Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What I have heard very often from people is that they eschew use of the published missions and scenarios and instead play AT-43 on "regular" tabletop wargaming tables using homemade terrain.

Before investigating further, I really want to try and make a fair attempt to find out how people actually play this game...I've tried to cover all the reasonable possibilities I can think of. Sorry if they got kind of ridiculous, but these all seem to be ways that people play AT-43 so I wanted to account for them all. I dislike it when polls don't give me the most appropriate option for my choice.

If you play some way OTHER than what's listed on the poll, please post up and say so. Otherwise, select the best poll option for how you play AT-43 on a regular basis, and we can discuss once a good number of results roll in.

Eh not another one of this , seems like another bashing in disguise ( first 2 paragraphs can be easily taken out as it doesnt effect how people vote *since its how they play)

Anyways , war gamers always have lots of terrains to add , who cares about tiles?

Im still so very curiouse why are you still asking these questions when you have stated you dont like the game already?

"Playing all kinds of missions on Rackham as well as custom terrain" is missing.

LunaHound wrote:
Eh not another one of this , seems like another bashing in disguise ( first 2 paragraphs can be easily taken out as it doesnt effect how people vote *since its how they play)

Anyways , war gamers always have lots of terrains to add , who cares about tiles?

Im still so very curiouse why are you still asking these questions when you have stated you dont like the game already?

I'll remove the first two paragraphs if you think they may bias the respondents.

You need the tiles to play the published scenarios, Luna. Start playing the game and then you'll see this for yourself. Get back to me once you own the Operation Damocles Campaign Book, and the Operation Frostbite set, and then tell me you can play all those missions just fine without the gaming tiles.

I don't get where criticism automatically comes to mean you don't like something. That's extremely simple-minded thinking. I still will play AT-43. I own three 6,000-point armies and I'm only thinking about shedding one of them as I don't need three if I'm not lending models out to people anymore, but would still like the ability to switch off armies like I do with every other game I play.

I think it has many problems and much room for improvement, but the potential is there. Most people online either laud its good points at the expense of ignoring the bad ones, or mindlessly bash the game without bringing any attention to its strong suits - I tell both sides of the coin to keep people better informed. That way there are no surprises waiting for new players who do their homework and research the game before buying in, and less complaints from them in the end.

In terms of the poll - I just want to honestly know how people play the game because there seems to be a lot of variety to it.

And, damnit, I missed what should have been an obvious choice - if you play AT-43 like Duncan does, just post up and say so.

Normally there is, or start a new thread.

I gave you a provisional answer indicating how I intend to play.

"I only play custom missions on "standard" tabletop wargaming tables, using homemade terrain mostly with some AT-43 terrain."

I voted in order to unlock the poll results. I intend to platy AT-43 on the same board I play 40K, I already use plenty of terrain for all SF and moderns games, usually ruined urban though in the cae of 40K I leave room for tanks. Adding a container park to my terrain collection will serve well in all my games, both 40K and AT-43, in fact I am looking forward to deploying the low walls too, such barriers really exist and thus would look good on any streetscape.

Scenarios? I'll make my own. Objective markers are nothing new to me, I prefer objective based battles anyway and have long included them in games including fantasy based.

Cairnius wrote:

You need the tiles to play the published scenarios, Luna. Start playing the game and then you'll see this for yourself. Get back to me once you own the Operation Damocles Campaign Book, and the Operation Frostbite set, and then tell me you can play all those missions just fine without the gaming tiles.

I cant speak for Luna but in my casse I bought Frostbite book as 'bits' for the rules only and didn't buy the Damocles campaign book at all. I also found the gaming tiles tacky and wont be getting any of them either. The only set scenarios I have interest in are those in thr initiation set and then only as an intro game option for new players (including me). Easy AT-43 tells me all I need to know about how scenarios are balanced, I can do the rest myself.

The poll is biased because of the "ONLY' wording in the options.

I play: using the tiles, using my own terrain, using terrain boards available at game stores, making up my own missions, using Op Damocles and Op Frostbite and the pregen scenarios,... ie ALL OF THE ABOVE.

I seriously do not understand your closed mindedness about this game Cairn. From your posts on this and the Rackham forum, it sounds like if it is not an officially Rackham stated rule, you have an issue and cannot proceed.

Its a game, its meant for people to have fun.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:"Playing all kinds of missions on Rackham as well as custom terrain" is missing.

Seconded

I can't change the poll once it's up. :(

I mostly wanted to verify something I've heard from many people since I started playing AT-43 - that far more people play on tabletop wargaming tables than play the scenarios with the gaming tiles. I, personally, think that's a validation of one of my criticisms that the scenario-based nature of AT-43 is kind of a miss, and hopefully something that Rackham Entertainment moves away from as time goes by.

It's important to establishing a community among wargamers to make sure that all the players of that system can speak the same language. Warhammer 40,000 players can bring thier models with them anywhere they go, find a local gaming store, and be able to roll up a mission that is going to work using the 5th Edition rulebook mission generator.

AT-43 doesn't have this. If I am visiting my wife's family in another state and I bring my Therians with me, I know a local gaming store where people play AT-43 - but unless we're playing one of the prescribed scenarios, I have no idea what's waiting for me. What system do they use for playing on regular tables? Can I be assured that it's balanced aside from their saying "Hey, it works for us!" which I can't really take at face value?

This past Friday I had a friend over who is insanely into AT-43, and we marked out 4' by 4' on my wargaming table, and took a bunch of other systems that people have used for pick-up play on regular tables, and tried to apply it. We had to make changes almost instantly because the only guidelines we had to work with were very rough...but this is all we had because Rackham doesn't support play outside of their scenarios with the gaming tiles and the prescribed terrain setups.

So far, this poll while far from scientific does seem to suggest that people play AT-43 on regular tables with regular terrain in significant numbers, which is what I wanted to know.

Did you make thread like this on main AT-43 forum?

because i really think doing so will serve your purpose than on a warhammer forum.

