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.

Lest anyone argue the value of calling attention to problems...loudly...see the seventh question on this list of Qs and As given by Rackham recently:

http://en-forum.at-43.com/viewtopic.php?t=7028&highlight

# Question: Are there any planned revisions to the rulesets? Will an official errata be printed on a regular basis?
# Answer (Rackham) 2nd edition [AT-43] is under consideration for 2010. This is in the pipeline.

What gets me is that anyone would actually be SURPRISED that a 2nd Edition is being considered. They've needed a new version of the rulebook since they first published it. It's good that Rackham has broken the previous oft-repeated company line of "We're waiting until all eight armies are released." Perhaps they finally figured out that they don't need to wait that long...and that a better ruleset will help sell the existing armies better as well as the two yet to be produced after ONI.

The Army Boxes seem like they might have been a smart move...I'll wait to see whether they bring in a ton of new players or just play to the existing player base before making any private determinations or forming an opinion...but this would unequivocally be a smart move. Get that 2nd edition rulebook done a.s.a.p.! I know several people who I exposed to AT-43 who, if not for the shoddy quality of the rulebook, might have actually stuck with the game - but serious tabletop wargamers often, but not always, have little tolerance for incompetence in rules construction, justification, or just plain syntax.

If Rackham wants to expand their audience past the niche of "I don't want to build and paint anything" or "I don't have the money for other games," and start getting a sizeable number of people who comprise the vast majority of tabletop wargaming types, they need to focus on the strength of the ruleset. If they do it right, I think you might see AT-43 having much more of a shot of nosing its way into traditional wargaming circles in which modeling and painting are so inexorably linked to the gaming.

I concur, 2nd edition should be the top priority above other armies, the two0 remaining armies after ONI should be delayed until second edition.

However I hope the designers havent retired to an ivory tower to think themselves genii and make a little word change or two to perfect their masterpiece. It is my wworry that they might well think like that.

They should at the minimum be shredding many of the core rules and repointing many units:

1. Give Red Blok a real horde, make thier vehicles cheaper. Then they can afford to suck. Instead we get platitudes on how to use them that are tantamount to a Warseeresque 'Use tactics' call. They just dont realise you might get all tactical, but the UNA player can be equally tactical and maintain the advantage.

2. Give Karmans cheaper infantry and some medics. there is a house rule on the AT-43 forums called robust wheras you half the number of casualties round up that Karmans take.

3. Two wounds for *** infantry, but not using the stupid Dragomirov rules, which are there to remove the need for wound counters. At-43 has counters, so wound counters are no problem.

4. Completely redo the slowed indirect fire rules. Blasts should allow cover and add +1cm radius per 5cm of blast rounded up. when accumulated (which is closer to the mathematical volume). Don't they teach primary school geometry in France?

5. Tabletop play scenarios with full generic terrain types rather than just blocks and crates.

6. Company organisation options for encouraging larger games. Someone should point out to the studio monkeys small 2500AP scenarios on twee maps = small sales. They need pictures of AT-43 games that look like Apocalypse games.

7. Tone down the Therians background a tad, or make the invasion thev work of a handful of indivisduals and their armade as ther personal army of them. So far it is possible Tiamat and Atis are the only two real Therians we have yet seen. Sure they are big sure they are going to win eventually but they are currently way too outscale. As it currently stands the balance is like a man with a rusty knife a sheep and his dog on a barren island trying to hold off the USA military who have been told and take it over by force. I thought the scale of the Necrons and tyranids was overdone, they have nothing on the Therians. It should be a short fight or lose any no sense. Short on the grounds of:
They turn up. The End.

Orlanth wrote:
1. Give Red Blok a real horde, make thier vehicles cheaper. Then they can afford to suck. Instead we get platitudes on how to use them that are tantamount to a Warseeresque 'Use tactics' call. They just dont realise you might get all tactical, but the UNA player can be equally tactical and maintain the advantage.

NOOO, please RE dont let the naysayers change the REd Blok, They have the POTENTIAL to be slightly hordy than others, that does not mena thesy HAVE TOO, please RE, dont listen to these guys, they just cannot play REd Blok Properly

Orlanth wrote:
2. Give Karmans cheaper infantry and some medics. there is a house rule on the AT-43 forums called robust wheras you half the number of casualties round up that Karmans take.

Discussed to dead in the official Forum maybe you would go and check what its discussed there (Im no Karman player) maybe the Karman players and you can share some ideas

Orlanth wrote:
3. Two wounds for *** infantry, but not using the stupid Dragomirov rules, which are there to remove the need for wound counters. At-43 has counters, so wound counters are no problem.

No, leave the crap of 40K with its SUPER-mega-pimped heroes or elites out of At-43, the advantage is ALREADY in the armor, there are just "normal" humans/gorillas/clones, nothing more special

Orlanth wrote:
4. Completely redo the slowed indirect fire rules. Blasts should allow cover and add +1cm radius per 5cm of blast rounded up. when accumulated (which is closer to the mathematical volume). Don't they teach primary school geometry in France?

Discussed to death here and everywhere and NO, leave indirect fire DEadly as it is, change only the dispersion. If your infantry die because a mortar fell on them well, suck it up and learn to position your infantry.

Orlanth wrote:
5. Tabletop play scenarios with full generic terrain types rather than just blocks and crates.

I could agree that could be expanded but it is not completely necessary, you can play with whatever you want, LoS is covered, Cover Saves are covered, what else do you need, that Rackham tells you where and how to add 1% more of terrain per X AP ?

And second there are not only blocks and Crates, there are Rivers, Holes, Ice, weather conditions, cristals, nanogenerators... if you need instructions to extrapolate everything to a APrticualr case then RE or any other will never give you what you expect

Orlanth wrote:
6. Company organisation options for encouraging larger games. Someone should point out to the studio monkeys small 2500AP scenarios on twee maps = small sales. They need pictures of AT-43 games that look like Apocalypse games.

DOnt get exactly what you mean... the platoon pattern is there you just have to Agree on the AP, is it that difficult to get?

And check this big game (I repeat wanna play Apocalypse, play 40K, leave that game out of here) http://www.at43-forum.de/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1819&start=150, you can see different terrain see? and I dont see whiners over it.

Orlanth wrote:
7. Tone down the Therians background a tad, or make the invasion thev work of a handful of indivisduals and their armade as ther personal army of them. So far it is possible Tiamat and Atis are the only two real Therians we have yet seen. Sure they are big sure they are going to win eventually but they are currently way too outscale. As it currently stands the balance is like a man with a rusty knife a sheep and his dog on a barren island trying to hold off the USA military who have been told and take it over by force. I thought the scale of the Necrons and tyranids was overdone, they have nothing on the Therians. It should be a short fight or lose any no sense. Short on the grounds of:
They turn up. The End.

Err... and URASH? and NINA/BABS? they are therians too you know... And this Rant is far to strange, are you complaining about the Fluff ? or that you cannot win against them and want them Nerfed?







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cairnius wrote:

# Question: Are there any planned revisions to the rulesets? Will an official errata be printed on a regular basis?
# Answer (Rackham) 2nd edition [AT-43] is under consideration for 2010. This is in the pipeline.

What gets me is that anyone would actually be SURPRISED that a 2nd Edition is being considered. They've needed a new version of the rulebook since they first published it. It's good that Rackham has broken the previous oft-repeated company line of "We're waiting until all eight armies are released." Perhaps they finally figured out that they don't need to wait that long...and that a better ruleset will help sell the existing armies better as well as the two yet to be produced after ONI..

all what you are saying is mere supossition, the will release 2 armies in one year Cogs and Oni, Krygs could be 1 semester and the 8th later, and then at last the new Rulebook.

SO Yes they could still say its in the Pipeline, but nowhere says that they will not release the 8 armies before

I fully agree with Wolfen. As green day has proven over and over again there are only samll issues that need to be updated.

There is no need to fundamentally change the game to be level with the wishes of power gamers.

Oh, and we use tactics, lots of them, maybe some people should try it out instead of using the bute force approach.

