players were mainly in their palace controlling assets like House Guard units (Quality 1 troops) and Constabulary (Quality 0 troops) [We did have a character on the board as well]
The enemy had Infiltrators (Quality 1 troops) and Mafia (Quality 0)
The win conditions were to take and move a hidden asset back to either Sindri Palace or the South Gate, for Players/Enemy respectively.
The players moved their assets across the map and used them to attack the enemy assets (Pg 168, Targeting Assets) as a normal Drive + Battle roll.
Other traits were created during play such as jammed comms to increase enemy difficulties etcā¦
So an example was Player A Boldly moved a House Guard asset into the Marketplace with their action, using the success to move an enemy Mafia asset in there as well.
They then spent 2 momentum to keep the initiative and Player B used the House Guard asset to attack the Mafia asset, destroying it.
Initiative then passed the Enemy to take their action.
The main difference I see with Warfare compared to Duel or Skirmish is that I feel there is more emphasis on destroying the assets, rather than directly damaging the enemy.
Mechanically they are all the same, but it feels differently in my head.
2 Likes
First, thank you very much for the answers.
I will try to explain my doubts one by oneā¦
There is a player commander and an enemy commander. The player commander has troops as quality 1 assets and the enemy troops as quality 3 assets.
The player moves one of his assets normally, subtly or boldly (what ability does he use, move, discipline battle?)ā¦ Suppose he moves subtly and maintains the initiativeā¦ and he attacks an enemy assetā¦ the Use battle in an opposed roll against the other commander?.. if so, and we imagine that he wins the opposed roll, eliminates the enemy asset even if it is quality 3?.. Quality is only used to generate more or less momentum in this case?
It also seemed to me that attacking and removing an asset appear as different things. In the rules to remove an asset you have to make a roll and have 2 successes but to remove a war asset you need an extended rollā¦ is that right? Against whom?
Ah, I see what you mean.
Firstly, asset quality just gives them an advantage, but does not make them immune to lower level assets. You get a bonus to the results of an extended test with quality but a good or bad roll still applies.
When you move an asset into a zone and have another action (from keeping the initiative or just because you got there on your last move) you have (effectively) three options:
1 - Move to another zone to push forward to an objective.
2 - Try to destroy an asset in that zone
3 - If the zone is an objective, use the asset in that zone to take control and gain an advantage or (more usually) end the conflict by taking control of the zone and winning.
Tests are made between the commanders of each side as it is their tactical knowledge that is directing the battle. An asset not in communication with a commander might no longer be considered an asset under their control.
Does that help?
1 Like
yes that helps!! ā¦ and to destroy the asset, you make an opposed roll (battle) and if you win, destroy the asset regardless of quality. Itās correct?
Yup, thats the one. Check out p168 in the corebook for more on Targeting Assets.
You might give a higher quality item a bonus to the difficulty to make more use of the quality.
But usually, if you throw a knife into a volcano, it doesnāt matter how well it was made, its still going to melt 
Mmmm ok okā¦ Perfect Iā m ready for the war 
. MĆ”ster of dune is increĆbleā¦ I LOVE Itā¦ Thx again.
2 Likes
Hi all,
Just to clarify, does Asset quality not make difficulties higher to target them? For example, if Sardaukar are Quality 4 troops, it doesnāt make sense to me that a Quality 1 troop unit would defeat them easily. How best should elite troops be managed vs average or poor quality troops in this respect?
ie. unit of conscripts Q0 attacks Elite Q3 troopers, itās just an opposed battle skill roll between commanders to kill them? This doesnāt seem to represent the elite nature of the defending troopers.
I want to run a warfare/ skirmish soon that will have variable troop qualities so insight from the community would be greatly appreciated
Quality only affects the length of the extended test you make using it.
Having an asset at all makes the same difference to difficulty.
Its the same in all forms of combat as well.
So if you have a quality 0 and quality 4 asset, the difficulty is always the same.
But when you make the test and try and gain points towards an extended requirement the quality 0 asset adds 0 to that and the quality 4 assets adds 4 to that.
So if a fighter has a good quality blade it isnāt any easier to actually hit with, but it does more telling wounds and lets an expert drop another expert far more swiftly.
Does that help?
Hi Andy,
What about troop asset attacking troop asset?
That isnāt typically an extended test, so, they seem to just kill them the same as if they were equal in quality. That doesnāt feel right to me. I get the Quality 4 Sardaukar would deal massive damage to a target zone/ objective, but how do they fight other troops ābetterā?
Would you recommend Sardaukar units be treated as minor characters in this case? I donāt want my players thinking they can kill off these guys using conscripts or low quality assets easily.
How would you make them truly terrifying to face at each level of conflict?