Your poll will only provide data that leads to nothing since only some of the viable options are there. Start the poll anew if you want to have some usefull data.

I mostly wanted to verify something I've heard from many people since I started playing AT-43 - that far more people play on tabletop wargaming tables than play the scenarios with the gaming tiles. I, personally, think that's a validation of one of my criticisms that the scenario-based nature of AT-43 is kind of a miss, and hopefully something that Rackham Entertainment moves away from as time goes by.

Well, it's not that difficult to transfer the missions from tiles to table. And the tiles were never meant as the only way to play the game. They are mainly intended for beginners with few experience regarding scenery and missions. And with campaings they make it easier to have similiar tables. Well, after some time (if you make some use of the thing between the ears) you get the knack of how to prepare a good tabletop setup.

And to be honest: Most of the times you have formed an opinion on something, then you use faulty tools and end up where you wanted to end up from the beginning. Every college teacher would give you an F if you handed in such work.

Luna and Duncan, lay off the Hater-ade for about two seconds and help this guy out. I'm actually very curious about the same thing he is.

Cairnius wrote:This past Friday I had a friend over who is insanely into AT-43, and we marked out 4' by 4' on my wargaming table, and took a bunch of other systems that people have used for pick-up play on regular tables, and tried to apply it. We had to make changes almost instantly because the only guidelines we had to work with were very rough...but this is all we had because Rackham doesn't support play outside of their scenarios with the gaming tiles and the prescribed terrain setups.

So far, this poll while far from scientific does seem to suggest that people play AT-43 on regular tables with regular terrain in significant numbers, which is what I wanted to know.

Basically, do the rules support playing without the tiles/missions without a whole lot of "house rules"? Is this an obstacle to starting up the game?

Cairnius wrote: This past Friday I had a friend over who is insanely into AT-43, and we marked out 4' by 4' on my wargaming table, and took a bunch of other systems that people have used for pick-up play on regular tables, and tried to apply it. We had to make changes almost instantly because the only guidelines we had to work with were very rough...

What kind of problem(s) did you run into? What kind of terrain were you working with?

Cairnius wrote:but this is all we had because Rackham doesn't support play outside of their scenarios with the gaming tiles and the prescribed terrain setups.

This sounds like a cop out statement to me. Your poll and your posts makes it sound like the RACKHAM puts a gun to your head and says "You can only use containers, low walls, and our tiles to play." Yet on the forum you see battle reports with home made terrain covered tables.

The tiles and game poster serve the purpose of ease of play. You DO NOT need them to play AT-43. The scenarios are also a guideline, you DO NOT need them to play AT-43 either. Yet, you seem to be focused on them as the only way to play. This is NOT the case.

What are you looking for in the rules that is not covered?

Terrain, like in most miniature games, effects movement, effects Line of Sight, and provides cover. Just like in 40K. If you can play 40k and not have these issues, why is AT-43 "so difficult and unsupported" when they basically use the same rules?

Cairnius wrote:So far, this poll while far from scientific does seem to suggest that people play AT-43 on regular tables with regular terrain in significant numbers, which is what I wanted to know.

Cairn, this poll is a bad approach to fixing misunderstandings you have with the rules. Why not just state your problem that you have had with game tables or terrain so that we can find a solution for you?

How about "Hey, I ran into this problem, how would you handle it in AT-43?" or "I want to do Y but cannot figure out how to do it? How would you handle it?"

For instance: "How would you handle rivers in AT-43?"

In which case, I would respond:

Your movement is halved as your miniature has to jump across, if you cannot cross it in your movement the figure is killed (per Frostbite campaign rules). Striders crossing are considered lost, but are recovered later if this is a campaign (also in the FROSTBITE rules).

But what I am thinking I want to see is...
Assign a size/depth to the river. If whatever enters the river is twice the size of the depth, it would provide cover and halve the movement to anyone in the water.
Otherwise, see above rule.

Trees?

A stand of trees provide cover (5 or 6, or 3-6 with take cover saves) and halve movement when travelling between them. Striders cannot enter because they are terrain. Per terrain and cover rules.

Now, you can question how thick the tree stand is and whether or not it blocks LOS.

whitedragon wrote:Luna and Duncan, lay off the Hater-ade for about two seconds and help this guy out. I'm actually very curious about the same thing he is.

Basically, do the rules support playing without the tiles/missions without a whole lot of "house rules"? Is this an obstacle to starting up the game?

Yes they do. No there is no need for house ruling as far as I know.

@ whitedragon -

This is how it works.

In the main rulebook, you have 6 "standard missions" a la what you get in the 5th Edition 40K book, in the sense of being able to roll a die and pick the mission that corresponds to the number rolled.

In the first and second standard missions, which are akin to a kill point mission and a take and hold mission respectively, you're given the basics and allowed to set up the table yourself. You're not given any advice as to how large the play area should be, but one could look at the other four missions, see that they're designed around 2000 AP armies, and get an idea from there.

For missions 3-6 you are shown a diagram of the board and told precisely where the terrain is meant to be placed. Now, you can go one of two ways on this - you can assume that Rackham tested the tables to try and produce balanced gameplay and that's why they've prescribed the terrain setups to you, or you can assume that it's only meant as a guide and that the mission will be balanced if you randomly place the terrain.

One then has to ask why Mission 1 and 2 don't have table examples but 3-6 do. Anyway, that's the rulebook.

In the Operation Damocles Campaign book, all the missions use either two of the Operation Damocles Initiation Set gaming posters, or one of the posters, or sets of the Accessory Set 3 Reversible Gaming tiles for the play areas. So, again, one has to either assume that Rackham set these play spaces up to provide balanced gameplay, or one can hope that the missions don't break if you randomly place terrain.

Operation Frostbite campaign missions are the same as the Operation Damocles campaign missions in the sense of having specific tables laid out for you. Some of them only use the Operation Frostbite tiles that come with the campaign box. Other missions use some of those and some of the Accessory Set 3 tiles. Now we're back to the same question - either the table setups are important or not.