Wolfen wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
1. Give Red Blok a real horde, make thier vehicles cheaper. Then they can afford to suck. Instead we get platitudes on how to use them that are tantamount to a Warseeresque 'Use tactics' call. They just dont realise you might get all tactical, but the UNA player can be equally tactical and maintain the advantage.

NOOO, please RE dont let the naysayers change the REd Blok, They have the POTENTIAL to be slightly hordy than others, that does not mena thesy HAVE TOO, please RE, dont listen to these guys, they just cannot play REd Blok Properly

I actually wonder if this comment is sarcastic, but Idaho takes it at face value.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:
Oh, and we use tactics, lots of them, maybe some people should try it out instead of using the bute force approach.

This is what you are just not getting. Yes we can all see that you have to play Red Blok differently, but tactics can be used by one and all. The excuses for how Red Blok are balanced were the same excuses used to whitewash the discrepenacies of weak lists in 40K, such as old orks. You were told to 'use tactics'. Sure you can claim you can smart play out of your disadvantages, unless the opponent is equally smart, in fact not even that. It doesnt take much to learn the tricks that keep Red Blok out of firing range and in yours long enough to decimate an army.
Objectives are no equaliser. You can let the Red Blok get ahead in VP, if they remain out of range and in yours . Sure they get +5VP out of 20, you destroy their army next turn. then you get those 5VP back at your leisure.


Let me run through the issues.

1. Red Blok get a horde to compensate for their weaker staline. Slightly, its 250pts compared to 300pts average for a large basic infantry squad, which in UNA case can be equal size or smaller but better. However this is entirely offset by the increased cost of medium vehicles and battle armour. Normally about 50-100pts extra per unit.

2. But Red Blok armour is the uber. Yes you get +1 over Therians and +2 over UNA, but your base anti tank weaponry is S11 or S12, thiers is S14 S15. only odd weapons you cannot take a lot of are different to that such as AT Gauss and AT cannon, but UNA and Therians have thier own odd weapons. All in all the penetration-armour ratio is weaker for Red Blok.

3. Range. Enough said. Unless you reduce the game to a maximum of 60cm wide board Red Blok are at a critical disadvantage. This is assinine in itself as small boards mean small games which means small collectiojns which means small sales. Also most official scenarios include very little cover to act as a leveller, two crates and six blocks on a 'car park'. Thats not terrain thats a chessboard with litter. Full cover can act as a range leveller but outside of Damocles maps its just not available. the stock scenarios with a few odd walls and the open frostbite landscapes with movement reducing but not cover providing terrain are lethal to Red Blok.

Red Bloks few compensations do not compensate far enough, disruption is nice but not an equaliser. It has potential but your opponent doesnt need to Take Cover if out of Red Blok range, even Therians who are worst hit by LP loss can counter easily, and if all else fails they can play 'smart' with Babylon Zero trailing a Molot. Though any fair player leaves Zero on the shelf.

Red Blok has more blast than anyone else, and blast rules are overpowered, but even allowing for the game break they lose out because the ranges are not good enough. Besides Lancelots, Cobras and Grim golem flamers give back as good as they get with blast once the Red Blok are forced to close. Though the Dotch Yaga has a very long range of 100cm because of the broken blast rules and a 10cm template. even so what few shots you can range out will face a lot of therian or UNA firepower in turn which is far more accurate and will give the opponent an advantage in attrition.

Wolfen wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
2. Give Karmans cheaper infantry and some medics. there is a house rule on the AT-43 forums called robust wheras you half the number of casualties round up that Karmans take.

Discussed to dead in the official Forum maybe you would go and check what its discussed there (Im no Karman player) maybe the Karman players and you can share some ideas

I am not (yet) a Karman player either, but you need to do something. 500pt units - get heavy weapons at all, no or one medic and no greater reslience. the monkeys just die. unless they are facing Red Blok. you just blind test a salvo of assault Goliaths against a full strength Kaptar infantry squad. There is nothing left after one salvo. Sure Karmans can dish it out, but they cannot take it. Its mutual annihilation unit to unit, but karmans cost more.
If there are alternates to the robust rule - which looked very popular, I would like to see them, but something must be done.

Wolfen wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
3. Two wounds for *** infantry, but not using the stupid Dragomirov rules, which are there to remove the need for wound counters. At-43 has counters, so wound counters are no problem.

No, leave the crap of 40K with its SUPER-mega-pimped heroes or elites out of At-43, the advantage is ALREADY in the armor, there are just 'normal'; humans/gorillas/clones, nothing more special

leave your 40K hang-ups at the door. Do you actually think that shooting at Urod five times in the torso with a ZZ-gun results in four wounds to Odin and Mannon before they finally die. Its a vehicle.
So is *** infantry in its own way. You have to get through the metal to reach the meat. Its not hard to justify. Two wound *** infantry is NOTHING about the toughness of the man/ape inside, its about ablation.

Well whats your opinion of Dragomira by the way? She is supposedly two wounds directly because of her meat, and furthermore you have to kill her twice at once, idiot muppet rule.

Wolfen wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
4. Completely redo the slowed indirect fire rules. Blasts should allow cover and add +1cm radius per 5cm of blast rounded up. when accumulated (which is closer to the mathematical volume). Don't they teach primary school geometry in France?

Discussed to death here and everywhere and NO, leave indirect fire DEadly as it is, change only the dispersion. If your infantry die because a mortar fell on them well, suck it up and learn to position your infantry.

In other words 'use tactics'. Now you tell me: You have an open car park with, well any terrain you like. How do you stop the morrtars with your genius? Spread them out 2.5cm. we are already doing that. Iss there anything you can do, you cant take cover under official rules - so they dug trenches in WW1 for nothing did they? So ral soldiers hit the deck when theiy hear a mortar whistle for exercise, or cowardice? No cover works. Rememver cover and you remove any actual input a player has. All it becomes is 'I have the templates and I will use them'. You just have to suck it up. Sucking up damamge should be a tactical choice, reuslts of a charge through open terrain or a dash between two distant bits of shlter, not turn in turn out play. Unless you buy a bunker for $18.99 <<kerching>>. Chance to find one anyway.
I am yet to find a player who doesnt see the need to change these rules, and no I dont prompt them. I have had players give up on AT-43 after one turns bombardment from my Cobra, because they see there is nothing they can do. Its removes all brains from the game, it regresses AT-43 to 5 years olds playing soldiers, you stand them up, then you knock them down with your palm.

Next up 'two 3cm blasts equals a 6cm blast'. Ok, facepalm. OK French guys let me introduce you to Pythagoras. Real advanced tech. +1cm is about right and easy to implements, +2cm if the blast is 6cm or over. thats not hard, it might or might not be advanced maths to determine whether to add +1 or +2 to Rackham designers I dont know. Sometimes thety make Gav and jervis look like genii.
It matters too, with the stupid overpowered blast rules allowing most weapons to boost up to a 9cm or 10cm template then there is no point. Assuming you hit - I wont go into the stupidity of the deviation rules becvause even Rackham seems to notice they suck - then with 9cm blasts 'everywhere then no matr how you try to arrange your troops you will be facing a slate wiper.

Wolfen wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
5. Tabletop play scenarios with full generic terrain types rather than just blocks and crates.

I could agree that could be expanded but it is not completely necessary, you can play with whatever you want, LoS is covered, Cover Saves are covered, what else do you need, that Rackham tells you where and how to add 1% more of terrain per X AP ?

Well actually we can make our own terrain rules, but then we are house ruling. rackham should provide standard terrain rules by default.

Wolfen wrote:
And second there are not only blocks and Crates, there are Rivers, Holes, Ice, weather conditions, cristals, nanogenerators... if you need instructions to extrapolate everything to a APrticualr case then RE or any other will never give you what you expect

not true. best example, one of many is the hoist ability. What does it do, does it move small terrain featuresd up to a certain size, no it moves stock walls. Its easy enough to house rule and say hoist is enough for your K-Armour to move the stack of barrels or roll that boulder, but again we are house ruling. Rackham should provide.

Even GW known enough not to restrict its 40K terrain rules to feature just what Cities of Death are selling.