Tucked away on page 167, thereās a sentence:
If the attack is against a notable or major non-player character, a notable supporting character, or a main player character - or if the target is a military asset in a warfare conflict - then defeating the character is an extended task, with a requirement equal to the most appropriate skill of the character.
I always interpreted that to mean that troops would do damage equal to their quality (Sardaukar do more than conscripts) and try to eliminate points equal to the target unitās leaderās battle score.
That means that poorly lead troops will buckle under fire, even if they are high quality.
An interesting corollary to this is that when divvying up troops amongst commanders, it may be tempting to have one character (with a high battle score) command all the troops, but that then can mean that side in a conflict only takes one action per turn, whereas a force with a diversified group of commanders takes many actions.
Note also that the presence in the zone of other units on the target unitās side increase the difficulty of attacking by 1 per unit (page 182). Further, if these are defensive units (e.g. fortifications) then they increase the requirement of the test by their quality (page 168). So if you put your poorly lead troops in a high quality fortress, theyāll be less likely to cut and run.
Lastly, in terms of durability, page 183 says
An asset defeated in warfare has suffered casualties and is withdrawn from battle. With some effort,they can be rallied and brought back into the fight, though with a Quality one less than normal due to casualties and reduced morale.
So your Sardaukar could potentially be rallied and returned to combat 4 times, whereas your conscripts would be gone after their first āeliminationā.
Ah, this technically doesnāt quite happen in rules terms.
The system isnāt troops directly rolling against each other.
The idea is that the leaders of the opposing forces are using troop assets to claim areas or a particular objective.
So your troops donāt roll to defeat Sardaukar troops, the two generals roll to defeat each other using different assets to do so.
So, in the extended test between the two generals to take control of a zone (for instance) the Sardaukar general gets a 4 point (Quality) bonus to their result while the other general gets none.
So a single roll might be enough for the Sardaukar to defeat their opponent, who might take several to do the same (if they get the chance).
Ah I see, so effectively your asset quality, regardless of the conflict, really only matters when āAttackingā the objective. If its a Q4 knife it gets bonus damage to the personal zone. If it is Q4 troops they get additional damage to the objective area.
Using the Rally Idea from above, would it be appropriate to simply āTapā the asset and decrease its Quality by 1 step every time it is defeated? I see this as representing the nature of elite training, even without direct leadership from a commander, and I want them to stick around longer in a fight (vs recycling them back into the fray from off the map). This is for Architect play, mostly having 1 player (Warmaster) direct larger battles and skirmishes.
I think my group and I will run a warfare tutorial as a flashback scenario at the house level, just to get to grips with the system. Now I have to describe to my players (whoās house makes the best military spec thopters and thopter pilots, as their 1&2 domains) that having quality 3-4 ships doesnāt really help them fly (ie. move) any better, only attack objectives better lol 
I wonder if allowing additional traits for higher quality assets would impact the system? Perhaps Iāll give them āNimbleā and see how that plays outā¦
Iād suggest that rallying troops would be creating an asset: difficulty 2.
1 Like
Iād agree with that. If your troop asset has been destroyed it doesnāt mean ādown to the last manā. They have just been routed, lost their equipment or lost too many to be effective.
When you rally them youād be taking all the remaining troops that are no longer a functional asset as they have been scattered and gathering them together to form a new unit and direct them.
1 Like
Does that mean that each Warfare asset has āhealthā equal to the Commanderās Battle Score?
Not really, its just a narrative way to justify destroying and recreating assets in play.
Its harder to justify āhere is a new unit that just happened to arriveā instead of āwe rallied some of the troops from broken units and made a new one to send in.ā
What I mean to ask is, if my goal is to destroy all the warfare assets (vehicles&soldiers) of my opponent, is each attempt an extended roll of a requirement equal to the Battle score of the enemy commander?
Interesting question.
Generally that would be a very extreme goal to have.
But yes, each engagement would be against the enemy commander and would require an extended test if it warranted one (as in the enemy commander is a major NPC).
Most warfare conflicts are to take a strategic area, or control an installation or just drive an enemy away. Utterly crushing all their military would be truly overwhelming. The Harkonnen came close though with the Atreides.
For a very long drawn out fight you could engage each asset and destroy it individually.
But otherwise Iād suggest a series of important installations on a larger scale, such as āthe barracksā and āthe spaceportā etc.
If you take the objective, the defeat condition is the destruction of all assets within. So if you ādefeatā the spaceport, all the ships there are destroyed. Defeat the barracks, all troop assets are destroyed.
The GM may decide you will have to have a certain amount of assets in play to accomplish this. So if you lose too many so you do not have an overwhelming force, the defeat condition is reduced to simply taking the area with some enemy assets escaping.
1 Like