Now, if you want to try and move any of these missions onto homemade terrain, then if we consider the table setups to be meaningful you have to recreate the tiles. This will involve building walls that match the shapes of the walls on the tiles, or building ice floes to match the ice floes on the Operation Frostbite gaming tiles, etc. That's the only way to transfer from tiles to homemade table without running the risk of breaking the missions if, again, we assume that the table setups are important.

Some people have actually built game boards which seek to replicate the Operation Damocles gaming posters, for example.


When it comes to pick-up play, which is to say not playing any of the standard missions in the rulebook or any of the Campaign Missions, or any of the missions on the AT-43 website which also use gaming posters or tiles, you are entirely on your own. You have to figure it out for yourself. There are no guidelines for how large a table should be based on the AP of the armies involved. There are no guidelines for how much terrain should be used. There are no "standard missions" to roll for on a table. You have to make up your own.

When I was a Sentinel, I started up a conversation about this and the people who had them tossed out the systems they used for governing pick-up play, basically homemade versions of the mission systems Warhammer 40,000 and Flames of War use to lesser degrees of specificity. They were more different than each other than alike for the most part. One of them was very specific with things like recommended board sizes and number of tactical positions and such, but lacked an adequate selection of missions.

Someone else pointed to a Warseer post wherein someone had come up with "Mission cards" one could print out and then deal out one card for the Objective, another for Deployment, and another for Special Rules and that actually looked fairly promising, but again lacked some of the specifics a standard mission system probably ought to have.

A third system was less concerned with table setup, but had a table of six missions that each player would roll against and get their individual objective from.

Combined and altered, the three systems have a lot of promise to create a universal system that any AT-43 player could use to set up
pick-up games that will be consistently balanced. A friend and I started tinkering with a combination of all these various options and within a few hours realized that this was an entirely possible goal, and we had a lot of fun working on it.

The fact that so many people eschew the actual, published missions in lieu of pick-up play suggests to me that the community could use a real pick-up play system the likes of which Warhammer 40,000 or Flames of War or Battlefleet Gothic all employ. Something like this would be nothing but good for the AT-43 community. If someone in New York can bring his AT-43 models out to California on a trip and find a game with someone, and they're both using the same mission generator, they're going to have a better game than if they're both used to using disparate pick-up rules.

This is just common sense, to me. If the successful games do it, then AT-43 needs to follow suit. They can continue creating scenarios and missions that use their gaming tiles and gaming posters at the same time - these aren't mutually-exclusive styles of play by any means. It's just that Rackham supports one and ignores the other.

So basically you are saying Operation Damocle and Frost bite is restricted similarly to 40k's Space Hulk 's tiles and corridors.

Cant you just play it on a normal table and normal terrain?

LunaHound wrote:So basically you are saying Operation Damocle and Frost bite is restricted similarly to 40k's Space Hulk 's tiles and corridors.

Cant you just play it on a normal table and normal terrain?

NO it is not restircted as 40K Space Hulk... the maps and tiles are a guide

the campaigns recommmend a terrain, there is a picture with the tiles you need for especific terrain as in campaigns there are specific rules for Ice or snow or whatsoever, however if you have appropiate 3D terrain to use the campaigns and REMEMBER how they were time after time then yes you can use differemt things, in campaigns you may play more than once in each mission so it is actually the idea to have the maps.

The poll is misleading as not all options are there, Cairnius is jus misguiding people, you can USE any terrain you have but you need to agree with your opponent how its gonna work



Automatically Appended Next Post:

whitedragon wrote:Luna and Duncan, lay off the Hater-ade for about two seconds and help this guy out. I'm actually very curious about the same thing he is.

Cairnius wrote:This past Friday I had a friend over who is insanely into AT-43, and we marked out 4' by 4' on my wargaming table, and took a bunch of other systems that people have used for pick-up play on regular tables, and tried to apply it. We had to make changes almost instantly because the only guidelines we had to work with were very rough...but this is all we had because Rackham doesn't support play outside of their scenarios with the gaming tiles and the prescribed terrain setups.

So far, this poll while far from scientific does seem to suggest that people play AT-43 on regular tables with regular terrain in significant numbers, which is what I wanted to know.

Basically, do the rules support playing without the tiles/missions without a whole lot of "house rules"? Is this an obstacle to starting up the game?

The rules tell you how to set up a game, there is no ABSOLUTE NEED for terrain, you and your friends agree the size for the terrain and if they can be destroy or not, you add add add terrain, then decide which are VP objectives and which are RP objectives and you can start

In the rulebook, there es even informationn about the type of setting you can use to set up your table... Cairnius is wrong.

@whitedragon

The problem is: His complaint about scenery and tiles has already been tackled in a thread on the english Rackham forum. Most of the Sentinels gave him answers but as it looks he is looking for something that has explained to him for the umptenth time.

I really do not have a problem answering people rules questions, but if someone one purpose ignores 60+ posts that cover that issue completely I start scratching my head.

It´s fairly easy to play without tiles or converting a tiles layout to a scenery game and it is written at the beginning of the rules section of the core rules how this is done.

Wolfen wrote:
NO it is not restircted as 40K Space Hulk... the maps and tiles are a guide

Yes , i was humoring Cairniuss posts implying its like that.

He have been purposely posting extremely misleading info that will no doubt scare away new players from AT-43
and i dont thinkits is just simple trolling , he is on one man mission to take down AT-43 on multiple forums at same time.
I would be scared away already too by his posts , but since i LOVE the miniatures no matter to me
also Duncan and Wolfen have been very very patient and helpful explaining things the right way.

@ whitedragon -

Unfortunately my observations about a lack of official pick-up play rules have never been tackled decisively. It's fine and dandy for people to have multitudinous systems they use for pick-up play which are unsupported by Rackham, and which are different enough from each other that the results they generate are also going to be varied from each other for better or worse, but that's not what I'm concerned with here.