Wolfen wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
6. Company organisation options for encouraging larger games. Someone should point out to the studio monkeys small 2500AP scenarios on twee maps = small sales. They need pictures of AT-43 games that look like Apocalypse games.

DOnt get exactly what you mean... the platoon pattern is there you just have to Agree on the AP, is it that difficult to get?

You fail to comprehend, standard games are 2500AP or thereabouts, you look on the AT-43 forums about a year and a half back and people are talking about their 'large' 3000AP collections. a 40K player might collect for 1500pt games, which incidentatlly are a lot more models than 2500AP but by the way the game is packaged tghey are encouraged to collect far larger armies. Biggest sales move GW made was the chapter organisation. You could see what made a company or chapter so people collected whole companies or even chapters.

Besides company organisation could add extra variety. An example of how company org can work. You have your faction comapny org, one per race , plus your varied platoon orgs. You get up to one choice in the company org per platoon you fill. Company orgs might have slots for things your army might not have. Really its a vehicle for collectors, rather than lets make up a small list its lets collect a company of UNA centcom, have it lined up on the shelves four platoons plus a company HQ.
You have to think outside the box.

Wolfen wrote:
And check this big game (I repeat wanna play Apocalypse, play 40K, leave that game out of here) http://www.at43-forum.de/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1819&start=150, you can see different terrain see? and I dont see whiners over it.

I have seen some of those terrain boards before, and yes you need house rules to play them. Its the elementary stuff that Rackham ought to provide such as cleasr terrain rules. Every tabletop game system needs them and has them, why should Rackham ignore them.
There might even be whiners there, there are none here, at leadt my end. My objections to the rules are based on cold logic and well presented, if you read that as whining its is due to your limited comprehension, not due to my attitude. I want this game to succeed, if I didnt I wouldnt have just bought another large contingent last week with another due after the weekend.

Orlanth wrote:
7. Tone down the Therians background a tad, or make the invasion thev work of a handful of indivisduals and their armade as ther personal army of them. So far it is possible Tiamat and Atis are the only two real Therians we have yet seen. Sure they are big sure they are going to win eventually but they are currently way too outscale. As it currently stands the balance is like a man with a rusty knife a sheep and his dog on a barren island trying to hold off the USA military who have been told and take it over by force. I thought the scale of the Necrons and tyranids was overdone, they have nothing on the Therians. It should be a short fight or lose any no sense. Short on the grounds of:
They turn up. The End.

Wolfen wrote:
Err... and URASH? and NINA/BABS? they are therians too you know... And this Rant is far to strange, are you complaining about the Fluff ? or that you cannot win against them and want them Nerfed?

Yes again you completely miss the point. Let me explain for the hard of thinking.

'Err... and URASH? and NINA/BABS? they are therians too you know...' Sure but they are very much different, brain in ther jar in the robot type Therians. Atis and Tiamat maintain their old shape. One way to look at this is that real Therians are relatively rare, at least in this part of space. This would make sense because you can keep the outscale Therians to a large degree, because its AVA vs two people from the Therian empire and the resources they can pull perosnally. Yes Urash is a Therian, but he appears more as an intelligent Thrall. Its a retcon, but a minor one that would keep the balance better. Have a think about this and you will see why it immediately rebalances.
The UNA has a chance short term against Atis and Tiamat alone, maybe one or two more 'real' Therians even with what is explained so far it is quite unreasonable for there to have been any contest whatsoever, even with taking underestimating and sleeping Damocles factories into account.

'or that you cannot win against them and want them Nerfed?' Actually it goes far beyond that. They have Dyson spheres, plural. You any idea what that means. Look up Halo orbitals, then look up Ringworld then look up Dyson sphere. Eaxch rise by a vast order of magnitude, the Dyson sphere being a ringworld build in rotation to encompass a star at a distance of 1AU. Dyson spheres are mind bogglingly large. They use vessels like Damocles as temporary habitats. Have you tried to think about the power output of those things, Rackham havent. Especially allowing for Therian construction technology. The power output should be enough that even if the worldship is sleepy it should produce enough monsters that they dont need guns, they can win by just advancing until the enemy runs out of all ammo, nukes not excluded or drops from lack or sleep or water. No that isnt an exagerration. Take a planet twice the size of earth several kilometeres deep with technology to just produce armies out of dust. sorry mate nerf doesnt go far enough, it blatantly clear that the Avans dont have a chance, and I am not talking about the long term - that is a given. i am tal,ing about the immediate term. One guy with rusty knife vs US military is a fair comparison to avans vs Therians as described.
I dont think Rackham have seriously thought about the amount of outscaling they have done.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:I fully agree with Wolfen. As green day has proven over and over again there are only samll issues that need to be updated.

I kind of expected that. I would have been suprised if you saw or were prepared to see the gaping holes in the game or its background. I also suspect that Rackham will have the same blinkers and think all is wonderful given a typo here or a tweak there.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:
There is no need to fundamentally change the game to be level with the wishes of power gamers.

Decent game design assists in the creation of a decent game balance. The fact you think that seeing the discrepencies as 'power gaming' shows how out of touch you are. In fact a power gamer attituide would be to keep things as they are and choose a faction that can win. The last thing power gamers want is balance.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:

Wolfen wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
1. Give Red Blok a real horde, make thier vehicles cheaper. Then they can afford to suck. Instead we get platitudes on how to use them that are tantamount to a Warseeresque 'Use tactics' call. They just dont realise you might get all tactical, but the UNA player can be equally tactical and maintain the advantage.

NOOO, please RE dont let the naysayers change the REd Blok, They have the POTENTIAL to be slightly hordy than others, that does not mena thesy HAVE TOO, please RE, dont listen to these guys, they just cannot play REd Blok Properly

I actually wonder if this comment is sarcastic, but Idaho takes it at face value.

No, it is NOT sarctastic. I am a succesful RB player that uses kollossi to great effect. i do believe that people prefer better shooty army, but I think that most people just havent learnt how to use RB properly... and I DO consider that REd Blok is a tough opponent if you are ABLE to play it.

I like my Kolossi, i have nineteen and like to use them. Kollossi can be good in narrow conditions, but again an equally or perhaps not quite equally smart player with a UNA or Therian army will have your head.

Sadly short ranged and slow means that you get once chance, when you drop them and blitz. However Kollossi are prety to a smart UNa or Therian player whom sees this coming. Also the firepower is not quite as impressive as TacArms or Goliaths.

UNA lasers will tear apart Kollossi, they dont take the hits well even with armour 12, there arent many of them and they cost more than anyone elses battle armour.

There is an equaliser for Red Blok and that is to play a very terrain heavy urban map, but AT-43 is not set up like that, even with Damocles. You have to start with a premise that you need house rules and discard most missions befre you have a hope of balance.

The only superior unit in the Red blok army are Dragonov Kommandos, they are good. Disrupt, sniper atguass. Good range and power. Sierp are also good, but with these you have to minimax your list. Which is always a sign in gaming of a badly written codex.

Don't make the mistake of thinking I dont know how to win with Red Blok, I just also know how to win with UNA and Therians and thus know ways those armies can trump the Blok every time.

Orlanth wrote:

Duncan_Idaho wrote:
Oh, and we use tactics, lots of them, maybe some people should try it out instead of using the bute force approach.

This is what you are just not getting. Yes we can all see that you have to play Red Blok differently, but tactics can be used by one and all. the excuses for how Red Blok are balanced were the same excuses used to whitewash the discrepenacies of weak lists in 40K, such as old orks. You were told to 'use tactics'. Sure you can claim you can smart play out of your disadvantages, unless the opponent is equally smart, in fact not even that. It doesnt take much to learn the tricks that keep Red Blok out of firing range and in yours long enough to decimate an army.
Objectives are no equaliser. You can let the Red Blok get ahead in VP, if they remain out of range and in yours . Sure they get +5VP out of 20, you destroy their army next turn. then you get those 5VP back at your leisure.


Let me run through the issues.

1. Red Blok get a horde to compensate for their weaker staline. Slightly, its 250pts compared to 300pts average for a large basic infantry squad, which in UNA case can be equal size or smaller but better. However this is entirely offset by the increased cost of medium vehicles and battle armour. Normally about 50-100pts extra per unit.

2. But Red Blok armour is the uber. Yes you get +1 over Therians and +2 over UNA, but your base anti tank weaponry is S11 or S12, thiers is S14 S15. only odd weapons you cannot take a lot of are different to that such as AT Gauss and AT cannon, but UNA and Therians have thier own odd weapons. All in all the penetration-armour ratio is weaker for Red Blok.

3. Range. Enough said. Unless you reduce the game to a maximum of 60cm wide board Red Blok are at a critical disadvantage. This is assinine in itself as small boards mean small games which means small collectiojns which means small sales. Also most official scenarios include very little cover to act as a leveller, two crates and six blocks on a 'car park'. Thats not terrain thats a chessboard with litter. Full cover can act as a range leveller but outside of Damocles maps its just not available. the stock scenarios with a few odd walls and the open frostbite landscapes with movement reducing but not cover providing terrain are lethal to red Blok.

1.Well, you insist in the Hordes, you can play SUPRA and get as an elite Army as the UNA with similar stats... but no, you keep pointing to the type * infantry
2. RB aromor is the best. tahts a hard fact. this is balanced by the fact that you need to get close... and you hjave more mechanics in your units.
3. Range, still you insist... and everybody tells you and Cainius... use terrain, mechs or whatever... REd Blok CAN and will many times get into range... granted not all of the AFVs but sure enough to do the job. I wil not discuss points about sales which I dont really care at the moment. but you dont have to ONLY add the containers... you can add whatever you want and dont need rules for that.

Orlanth wrote:
2. Give Karmans cheaper infantry and some medics. there is a house rule on the AT-43 forums called robust wheras you half the number of casualties round up that Karmans take.

Discussed to dead in the official Forum maybe you would go and check what its discussed there (Im no Karman player) maybe the Karman players and you can share some ideas

@Orlanth

Just last weekend we had a 210.000+ AP big battle with 18+ people participating in it.

Not one of them complained about his army being underpowered and even the one guy that lost rather quickly was of the opinion that he had gambled to much on his opponent going for a certain objective and that it was his own fault he lost.

The only scenery rules we used in addition to the rules from the book were strength values for scenery we introduced and rules for destroying multi story buildings and even them we derived from the rules already available.

All agreed that the game only needs some finetuning and some of the players present were some of the best you can have a game against. Those guys are that good that they can write you an optimum list and then hand it over to the other player and still win beacause they are great tacticians.

And now you show up and claim the game to be wonky. Sorry, i rather side with the majority being quite happy and asking only for minor changes.

I suspect changing the terrain rules will resolve a lot of the other army balance issues I see here. My group plays with much more terrain than the crates and walls RE provides. In those games, RB dominates as UNA and Therians can't kill enough infantry due to all the 3+ cover saves. Nobody in the group plays Karmans so I can't say anything there.

Maybe if I proxied all the rocket launchers my UNA has with unavailable las guns it would be different, but again all the cover saves means 80-90% of infantry is alive at the end of the game. Only VPs decide the game.

Wolfen wrote:
all what you are saying is mere supossition, the will release 2 armies in one year Cogs and Oni, Krygs could be 1 semester and the 8th later, and then at last the new Rulebook.

SO Yes they could still say its in the Pipeline, but nowhere says that they will not release the 8 armies before

Gaming companies like to release news of future updates/expansions as soon as they can reliably assure themselves that the content is going to come out when they say it is going to. This sort of news creates fan excitement, which can keep players actively playing and expanding collections, which in turn keeps the game more visible, which in turn can lead to more new players which is always the final goal.

GW does this sort of thing all the time, even though they have the discretion of a whore when it comes to keeping secrets.

Gaming companies usually prefer to keep their mouths shut if they don't really know the content is going to come out when they say it is going to come out. If they are smart companies, that is. Let's grant Rackham that.

They have announced ONI. We'll see them by the timeline given. They have said nothing about the next two armies, and your stating anything about Krygs is more speculative than anything I've said so I call the hypocrite police on you. If there are any official Rackham announcements about Krygs I would like to think that would be all over the web as it would be major news.

However, and while they are not publicizing it overtly, they have allowed themselves to be placed on the record as saying that a new rulebook is in the pipeline for 2010. Again, I would like to give them credit for not talking out their asses about something like this without being reasonably sure that it's going to happen, especially considering their horrendous track record with fan communication. They need to be dangling something like this in front of the AT-43 community and not follow through like they need a hole in the head.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:@Orlanth

Just last weekend we had a 210.000+ AP big battle with 18+ people participating in it.

Not one of them complained about his army being underpowered and even the one guy that lost rather quickly was of the opinion that he had gambled to much on his opponent going for a certain objective and that it was his own fault he lost.

The only scenery rules we used in addition to the rules from the book were strength values for scenery we introduced and rules for destroying multi story buildings and even them we derived from the rules already available.

All agreed that the game only needs some finetuning and some of the players present were some of the best you can have a game against. Those guys are that good that they can write you an optimum list and then hand it over to the other player and still win beacause they are great tacticians.

And now you show up and claim the game to be wonky. Sorry, i rather side with the majority being quite happy and asking only for minor changes.

I'm giving up politeness because it is less fun.

(Attack deleted by Modquisition)

Does it not occur to you that every single one of the people in your "mega AP" battle are all rabid AT-43 fans to have been able to field such a huge number of Army Points, and that therefore they're not really good judges of what AT-43 does and does not do well?

You are a rabid fan of AT-43. In this thread, Orlanth has presented some of the most thoughtful and intelligent analyses of AT-43 I have ever seen. I don't bother putting that much thought into the game anymore because as it currently stands it is very much a child's game with a child's mentality. It is "diet wargaming." It strips away any and all effort traditionally put into wargaming like modeling and painting your units or your terrain and makes wargaming accessible to chimps.

Orlanth has decided to take the game seriously and has done the work, however...and how do you respond to him? With the following logical fallacy:

"Ad populum

Definition: The Latin name of this fallacy means "to the people." There are several versions of the ad populum fallacy, but what they all have in common is that in them, the arguer takes advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument. One of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does."

I, in turn, am knowingly and willingly engaging in the following logical fallacy:

"Ad hominem and tu quoque

Definitions: Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem ("against the person") and tu quoque ("you, too!") fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is usually "You shouldn't believe So-and-So's argument." The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent's argument."

I do so because you are not worthy of respect in these discussions, Duncan. Do you know why I left the Rackham Sentinel program? Because most of the Sentinels were corporate goons like yourself who were entirely incapable of seeing AT-43 for anything other than an object of idol worship.

Your childlike insistence upon defending the position that AT-43 is essentially faultless as it is with the weakest of possible defenses for this position are what make you a paid-for yet unpaid plaything of Rackham Entertainment. No wargamer in their right mind would any more listen to you and your opinions on AT-43 than they would listen to a Games Workshop's Red Shirt's opinion on Warhammer 40,000 without casting an extremely critical eye to just about everything they said.

At least Red Shirts are paid by their company...you're doing favors for Rackham Entertainment for free; and most wargamers wouldn't be listening to your missives about AT-43 anyway as they probably rightly dismiss the game out of hand as a wanna-be and a lesser-than.

It's ironic that I post the news up about the 2nd Edition rulebook as a beacon of hope for the game and you and the Rackham drooler-overs turn it into a slam fest on Orlanth, who actually puts some thought into his analyses of the game like I once tried to. Now I'm just here for the circus because it amuses me as I am Cairnius the Bastard, the Sentinel Turned Traitor as Blokhead recently referred to me on the AT-43 forums and which almost made me piss myself laughing that you people are still talking about me over there out in the open.

I don't love you anymore. We broke up. Deal with it and move on.

What kills me about you is that you validate the complaints of hardcore wargamers like Orlanth and myself about the lack of terrain rules by stating over and over again THAT YOU MAKE UP YOUR OWN TERRAIN RULES!