Anybody can make up their own rules to a game - my feeling is that when it comes to tabletop wargames that the rules are everything, and it's incumbent upon the game designers, not the gaming community, to be responsible for providing any and all rules the players will need.

That Rackham somehow missed the idea that people would eschew their published missions to play on regular tables instead, and didn't have the foresight to create true pick-up rules, this suggests to me that they do intend AT-43 to be played on their gaming tiles and posters, else why didn't they create true pick-up rules?

If Duncan can provide the page numbers for how one handles pick-up play which provide any more details other than you either alternate placing terrain one by one, or one person sets up half the terrain in their deployment zone (which is never described, i.e. how one determines what their deployment zone shall be) and then the other person sets up theirs, I would like to see where this information is presented.

Otherwise...it's simply not in there.


People who say "The maps and tiles are a guide" aren't speaking for Rackham. Rackham has never said any such thing. I'll go with what the company has to say, or what they don't say, rather than go with fan interpretations as to the intentions of the company.

If you want to play the campaign missions, you have to use the tiles unless you want to argue that the maps they provide you are utterly meaningless and weren't tested in-house by Rackham to provide for balanced play areas. The fact that no one has spoken to this point, or taken the side that yes, the maps are meaningless, is basically agreement with me on this point.

Therefore, if you don't use the tiles, you're not really "playing the scenarios" or "playing the campaign." You're playing an adaptive version of either which ceases to be the actual missions or campaign and is now a "house rules" affair - but it's no longer the campaigns as they were intended to be played...else, again, why did Rackham bother designing all those play spaces if they're meaningless?

No one here is qualified to speak to that point, which is probably why they're remaining silent in the face of the question, which is fair.
Rackham has to speak to that point; but this may be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario due to no one's fault but Rackham's considering this is a company which is known for saying "Meh, the rules are what you want them to be as long as you have fun," and which issues rulings on rules questions like a drunken sailor at four in the morning trying to discuss philosophy.

I'm not sure to what degree I would even trust their answers anymore when they actually say "The rules are what you want them to be," which sounds like the ramblings of a schizophrenic in an insane asylum. That's the problem with not showing a sense of integrity when it comes to your rules. It provides mistrust, and deservedly so.

To say that there's no absolute need for terrain is ridiculous. Armies like Red Blok get royally screwed on terrain-light boards, and armies like U.N.A. get an absolute boost. Terrain may be more important in AT-43 than in any other game I've ever played considering the lack of an intermediate step between hitting and killing a model, i.e. the lack of armor saves. Your cover and your Protection are pretty much all you have, and when you're baseline infantry that means cover is life or death.

As terrain is so particularly important in AT-43, that makes balanced table setup in any pickup system the absolute necessity upon which the value of any pick-up system rests upon.

What's amazing to me is that this is even a discussion, that there isn't instant agreement on that point. If you're a tabletop wargaming vet of even a few years, you should understand that the terrain can make or break matches. Therefore, the importance of balanced and tested pick-up play rules for ANY game cannot be overstated.

The best AT-43 does for you in this regard is limited to "Let the youngest player place the first piece of terrain and then go clockwise around the table until all terrain is placed," and tells you either to use this method or to let a Defender place half their terrain in their deployment zone, and then the other player places the rest.

That's all they give you. If you want to say I'm wrong - page numbers, please. Let's get the actual rules text above and beyond what I've already said into this conversation. Show me terrain placement guidelines, pushbacks, rules for where permanent and neutral access zones and drop points go. Guidelines for how many RP-generating terrain elements should be on the table. Guidelines for how large the table space should be. Show me all the basic questions answered in the rulebook. If I somehow missed all this, show me where it is and prove your point!

Otherwise, like I said - we're on our own for this, and that's what I have a problem with. The amount of effort one has to put into coming up with proper pick-up rules is ridiculous. That's Rackham's job, not ours - but in the face of their silence we the players are left with no choice but to design these rules ourselves.

LunaHound wrote:

Wolfen wrote:
NO it is not restircted as 40K Space Hulk... the maps and tiles are a guide

Yes , i was humoring Cairniuss posts implying its like that.

He have been purposely posting extremely misleading info that will no doubt scare away new players from AT-43
and i dont thinkits is just simple trolling , he is on one man mission to take down AT-43 on multiple forums at same time.
I would be scared away already too by his posts , but since i LOVE the miniatures no matter to me
also Duncan and Wolfen have been very very patient and helpful explaining things the right way.

thanks for the compliments..... IMHO i think Cairnius has a Personal Vendetta againts RE... he rants without reason and on subjects he sometimes donot get totally right, as in this Poll...

I like this game, I know it has issues but its not impossible.... Luna Hound Ihave not seen you or any of the guys here in the official forum... there is a guy that have just posted a Karmans re-ainted that won a competition in sweden...

chek it out: http://en-forum.at-43.com/viewtopic.php?t=6579

Im Der_Wolfen in the other forum... hopefully you all want to register

@Wolfen , i havnt made account on the forum yet.

Most of the time i browse through the workshop section (im interested in hobby first , gamming last )

As well as digging through the personal collection thread for pics on the minis at different angle (i think it'll be nice if Rhakam can post pics of all their minis with all the angles shown) ( of course with studio paint job and also mass production paint job shot )

i recognize 3 dakka members on the site . You, Duncan , and St Anuman

STOP IT, CAIRNIUS!!!

I have gone out of my way to help you, even against the better counsel of others. And so have others. I am a very nice person, and it takes months and many things to make me angry but you are really starting to make me angry in record time.

There have been more than 200+ posts by people who really do know the game by heart (distributed over all the forums where you posted the same questions over and over).

The problem is: You don't want an answer. As soon as you get a good answer you are looking for the next possible way to skrew the person that tried to help you.

You are one of those persons that wants to find problems and even a perfect game would be problematic for you.