Seriously, you don't see how stupid that is? As much as I hate to provide someone with a counter-argument they should have the intellect to come up with themselves, it would be one thing to say "Yes, I recognize the lack of general terrain rules which make play on do-it-yourself tables problematic, but I think you can extrapolate terrain rules yourself which I think work reasonably well within the spirit of the official rules and I don't mind doing this," or you can do what you do and just tell us how you made up your own terrain rules and validate our complaints.

It's like arguing with a table sometimes...god bless Barney Frank. Somehow I remain interested, however. Mostly because the stupidity just boggles me...and because I like circuses...

You'll pardon me if, considering the highly dubious quality of your thinking in general, that I don't assign too much value to your judgment of one player or another's "tactical acumen." When Orlanth breaks down the numbers like he does, I'm willing to suspend any disbelief and say "This guy might know what he's talking about."

You provide no such food for thought, and never have in the what, eight months I've been reading your drivel online?

NOTE: AT-43 being a game accessible by chimps does not make everyone who plays AT-43 a chimp. It just so happens that a majority of the people I have read online talking about AT-43 happen to be chimps. I have only met one chimp, personally, who plays AT-43 but then again not many people play it in my area...and I've heard many tales of the caliber of the average AT-43 player in other locales around my area who do play AT-43 and the quality of its community, and have reason to believe them even after taking them with a salt lick much less a single grain...and they are chimps...

Hopefully the non-chimp AT-43 players in my area will continue to recruit non-chimp players into the game and we can have a relatively chimp-free zone, unless chimps come a knocking of their own accord...

Wolfen wrote:
1.Well, you insist in the Hordes, you can play SUPRA and get as an elite Army as the UNA with similar stats... but no, you keep pointing to the type * infantry

Supra has a lot of potentuial for spamming Dragonovs, but I dont like to minimqax anyway, plus there is a severe cost.
The instant destroyed if fail a morale test puts a limit on this. You only need to half kill and shake the units to destroy the formations, this retards the survivability of the units greatly.

Wolfen wrote:
2. RB aromor is the best. tahts a hard fact. this is balanced by the fact that you need to get close... and you hjave more mechanics in your units.

Slightly better armour much weaker average AT gunnery. UNA armour -2 guns +2, a break even. Therians armour -1 guns +3. Therians have the 'best' armour as in armour to bulk firepower ratio.
In armour strength Red Blok break even at best. The only real advantages are much more survivable heavy infantry, but you can afford to turn you high strength guns on the infantry longer, they are slow and have short range.

Wolfen wrote:
3. Range, still you insist... and everybody tells you and Cainius... use terrain, mechs or whatever... REd Blok CAN and will many times get into range... granted not all of the AFVs but sure enough to do the job. I wil not discuss points about sales which I dont really care at the moment. but you dont have to ONLY add the containers... you can add whatever you want and dont need rules for that.

Ther 'use tactics' excuse. Let me give you an example. A Red Blok player has to use tight terrain where there are few long fire lanes to equalise the low accuracy. A smart opponent exploits that by first knowing where they are going to have to go to cover yourself and secondly standing back from the mouths of dangerous terrain features to reestablish range. This need not be on the level, but can be on the flank. Blok are not particularly fast, its easy enough to keep range open unless you are playing a might maze with no sizable open spaces.
When dealing with a game of different range envelopes you can apply maximum force by overlapping your ranges to hit key targets while giving opponents only limited fire opportunity in turn. this is referedd to as point of contact and is as true in real tactics as most wargaming.

Wolfen wrote:
So if you are no AKrman player, what base do you have to know that they die.... an midn you i m not saying they dont have issues, but SUCCESFUL Karman player do not whine as much. go to the official, Discuss with Wolflord and others... they can give you "tactics" and ideas on how to use the Karmans

I can basically see how to use Karmans, I am an Eldar Saim Hann player, they are very similar. I havent got any yet but I can see what they are good and not good at and yes I have read up about them too. However I keep my comments to Therian and UNA only.
I will admit to not knowing Cogs at all and not being interested enough to find out. I might buy the codex for completeness, might not.

Wolfen wrote:
but SUCCESFUL Karman player do not whine as much

Wolfen wrote:
Have you played in them? no i dont think so.... you heard from the guy who was there that there are nosuch things Dunca Idaho was there... but you dont belive it... so what can people do with stuborness?

Wolfen wrote:
Still the platoon patterns works for small or big, your rant is unjustified and lack of sustenance.

So disagreeing with you = whining, agreeing = reason.
If you are constantly reading my comments as a whine it can only be because you wont let go of your hang ups. If you cannot deal with an arguement on the merits stay away and let someone more mature speak for you.
I am asking you nicely to cease your ad hominem attacks.

Wolfen wrote:
No, wanna play humans with more wounds play 40k or other system. Humans/Karmans can't get tougher just because they are Elite. Still before and now, there is no ARGUMENT to WHY a human should have 2 wounds, I explained to Cainius in a previous topic and he did not give a proper answer.

Cairnius gave you a proper answer. In his opinion higher Toughness can mean more experience, knowing whehn to roll with a blow etc. Logic holds true to that to some extent. If you do a hard martial arts arm block you take less impact if you twist your forearm while doing so. This is technique not harder arms.
Cairnius' answer held for old schoool 40K heroes.

My answer was simply that two wounds for a battlesuit is two wounds for the battlesuit. Nothing whatsoever to do with the constitution of the pilot. I was quite clear on that, but you still think we are calling for two physical 'hot points' on the pilot which is clearly not the case.

Wolfen wrote:
The ARMOR compensates the difference... however they will die the same if targeted by an Anti-AFV as any puny humanoid figure. No REASON whatsoever why a human can get shot twice with an Ati -AFV weapon and survive.

It makes sense in gaming, you get ablation. Besides how do you define what happens when the weapon fails penetration, its still the man surviving the anti AFV weapon. You can account for the suit being tough then, why not now. I agree you could make the rule work so that if you roll a 6 on the penetration test, or need a 1+ you clear both wounds at once. Yes a heavy laser can and should kill the suit outright, but then we are now talking critical hits and it should be possible to critical a strider too one way or another. Best to just have the frame points and extra wound on the battelsuit

Wolfen wrote:
Ohhh....you mean in reality.....!!!! now i get it, it is real no toy soldiers.... look mate, first dont isult people, as I am not doing it, second wanna discuss real life and not a game go somewhere else.

So you aregue that you cant have two wounds omn a battelsuit, but that the rules should not try and follow reality if possible. Do you have any idea what you are saying?

yes its a game of toy soldiers but if the game is not about firing whale guns or teddy bear grenades it is possdible that you might want to inject some form of 'realism' into it. sure its set in space with aliens and walking robots, but it hasd a modern military idiom, so it stands to reason that such things as trenches, foxholes and diving for cover and part of ther setting. Much of the former is there to stop blast.

Wolfen wrote:
Now you dont like the rules... well dont play it. If you think French are dumb or whatever so be it, just don put your prejudices like that.

In case you didnt know Rackham are 'french guys'. If you think I am calling French in general stupid then I suggest you re-read all the words carefully, twice.
I dont like to be accused of racism by people who wisgh to twist my words. If you cant avoid being personal then take your trolling elsewhere please.

I dont even accuse Rackham of being persistently stupid, its just that they do have some very oddd rules from time to time.
My comments still stand. Any schoolkid knows that doubling the radius doesn't double the area. This is real basic stuff you learn at about seven or eight, if not before. You know circles and all that.
It's a crap rule implementation, +1/+2cm works so much better and beter accounts for overlapping fire as will happen in barrages.

Wolfen wrote:
Go to frostbite, the rule is there... ice rivers and creavasses and so on, if you are to lazy to go then dont complain.

Ok, this explains what different colured areas on the snow gameboards mean. You can stretch this to include snow based home made terrain easily enough, but there are no general terrain rules.

Wolfen wrote:
.. You can still DO as you describe, and sales are driven as you can see in the link a add above by people using the normal platoons and playing big time apocalypse sales....

You can make unlimited size lists on platoons, but it is lacking the special something that would hook collectors which is an official higher structure.

Wolfen wrote:
Have you played in them? no i dont think so.... you heard from the guy who was there that there are nosuch things Dunca Idaho was there...