Actually, Cairnius is largely correct when he says that the game lacks concrete rules for terrain placement.

However the omission of the option “I play all kinds of missions on all kinds of terrain” or Idaho's "Playing all kinds of missions on Rackham as well as custom terrain" essentially sets up a straw man and, once again, is frankly a quite underhanded insult to people’s intelligence. You cannot miss that option by mistake.

“That Rackham somehow missed the idea that people would eschew their published missions to play on regular tables instead, and didn't have the foresight to create true pick-up rules, this suggests to me that they do intend AT-43 to be played on their gaming tiles and posters, else why didn't they create true pick-up rules?”

This is specious logic, and is a personal opinion that cannot be backed up by fact.
You have no knowledge of the designers’ intent and unless you can provide a reference, this assertion is purely a biased opinion.

I understand the premise that if one does not use the scenarios exactly as presented, one is deviating from the rules as written, because more complicated rules simply do not exist. That said, the implication that this lack of specificity is a major problem to gameplay is essentially being wilfully obtuse. The rules for cover and the Combat Drill “Take Cover”, as well as the rules from Frostbite, provide enough information for dealing with terrain.

I will grant that it is a problem if it ever came to a competitive environment, because the rules as written cannot cope well with people actively going out of their way to find abusive loopholes, but so far as I am aware the designers never stated that it was ever supposed to be part of that ultra-competitive tournament scene. Feel free to correct me on this if I am wrong here.

I honestly think that there is a point which is hard to contest, one which has been made by many people over the past couple of years: The rules need to be tightened up and expanded. As the rules stand, they are absolutely playable, but this is based on people using their common sense to fill in the gaps which undeniably exist and not being pedantically anal about every minute thing. A new edition of the rulebook would be nice, but at the moment is not essential. Unless competitions and prize-support become huge, all of this is really a non-issue.

For what it’s worth, I’m not a Sentinel, nor do I ever intend to be one. I have long since outgrown “defining myself by consumption” (“you have an X-Box, I have a PS3, therefore you’re a cretin” kind of nonsense). I don’t even have a presence on the AT-43 boards. But I will state again that I have an issue with somebody setting up a transparently weak premise in order to tear it down.

I like AT-43 as I like many other games, but in spite of this overly-long post I do not take it too seriously, and I’m bemused why anyone would persist with a game if they clearly did not enjoy it.

Strahd wrote:Actually, Cairnius is largely correct when he says that the game lacks concrete rules for terrain placement.

THANK you.

Strahd wrote:However the omission of the option “I play all kinds of missions on all kinds of terrain” or Idaho's "Playing all kinds of missions on Rackham as well as custom terrain" essentially sets up a straw man and, once again, is frankly a quite underhanded insult to people’s intelligence. You cannot miss that option by mistake.

I remember creating the questions, and thinking that "all of the above" didn't make sense because some of the choices were mutually-exclusive. You can't "only play scenarios from the rulebook" AND "play everything" because one excludes the other. This wasn't a scientific exercise and I didn't have all day to figure out all the options. Considering how many I had to account for, I think I did pretty well...

Strahd wrote:“That Rackham somehow missed the idea that people would eschew their published missions to play on regular tables instead, and didn't have the foresight to create true pick-up rules, this suggests to me that they do intend AT-43 to be played on their gaming tiles and posters, else why didn't they create true pick-up rules?”

This is specious logic, and is a personal opinion that cannot be backed up by fact. You have no knowledge of the designers’ intent and unless you can provide a reference, this assertion is purely a biased opinion.

That's far from specious logic. It's hypothesis based on observation of the available evidence. Talk about a straw man argument - I didn't state definitively that I knew what Rackham was about, and didn't I, myself, make the point that no one can? *raises eyebrow*

Answer the question - why didn't they create pick-up rules if they thought about and anticipated people not using their scenarios? Isn't this a rather obvious proposition for a tabletop wargame, if that's what AT-43 wants to bill itself as, and therefore a rather puzzling omission?

Strahd wrote:I understand the premise that if one does not use the scenarios exactly as presented, one is deviating from the rules as written, because more complicated rules simply do not exist. That said, the implication that this lack of specificity is a major problem to gameplay is essentially being wilfully obtuse. The rules for cover and the Combat Drill “Take Cover”, as well as the rules from Frostbite, provide enough information for dealing with terrain.

Again, straw man on two counts.

First, who said anything about needing "complicated" rules? Given everyone's definitions of what constitutes "complicated" is going to vary widely, but I can't imagine the sort of pick-up rules I'd like to see for AT-43 being what I would consider "complicated" in the least, certainly no more complicated than Warhammer 40,000's pick-up ruleset or Flames of War's, neither of which I find challenging to follow.

Second, who said it was a "major problem to gameplay?" Rules systems for pick-up play exist. Not all of them are publicly disseminated, and there's no organized effort to come up with a standard set of pick-up rules and to test them, but you can accomplish this goal...you simply are going to come up with a wide disparity of gameplay quality.

A local FLGS ran an AT-43 tournament last May using missions that were designed I believe around the AT-43 mission cards I referenced. Haywire told me that the missions were based on one of the established pick-up rules systems, anyway.

I asked someone who was in the tournament how the missions worked. He said about half of them were unbalanced. That, to me, says "inadequate system." Hey, they tried, and kudos to them for doing so. And they had fun, which in the end is all that matters - but the fact that they had a 50% failure rate in creating pick-up play missions is very telling.

If there's any willful obtuseness going on here, it's people deliberately not attempting to see my point. I don't count you among them, Strahd. By and large you seem to get what I'm talking about. When you create your own pick-up rules you're creating all sorts of variables that need to be properly determined in order to be able to just follow the system without having to worry about whether it works or not. Terrain density. Pushbacks for placements from table edges. Pushbacks for neutral access zones from permanent access zones Pushbacks from Drop Points from Objectives. And plenty more.

It's going to take my friend and I, and eventually two other people to test 4-player games, many months to design and test a system to make sure it works and is polished before we can share it with anyone, as we didn't do our job unless we can let it go with a more than reasonable confidence that no one is going to be able to break it.

You don't think that the responsibility for this should lie with the original game designers? This is the thrust of my argument.

Strahd wrote:I will grant that it is a problem if it ever came to a competitive environment, because the rules as written cannot cope well with people actively going out of their way to find abusive loopholes, but so far as I am aware the designers never stated that it was ever supposed to be part of that ultra-competitive tournament scene. Feel free to correct me on this if I am wrong here.

To the best of my knowledge this is correct, but I wasn't even thinking about tournaments to be quite honest with you. My only concern is the ability to eschew the published scenarios and the gaming tiles and posters and have the same confidence that I can roll up a random mission that will work the same way I can with other games I play. I think a lot more people would give AT-43 a try if you could present them with more familiar territory to play in.

Strahd wrote:I honestly think that there is a point which is hard to contest, one which has been made by many people over the past couple of years: The rules need to be tightened up and expanded. As the rules stand, they are absolutely playable, but this is based on people using their common sense to fill in the gaps which undeniably exist and not being pedantically anal about every minute thing. A new edition of the rulebook would be nice, but at the moment is not essential. Unless competitions and prize-support become huge, all of this is really a non-issue.

This depends on how you look at it. If the rules really are everything to a tabletop wargame, note that we're talking strictly about the game aspect of any of these games intentionally excluding considerations of molds and painting and fluff, then it's important that they work straight out of the rulebook. Otherwise, people will get scared away from the game. 40K already has enough wonky rules. We don't need another 28mm sci-fi minis game which doesn't get it right.

What kills me is that tightening up the rules seems so SIMPLE to me! The AT-43 forums are loaded with rules clarifications and corrections. Rackham already gives away the rules section of the main rulebook for free, so there's no argument that they'd lose any money by publishing a version 1.5 as a PDF on their website just to condense everything together in one easy-to-reference source, and do a little editing to make sure that you can resolve all questions about a certain phase of the game only by referencing the rules for that phase rather than flipping around to get definitions of game terminology and such.

And think about the positive press! "Hey, Rackham actually listened to us!" Include a new section on pick-up play and all these rules problems melt away, and you have a much better product which begins to develop a much better reputation.

It's a worthy investment of time and money...yet the company line continues to be that no new rulebook will be produced until all 8 armies are out, and I can't see that finish line even immediately on the horizon yet. So, why wait? No one's talking about writing new rules here - it's just a matter of editing, really.

Strahd wrote:I like AT-43 as I like many other games, but in spite of this overly-long post I do not take it too seriously, and I’m bemused why anyone would persist with a game if they clearly did not enjoy it.

I keep playing it because I love the toys, and I see the potential. Potential means a lot to me. AT-43 is a gem in the rough that with some polishing could become a serious contender in the tabletop wargaming world. Some better P.R., some proper marketing, and the sort of rules support we're discussing could make all the difference in AT-43's popularity.

The reason why I'm being so vocal all over the place is to try and get people talking about this stuff. Since I posted my review the chatter on AT-43 around here picked up markedly, one can notice. There was also an overwhelming dearth of non-fan-produced information on the game, so I've corrected that just a little bit. The fan stuff is important, but you also need people to just admit to what so many people are saying and give people interested in the game as fair an appraisal as possible when they take the totality of everything written about the game as a whole, which any reasonably intelligent person can do. Sure I can be hyper-critical, just like fans can be willfully ignorant of the problems from the game - but give neutral observers both perspectives and you've given them a valuable guide to whatever the "truth" might actually be.

If people know going in that the rules are wonky and pick-up play is not supported, and they choose to try the game anyway, they never have to discover these problems on their own because they are ready for them, and acknowledged the problems going in. It's a GOOD thing to admit to the faults of the game to keep peoples' expectations realistic. If you just read the fan-produced content you'll come away with the perception that AT-43 is a major player in the wargaming world which may become a serious threat to Warhammer 40,000.

This is just so not the case.

Criticism is good, however your comments on AT43 voiced in this thread seem to based on some preconception of how a game should be designed, together with some unsubstantiated hearsay evidence. (Someone at a tournament somewhere told me something...)

You end up convinced that AT43 has wonky rules, and try to persuade other players not to have a go at it.

I think you should produce specific examples that show the rules are wonky. I also don't see a problem in the publisher issuing corrections on their website. That's something a lot of 40K players would like GW to fo more often.

Mod:
BTW I have received complaints about this thread, so I shall be glad if people will remember rule no.1 when making comments.

I will have to make this brief as time is short at the moment.

“That's far from specious logic. It's hypothesis based on observation of the available evidence. Talk about a straw man argument - I didn't state definitively that I knew what Rackham was about, and didn't I, myself, make the point that no one can? *raises eyebrow*”

Yes, but that argument invalidates itself. You seem to be attributing motive but it is only based on your own observation and therefore holds weight as such. Everyone is entitled to their own perspective, but my own opinion is that the one you are putting forth is particularly tenuous. The tacit assumption which seems to be ongoing throughout these posts is that AT-43 should be something that you have a very clear conception of in your mind, and in that respect it will probably always seem deficient. AT-43 is not 40K nor Flames of War.

They have produced one doubled-sided map so far and the tiles, but nowhere is it stated that you do or do not have to use them. GW likewise makes scenery, but I know of nowhere that says you must only use this set-up for everything you do. I just fail to see the obsession with having everything proscribed down to its minutiae. Which brings me to the point regarding “complicated rules”.

AT-43 is quite rules light, but from my perspective I do not encounter that as a problem. Perhaps I should have used the term “less straight forward”.

I also think that you seem to be focussing more on “what it’s not”, rather than on “what it is”, and in that sense your arguments are having a disservice done to them. In many ways we are both arguing in the same direction, because we both can see areas in need of improvement, but the game is absolutely playable, and very enjoyable, as is. It just requires a bit of flexibility.