I play on warhammer boards and bigger when I can. Big games are the way forward.

Wolfen wrote:
Fluffwise Ilike the Therians that way... but thats a different opinion...

Fluff is perspective opinion, that is true.
However the scale is more than slightly amiss, it just doesnt add up. This is how I see it anyway. Have you taken a look at Dyson spheres ye and got an idea of what the Therians supposedly have. this site might help. http://www.merzo.net/ Nice sirte to visit and

Wolfen wrote:
I can win with red blok and therians.... and I agree that some things need to be improved a bit, but not fundamentally changed... with some exceptions (Babs)and even then, not always, I do believe that if the game is played with objectives, reinforcements and good selection, all armies are very balanced... you may not agree butthats how I see it.

Fundamental changes and small changes can be one and the same if you change some key issues in the game in small ways. Good games design is about realising the knock on effects of small decisions. Even my proposals for change to blast rules are very 'small'. +1/+2 to radius be blast, allow cover and multiply scatter distance by the current range bracket (so if you scatter 2cm and you are at range 4 you scatter 12cm).

Wolfen wrote:
If you advanced Kollossi all the board then where are your drop points or neutral access zones or your Sounduk?

I love my Kolossi, beautiful models but very hard to use properly once the Therian/UNA player knows whats what.
Drop points are assumed, or the Kolossi will arrive too late for the action, exceoptions for terminal defence of home territory.
Most drop points are set up in open space, so its simple enough to mark the LZ with a Steel TacArm or Bane Goliath unit outside of effective range. Both of which are cheaper and reroll misies with nasty guns.

I only have one transport and I have it in my UNA army. Trouble is the Kolossi plus Soundounk adds up to a very hefty points cost, Kolossi are not very shooty, and certainly not shooty for the cost. Trasnsports are priority targets.

Wolfen wrote:
Yeah Lasser will kill kollossi, a Sniper team will do even better and cheaper to the tac arms/goliaths

Dragonovs have to take up a lot of slack, AtGauss and snipers have so much work to do and Dragonovs are top priority targets for all anti infantry firepower. Yes they can kill the TacArms with either gun, but are just about the only unit that can take the battle forward, they are getting hit by everything that can hit them because the entire UNA Therian army responds at that range in some way or other.

I wont have many snipers except as Blok. My wraith Golgoths are thats it. However had I had them Ew specialists and snipers would be top priority. I have limited red Blok infantry just proxy IG. Wont be long.

Wolfen wrote:
No, Supra is a platoon patern established thats not min/max.

Dragonov spamming is min-max not Supra, you can have supra with Spetstaz instead after all. Supra has its own problems.

Wolfen wrote:
Well it doesnt seem that you know, if all I can read is whining of how bad they are... you may not like the style and thats it... but Therians UNA can destroy red blok as REd Blok can destroy them.

I love my Red Blok, they are in fact my favourite faction, but they are up against the curve, all things being equal they are the underdogs and liable to lose hard.

Poor being, Cairnius.

I didn´t want to point it out, but there is a reason why you still just play the game and write your long texts and why I have been working for all the major companies in the business and still am working for them. And not only in the games business but also in the industrial sector.

Oh, and the folks over here had a good laugh when they were called rabid fans. You couldn´t be further from the truth. Most of them are Dads and Moms that have a family to support and have well-payed jobs. They can buy so much stuff because they have earend the money and because they have fun playing a game that does not take hours just to prepare.

Well I think a new Mk2 Rule book is a must myself. I'm not a 40k player and realy like at-43 but I will be the first to
admit there are more than a few problems that need sorting out.

First PLEASE make the rule book more coherent and consice. The poor translation and the way certain things are
spread out through out the whole book drives us nuts. Better examples of play should be included as well.

Second balancing of the forces is really needed. We pretty much solely play RB vs UNA and my UNA forces usually
come out on top. My opponent is really a much better player too. As I see it this can be done in a few ways either with
the addition of the heavy support weapons with tweaked stats, new factions that are more powerful so they can compete
with MIND forces, or a total rewrite.

Thirdly addition of some other terrain rules. Though I'm more partial to WYSIWYG terrain I can see a need for them even
though I may never use them.

Yes the translation really is a problem and this problem exists solely on the english market.

Wolfen / Duncan

You 2 are getting trolled again.
See, when Orlanth resorts to using "stupid , and slowed" to describe something , you know they are out to cause some anger reaction from you 2.

So dont fall for it.

With that said , i think AT-43 rules are fine as they are.
And people should stop attempting to play them like Warhammer , which is fine , but just silly as they are 2 different games.

The only problem i have with the rule book and codex is , they need to find a translator that knows how to write novels.
Sure the translation are fine , but the whole "fluff" loses its feel and potential when the wording are so awkward and not dramatic .

And for the rest of you that finds AT-43 prepaints to be a problem , click my gallery and look at my Karman Ork and stop trolling.
Thats PAINT directly applied on the pre paints with NO preparatory work , no priming , NOTHING.

If anything i praise the prepaints are so nicely applied ( not thick at all , no loss of detail , yet extremely sturdy coating ) so i dont have to waste time priming ( if i decide to repaint that is )

Duncan_Idaho wrote:I didn´t want to point it out, but there is a reason why you still just play the game and write your long texts and why I have been working for all the major companies in the business and still am working for them. And not only in the games business but also in the industrial sector.

If you truly had any sort of status in the game design industry you would not be posting here on Dakka Dakka.com. I have not seen Jervis Johnson in here lately. Or any of the designers of Flames of War. Or Jean Bey or Paolo Parente, if we consider them having status in the industry yet...

You may hide behind anonymity and make vague claims of professional success, but you are still just another clown in the circus here on Dakka Dakka. Just like me. I'll wave at you from the center ring while you're getting out of the little car...

I have to say, however, that it is quite a feat to work for all the major companies in Germany's industrial sector considering just how many German companies there ostensibly are who produce things...it's surprising that you have any time left in your busy schedule to post up anywhere on the intrawebs or to play 210,000 AP games of AT-43...

Duncan_Idaho wrote:Oh, and the folks over here had a good laugh when they were called rabid fans. You couldn´t be further from the truth. Most of them are Dads and Moms that have a family to support and have well-payed jobs. They can buy so much stuff because they have earend the money and because they have fun playing a game that does not take hours just to prepare.

So, by your logic, being a parent or having a well-paying job prevents one from being a rabid fan of anything?

You impenetrable block of granite...you don't see how colossally stupid that retort is? I think there are some language barriers going here, but Christ...

It's not unreasonable to suggest that anyone with 11,700 AP of AT-43 (210,000/18, rounded up), which is comparable to about 6000 points of 40K or FoW, is a really rabid fan of AT-43. It would, admittedly, be easier to make the case for 40K or FoW because if you had built and painted those armies you're looking at very large investments of time, energy, and pride in your models...whereas AT-43 doesn't have any of that and it just means you have money to piss away on toys...

But you're right, what makes someone a rabid fan isn't just loyalty to a company and tremendous consumerism regarding their products. What makes a rabid fan is mindless adherence to company doctrine and refusal to admit to any problems the product has. Basically, rabid fandom is the sort of corporate whoredom you represent. You have absolutely no perspective on AT-43 because you are too busy doing the game oral favors, and therefore as I have said before and relish saying again when it comes to these conversations you are entirely and completely worthless.

Reasonable admissions of fault or shortcoming of something don't make one not a fan of that something - they make someone reasonable. They also make someone more credible. Learn that lesson and you'll be better at what you are trying to do. You have more than half the posters in this thread agreeing with Orlanth and I that the game needs work, not just a touch-up...if you're going to subscribe to the Ad populum fallacy then you should just admit that you're wrong.


Ostensibly if you are working for the entirety of German industry you are very good at what you do.

Go do that.

You're a crappy, unpaid spokesperson for Rackham at best in these conversations. At best. You're not doing your employers who don't actually pay you any credit...your brand of wing-nut-itis actually tends to drive people away from games rather than attract them.

LunaHound wrote:Wolfen / Duncan

You 2 are getting trolled again.
See, when Orlanth resorts to using "stupid , and slowed" to describe something , you know they are out to cause some anger reaction from you 2.