I'm going to have to cut this short now. Hopefully I'll get a chance to come back to this sooner rather than later.

I am actually organizing tournaments in the 30.000+ AP range with folks showing up with 3000 AP armies. And I have to say that with some logical thinking (but based mainly on the rules in the book) you can easily put up some good tables.

I had more problems organizing tournaments with 4th 40K regarding terrain ( we saw no point in having nearly empty tables for tournament, that´s who shoots first and whose dice are rolling better wins).

The nice thing about the AT rules is: They are modules that can be easily replaced, but also provide a solid foundation for your own scenery rules.

@ Kil

I don't think that working off of other systems that work, i.e. 40K or Flames of War, has anything to do with preconceptions. I'm talking about what works, not my own predelictions. Direct reporting of a tournament from one of the people who belonged to the club who helped organize and run it isn't heresay. It's direct from a primary source.

I have never told people not to play AT-43. That's just a gross misstatement, no offense. If someone chooses not to play AT-43 based on my information then I just saved them money. If they choose to play after reading my information, they won't be surprised by much and will come away with a much more positive experience than if no one had given them another perspective on things.

Examples of wonky rules - auto-knockdown for indirect fire weapons. If more than half the unit falls down, next time they get activated all they can do is get up. Very wonky as in other games you get a chance to break the pin and then move normally. You don't get this in AT-43.

Babel units can essentially become moving snipers, something the testers complained about but which Rackham went ahead and did anyway even though it unbalanced the sniper ability which is very powerful.

Cards in the activation order are not tied to individual units - any unit that matches the revealed card may be activated when the card gets flipped, which partially makes the whole concept of the activation order and LP expenditures to switch the order around moot if you run multiple, identical units.

You are now allowed to target friendly troops with direct fire weapons, something I've never heard of in any tabletop wargame and which seems designed specifically to abuse the Stealth rules. You just target a friendly unit on the other side of the Stealthed unit and catch them in the zone of fire, effectively nullifying the Stealth ability without taking the normal, requisite gear to target that Stealthed unit at range.

Four quick examples.


@ Strahd

We must have different ideas as to what constitutes logic, then. Observation doesn't have bias if you're just reporting facts. Fact: Rackham does not provide anything other than the most simplistic of rules for pick-up play, yet has produced many, many scenarios with prescribed terrain and tile placements. It isn't much of a leap to hypothesize that, therefore, Rackham intends the game to be played on their gaming tiles. I'm not saying that's fact - I am saying that it is plausible hypothesis and an arguable point.
It also makes sense if their intention is to sell the gaming tiles and Operation Frostbite campaign sets.

The only conception in my mind as to how any product should function, whether it be a video game or a tabletop wargame or any other kind of game, is that it should pay attention to the successful conventions and seek to emulate them, not ignore them. You may disagree with that idea. I tend to want to follow what already works, to improve upon it, not ignore it, when I design something.

You're also cherry-picking from the points of my argument which you seek to address, and again setting up a straw man. Nowhere have I said that you HAVE to use the tiles...unless you want to run the Campaign Missions. You may play AT-43 without ever playing a mission from the rulebook or any campaign scenario ever placed, which is kind of my point, isn't it? We need some official rules support for this style of play because that's how many people are choosing to play the game.

I appreciate the idea of being rules light. It can make a tabletop wargame very accessible. I think AT-43 has gone a little too far in that direction, but again I don't think it is too difficult to correct that. I don't think there is *too* much of a correction to be made, but I also don't think it's something that should wait until three or four years from now.

Yes, I do tend to be a "glass half empty" critic, mostly because if you criticize from that perspective and have little to say, that's a surefire sign of quality IMHO. You can make anything sound good if you come at it from a "glass half full" perspective.


@ Duncan -

I readily concur that the AT-43 rules have much potential. I'd like to see them officially developed sooner rather than later, is all. I think that Rackham really needs to pounce on the opportunity they are creating for themselves in late June with the release of these army boxes by shoring up the rules. It's not going to help if new players purchase the army boxes and then walk away from their initial experiences from the game saying "WTF?"

Ok, this may get ugly. I dont hate anyone here mentioned in this thread, but I am not going to sit by and watch a pile on.

LunaHound wrote:

Wolfen wrote:
NO it is not restircted as 40K Space Hulk... the maps and tiles are a guide

Yes , i was humoring Cairniuss posts implying its like that.

He have been purposely posting extremely misleading info that will no doubt scare away new players from AT-43
and i dont thinkits is just simple trolling , he is on one man mission to take down AT-43 on multiple forums at same time.

I think this is going a little too far LunaHound. You mistrust Cairnius, so be it; however many of the threads, let alone posts set up recently on AT-43 are blatant adverts for the game. A little perspective helps. Cairnius has to some extent a jaded view of AT-43, and possibly Rackham in general. As I mentioned before such gamers are commonplace here.

What I read his posts on At-43 and Rackham, I do not see a hater, I see a frustrated gamer who understands that this game can be more than it is with just a little attention from Rackham. Would I join the Rackham forum and say such? No way. The whole setup screams fanboi, no off-topic areas, no swap forums, no real community and worst of all little critique is permitted. I see this trend now edging into the Dakka AT-43 community. When you have closed forum like that it creates closed minds, its nice, its packaged, its friendly but it cannot really see far outside it's box. We know this is true because the same social controls can exist in a society, and have the same consequences.

Wolfen wrote:
..... IMHO i think Cairnius has a Personal Vendetta againts RE... he rants without reason and on subjects he sometimes donot get totally right, as in this Poll...

He has his reasons, and I heed them and am going into AT-43 with both eyes open.