So dont fall for it.

Ok Luna lets put this one to bed.

I refer to many Games Workshop rules as 'stupid' and 'slowed'. This would not offend most posters, in fact none has ever trolled me for it. Many agree with the comments anyway. So you should accept that if I use the same language regarding errors in At-43 it is not personal.
I dont do ad hominem attacks, I look at the issues.

There is nothing to 'fall for'.

Orlanth wrote:
Ok Luna lets put this one to bed.

I refer to many Games Workshop rules as 'stupid' and 'slowed'. This would not offend most posters, in fact none has ever trolled me for it. Many agree with the comments anyway. So you should accept that if I use the same language regarding errors in At-43 it is not personal.
I dont do ad hominem attacks, I look at the issues.There is nothing to 'fall for'.

Till this day Orlanth , im not quite sure if you guys actually understood anything i have told you in the past. ( though chances of me explaining it badly is very possible )

-Do i believe you feel AT-43 needs things changed? ( i personally dont think it needs change , but i respect and believe that you feel they do )
thus i have absolutely no problem in respecting that .

But something i kept telling you and Cairnius over and over again. Lets try to look at this issue from Rhakam's perspective ok?
We might say, 90% people that likes the rules , 10% that dislike the rules. Which is normal and understandable.
But then the ones that dislikes it , are constantly bad mouthing it so badly that one have to wonder , are they serious or just trolling for fun.

Now , im not quite sure how you 2 adults gets things done in real life .
But i believe when people propose changes , they need a proper discussion.

The way i see you 2 doing things , is no different then the Korean monks beating each other up , lighting each other on fire.
The silly act itself basically take away any respect , chance of them listening to you , taking you seriously , and you blame their "ivory tower" for this?

Further more , your past actions of what i said above pretty much took away Rhakam taking you seriously . ( again , not saying you didnt have a point to start )
in other words you blew it. Hence now i understand the new pattern i see from you ( and Cairnius's action from the past , but not so much now )

You guys are now stuck with the ONLY action you can make a difference in . Riot / protest / burn their "ivory tower" down so they will hear you even if you wisper.

I fully understand now that choice is what Cairnius is left with ( if he feels like something is to be done ) . However , i still blamed it only leads to this "option" because he presented the problems badly to start with.

*Edit and thank you Cairnius for admitting you use ad hominem attacks . I have much more respect for the way you do things now , then when we started.

I clearly do use ad hominem attacks when I get pushed far enough...I can only politely suffer fools for so long while also being called a fool for so long...but if one looks at my OP, I was clearly not trolling.

While I was certainly mocking the idea that anyone should be surprised that 2nd Edition was on the way, my OP was praising Rackham for having made a very smart decision to get going with 2nd Ed now rather than wait for the next two armies to be designed, tested, and released, which could have taken two or three years.

Someone else agreed that 2nd Ed was needed and made an eloquent and respectful post as to why he agreed, and he was met first with the rantings of a child and then with nothing but derision. Perhaps you can understand why the AT-43 community over on their forums has such a horrible reputation...go over there and read about people getting turned off to their forums, probably the most important public relations tool Rackham Entertainment has at its disposal, due to their inability to police the wing-nuts and keep people polite and respectful to new gamers.

It boggles the mind.

LunaHound wrote:
Till this day Orlanth , im not quite sure if you guys actually understood anything i have told you in the past.

That depends on whether it made sense.

Actually we were yet to have disagreements over AT-43.

LunaHound wrote:
But something i kept telling you and Cairnius over and over again. Lets try to look at this issue from Rhakam's perspective ok?

But we do. one of the points Cairnius and I agree on is that games should be marketed at larger AP thresholds. it doesnt make a blind bit of difference to us if recommended game sizes are 2500aP or 6000AP, we appear to play outside the theresholds. We only mention it as a decent change for Rackhams benefit not our own.

LunaHound wrote:
We might say, 90% people that likes the rules , 10% that dislike the rules. Which is normal and understandable.

but do they. Maybe 90% of those who stay like the rules. I have had players give up omn AT-43 because of the rules. Are they part of a lonely 10% or a didfferent statistic of non At-43 players. I think the latter because they dont feel like coming back. Some turn away at the door never get into the hobby never buy a boxset because they see the rules and see the suckage.

LunaHound wrote:
But then the ones that dislikes it , are constantly bad mouthing it so badly that one have to wonder , are they serious or just trolling for fun now.

Trolling who? when I repeatedly call Games Worshop studio retards I am in good company, see my siggie by the way. I have yet to be as colourful to Rackham studio, and dont think I will be. but what critique I show gets jumped on by fanbois and Sentinels alike. Domnt worry about me, I can handle it.

Now , im not quite sure how you 2 adults gets things done in real life .
But i believe when people propose changes , they need a proper discussion.

LunaHound wrote:
The way i see you 2 doing things , is no different then the Korean monks beating each other up , lighting each other on fire.

I dont see the connection, and I certainly dont play with matches.

LunaHound wrote:
The silly act itself basically take away any respect , chance of them listening to you , taking you seriously , and you blame their "ivory tower" for this?

I doubt they listen anyway, because of the times I have had to correct their interperetations of my words. But I can stand my own corner, thankyou.
If any respect is lost it is due to ad hominem attacks. Some accuse me or Cairnius of trolling, so its reported as trolling, no matter how polite or on topic we stay, or how much we are trolled. You should haver noticed this from prior threads.
We normally get on, but now you are turning against me, because of my logically defined disagreements witth Rackham rules. I am not attacking anyone, not trolling anyone. I see errors in ther game and state them clearly, typos allowing. When these comments are challenged I defend my case rather than abandon them and be assumed 'wrong' by third parties because I wont defend them. It is bothersome thatm any of the counter-arguments are not based on subjects other than the matter at hand, but I will not be held accountable for any others lack of debating ethics.

In other words , what im trying to say is .

Stop WHINNING , present your cases properly , politely on the AT-43 main board where RAKAM company READS.
Whinning on DAKKA DAKKA where you guys claim the sentinels were faking their connection with Rhakam does you no good anyways ( what you guy said about Wolfen )
( AND if what you said is true ) why whine to the same people you have for the past 6 months and expect ANY CHANGES?

My mind is boggled too ( the high lighted part )
and for gods sake Orlanth, stop quoting wrong things ,
you seem to have missed the point again .

LunaHound wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Till this day Orlanth , im not quite sure if you guys actually understood anything i have told you in the past. ( though chances of me explaining it badly is very possible )

-Do i believe you feel AT-43 needs things changed? ( i personally dont think it needs change , but i respect and believe that you feel they do )
thus i have absolutely no problem in respecting that .

But something i kept telling you and Cairnius over and over again. Lets try to look at this issue from Rhakam's perspective ok?
We might say, 90% people that likes the rules , 10% that dislike the rules. Which is normal and understandable.
But then the ones that dislikes it , are constantly bad mouthing it so badly that one have to wonder , are they serious or just trolling for fun.

Now , im not quite sure how you 2 adults gets things done in real life .
But i believe when people propose changes , they need a proper discussion.

The way i see you 2 doing things , is no different then the Korean monks beating each other up , lighting each other on fire.
The silly act itself basically take away any respect , chance of them listening to you , taking you seriously , and you blame their "ivory tower" for this?

Hi Luna. Let's not fight. I like your painting.

I think the issue here is that we really don't know if 90% of the people who play/have played AT-43 think things are just fine. I suspect that this is closer to the truth:

1) People who don't like AT-43 don't, in their minds, waste their time posting about it. You will not hear from them on message forums. You will not be able to count or estimate their numbers. They could very well be a silent majority and you would never know.

2) The people who DO like AT-43 will post frequently and often, thus creating the perception of AT-43 being very popular and "just fine the way it is." They could be a vocal minority and you would never know that, either.


People like Orlanth and I are an anomaly. We are not exceptions that make any rule...but we are two wargamers quite heavily invested in AT-43 who are not also fanbois. You will hear stories of people who tried AT-43, didn't like it, and then immediately sold their armies and got out if you look for them online. Then there are people like Orlanth and I who try a new game, recognize its potential, but then do not think it is as good as it could be but see promise.