Noone gets it totally right, if you have such a high accuracy pass mark for Cairnius's comments you are in fact complimenting him. After all would you be as picky with anyone else? Obviously you expect a higher (double?) standard. This is natural because its human nature to be so, the ugly side of human nature, but human nature nonetheless. I suggest more people look at what he is saying with more open minds, just because he criticises what you like doesn't mean you have to take his comments so personally. Deal with the issues please, not the man.

LunaHound wrote:
...also Duncan and Wolfen have been very very patient and helpful explaining things the right way.

Duncan Idaho and others have been very helpful to me too, and I thank them for that, but I have also drawn from Cairnius's insight and once I got the message of his warning and yet not been dissuaded in purchasing At-43 I found his insight particularly helpful. He has explained rules and actually helped me get towards where I want to be with this game.



How many times do I need to repeat myself: This is Dakka! We talk smack about perceived badly written rules, we talk smack about perceived bad business policies, we talk smack about know-it-all gamers designers who wont listen to their customers, we talk smack about preceived bad pricing decisions. Yes we also make comment when it looks like things get done that are right. But this is because we think for ourselves not becasue we will cheer when the Applause cue card comes out.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:STOP IT, CAIRNIUS!!!

Case in point.



For all the help I get from any peope who love At-43, I get a good deal of help and insight from Cairnius too who understands how I want to play, and can see the problems in the system for what they are.

I envisage company size game on a large wargaming tabletops. Frankly I am not interested in reinforced platoon 2000pt lists and cardstock tabletops, and think Rackham needs to think about expanding the game to encourage larger collections. Cairnius thinks the board system hampers the game because simple necessary add ons for open play have not been included. In this I agree with him, on a marketing level the company is shooting itself in the foot by not encouraging larger armies and thus sets a lower limit to practicle collection size for an existing product line.

A case in point. GW does Apocalypse and speaks of multiple detachments, though the standard game is 1500pts. Warmachine has set ups for 2000pt games with four warcasters, and even a name for such, even though most people play under a thousand points. Why? Because it encourages people to collect to a bigger threshold. Little maps, set piece scenarios and a mental cap on 2 to 2.5k for much of the gmae has really messed up the business plan. Because the average customer is encouraged to think four Fire Toads is a lot rather than ten Rackham makes 4x profit on Fire Toads rather than 10x. Even with leaving our needs out of it Rackham needs to think outside the box on this one, throw the game wide open and encourage us to think outside the box too, literally. Now I really don't know too much about At-43, but I can recognise poor business decisons when I see them. Cairnius does too, we see eye to eye on this.

Next you get what we Warhammer players know as a RAW issue. Frankly the RAW on terrain setup and even board size for tabletop wargbaming is very poor. Can anyone tell me whether Rackham encourages a particular open board size for a particular game, is there a formula, or a standard board size? No. There are the gaming tiles and thats it.

Also the gaming environment doesnt think outside the box either. You want evidence: here goes; the Hoist abilitty. Does this allow a unit to move small items? Does it allow to move items up to its base size or to a set upper limit?No, it allows you to move the low wall blocks that comes with the game. Thats all. Now you can stand thinking about using Hoist to move other terrain about, but will run into RAW issues and unless to stick to small items below the size threeshold of a low wall block you will get complaints. The rules are based around the playmats and the blocks, crates and generators. I dont mind seeing rules for the terrain items sold, not at all, but it would be nice to see generic terrain rules, even if they are just thresholds and customs. But to make any step beyond you immediately run into 'house rules' territory, this is an ommission that neds to be adressed not glossed over by Rackham backed up by a double helping of denial. If I can see this, why cant you? Likely because I come into the game with a different perspective, one in which both ardent supporters and ardent detractors are recognised as having something worth listening to.


Edit for even more glaring typos than usual.

Better watch your straw men near all those flames, Cairnius . We can deconstruct each other’s posts line by line, but that’s something I have no interest in doing, particularly because I feel that you know your rules very well and could actually produce a decent list of suggestions for expanding the game to a more tabletop style. It’s my honest opinion that if you did something constructive like that, it would be helpful to people and would not provoke so much hassle. Try and top up that half-empty glass.

I also think that our arguments are not dissimilar, but you may have misunderstood the point that I was trying to make. Maybe I was not being clear enough.

Rackham produces a game with tiles and maps, provides rules and illustrations on how to play missions on said tiles and maps. No other information for terrain is provided outside of this. So if one takes that as evidence of their scope and intent for the game, then it could be said that the designers have done their job adequately because those rules are there in the book.

By the same token and going on this specific logic, if one decides to use the rules and miniatures on a 40k-style tabletop battlefield, then you have immediately diverged from the original conception of the game as designed and are actually playing it wrong. A bit like taking a baseball bat to a game of cricket.. Therefore it cannot be criticised for not doing something that it was never intended to do.

However in reality it has never been stated one way or another whether it was supposed to be played solely on the tiles or whether it was designed for open battle. I tend to play custom scenarios on a tabletop battlefield, as I’m not a fan of the maps or tiles. I acknowledge that there are areas where I’m going to have to improvise, but again this has never been problematic. It seems to be what most people do successfully

“You may play AT-43 without ever playing a mission from the rulebook or any campaign scenario ever placed, which is kind of my point, isn't it? We need some official rules support for this style of play because that's how many people are choosing to play the game.” (Emphasis mine)

From my perspective this is the basic point that you should have stated from the start and dispensed with having poll, because it is obviously the form of play that you would prefer to see the rules for. I’m certainly not saying I disagree, but I am suggesting that perhaps it was never meant to be a 40k style game and that the expectation may be unrealistic.

I’ll repeat myself and say that adapting it yourself is no problem, while taking the point that this will lead to disparities between venues. So you eventually reach the point where the discussion begins to collpase because what is essentially being suggested is that the rules as written do not reflect the game being played, and therefore either the rules are flawed for not suiting a widespread form of gameplay or that many people are simply playing the game wrong.

@ Orlanth: I agree with almost everything everything you’ve said. It's been pretty interesting.

Also I hate not being able sleep.