So we talk about it online.

If there is something I have tried to get through to you, as well, it is the appropriate response to people like Orlanth and I: you talk to them.

You do not accuse them of being trolls or otherwise attempt to shut them down. You do not question their motives or ask for justifications. You talk to them. You may very well find, as I know you will find with Orlanth from seeing him patiently respond to Wolfen point-by-point above when Wolfen's posts were clearly the work of a child, that you will be met with stringent debate and defense of points, but also with respect.

You will get reflected back at you what you offer to the person. I will quite politely talk about the sorts of criticisms I have with AT-43 if you take me up on it...but meet me with derision and I have no real reason to maintain decorum. Sure, I would like to see AT-43 succeed because I have an investment in it, but if and when the game dies I will sell the remaining $700+ out of the $1000+ worth of AT-43 stuff I originally had for pennies on the dollar on eBay just to make room in my house for something else, and I won't look back twice. Therefore, I have no motivation to remain a patient and supportive critic if I'm met with disrespect.


I would suggest to you that the fact that Rackham's previous plan was to release all eight armies before releasing a 2nd Edition of the rulebook - something that was said to me time and time and time again by other Rackham Sentinels while I was a Rackham Sentinel - and that now they've changed course and are going to produce that rulebook after the ONI army starts getting released that you are, in fact, seeing Rackham Entertainment listening to people like Orlanth and I who actually speak out about the problems we see with AT-43 rather than just abandoning ship.

Being a squeaky wheel serves a purpose. Someone has to say the Emperor has no clothes. Have you ever been working on a model and everyone you meet says it's great, they heap praise upon the model, but then one person out of twenty has a valid criticism of your work? You may not agree with it at first, but you choose to think about it...you look at the model differently...maybe you try a different technique to address what the person said...and you come up with a better final product on account of listening and considering rather than reacting and responding?

I think Orlanth clearly demonstrates that he's thought about his criticisms of AT-43. Again, he's done a better job than perhaps anyone I've come across since February when I got into AT-43 in pointing out the design-based problems with the game system, and he comes at it from a position of wargaming experience. I've tried to do the same in the past when it comes to mission setups and terrain rules, as I'm less interested in crunching army design numbers.

I don't think Orlanth expects anyone to march to the beat of his tune any more than I do. That's not the point. The point is that we're trying to suggest solutions for the problems we see rather than just bitch about or abandon ship. You then have a choice to take us up on the discussion(s), argue angrily with us, or ignore us.

Which choice is more productive?

I would love to get a bunch of people on board to test the mission generator/universal terrain system that myself and a friend have been working on, because we can't do it fast enough. He's busy as hell, I play Flames of War more often than not as I can only game once a week and it is going to be devoted to the game I love the most, and so we cannot test it often enough - but we have six standard missions developed and half of them have been tested and are working. The terrain rules are proving to be pretty perfect to adapt anything you could thrown down on the table at 28mm scale to AT-43 play following the spirit of the rules.

With some more help we could have it done in a month or two, and perhaps then we'd have something to put out there which Rackham could also pay some attention to and perhaps get some ideas.

Yes Cairnius , thats the point i have been saying all along.
Hence why i said i believe that you guys want to change things that you feel would be better for the game.
And why im getting frustrated at Orlanth for just telling me " your replies have nothing to do with the game issue "
Its exactly to do with game issue , i would say having people actually listen then ignore his points would be a nice start?

But as i'll say again , you guys are doing it wrong . The way you guys present things are so rude and harsh that i doubt anyone here takes you 2 seriously.

As sad as this may sound , i might be the only active AT-43 related dakkite in this forum that cares about what you 2 are saying. And i 'll say again , do it in a different way , so everyone will be willing to listen again.

LunaHound wrote:In other words , what im trying to say is .

Stop WHINNING , present your cases properly , politely on the AT-43 main board where RAKAM company READS.
Whinning on DAKKA DAKKA where you guys claim the sentinels were faking their connection with Rhakam does you no good anyways ( what you guy said about Wolfen )
( AND if what you said is true ) why whine to the same people you have for the past 6 months and expect ANY CHANGES?

You've asked me this in the past, but it was accompanied by demands for hearing my motivations which I found irritating and so I did not answer you...but you've moderated since then so I will answer you now.

I, personally, stopped presenting my points politely on the AT-43 English forums for two reasons:


1) I am not convinced that anyone at Rackham other than their Community Manager, Martin Ferrier, a top-notch act btw, actually reads anything over there very often.

To Rackham's credit you will sometimes get responses from Jean Bey himself. He answered a question I once asked about production schedules for the Bunker Accessory Set. By and large, however, I never had the impression that the company takes their forums very seriously.

Battlefront, on the other hand, is AMAZINGLY responsive on their forums. One can never doubt receiving a timely and solid answer on just about anything. Best game company forums I have ever had the pleasure to use.


2) The AT-43 English forum is populated by and large with wingnuts who swallow whatever Rackham has to offer them and submit the lamest of defenses for stupid things the company does. It's not a community that is receptive to constructive criticism. Drink the Kool-Aid or get out.

Were it just me that bore witness to this one could argue that it was just me...but on a regular basis new posters enter their forums with polite language and the best of intentions but as soon as the game gets criticized they get leapt on by the wing-nuts. They are so over-sensitive to criticism that it really speaks of lack of faith in their game. Look at the behavior of the Sentinels who followed me out here when I posted my original review. Utter hysterics.

Say what you will about Games Workshop, but when they had forums I seem to remember them being pretty tight-assed about things like this. It may have been why they ultimately shut the boards down, because it wasn't worth the time and cost to police them not when there are sites maintained by others like Dakka Dakka and Warseer out there doing the job for free for them...but while they had forums they were businesspeople and handled them accordingly.

Sometimes the AT-43 English forums resemble a first grade jungle gym on recess...


3) The way Rackham handles rules questions does not exactly inspire confidence and make me feel it is worth trying to suss problems out over there. You will get rulings from JB Lullien-Kochanski though they often make little sense, don't get a lot of justification, and are usually accompanied by the missive "Just have fun!" when the lack of rules clarity was what was getting in the way of fun and which necessitated the asking of the question in the first place.

For example:

Q: How do I resolve contradicting/conflicting special abilities?

A: [he addresses a specific case adequately, then adds this:]

But the subject of your question was "how to solve pssible contradicting rules ?".
The answer is : talk about it with your adversary. Find how to use these rules, even with the contradiction you have found. We are not in front of you, we are not part of your battle, neither are we some kind of universal all-knowing gods. So, you must use your common sense and find your solution for your games.

...

That's a joke, right? No, JB, it IS your job to be universal all-knowing Gods when it comes to your rules. You wrote them and were supposed to test them before you released them! That goes for any game company, not just Rackham Entertainment.

When you get a rules question, you answer it. You codify the ruling. You compile all these corrections and at a certain point you issue an official FAQ which is the end-all, be-all for rules questions. Here's the answer, stuff yourself if you don't like it. That is the JOB of a game designer, and the responsibility of a company which takes your money for their product. It is professionalism and customer service.

If you have so many rules questions coming in that you cannot issue a static FAQ and have that be the end of it, that means that either your rules syntax sucks or your rules suck. Either situation is unacceptable. Telling people to "use their common sense" is not acceptable. Ostensibly they have common sense but that didn't help them because the rules syntax sucked. If GW issued a statement like this there would be riots in the streets. Remember when "Rules As Written" was issued by Jervis? The "common sense" defense is worse.

The amount of scorn which Rackham Entertaiment gets heaped upon it for this sort of nonsense is legion. What gets me is that this is a legitimate business concern. Wargamers want solid rules. We want things clearly defined, even if we don't agree with the rulings. At least we know how to play it.

Here's something else:

http://en-forum.at-43.com/viewtopic.php?t=6950

Someone puts together an unofficial FAQ because Rackham Entertainment won't do it themselves. It stops being updated because that same someone has a life. Why isn't someone at Rackham officially updating a FAQ page like this so that volunteers don't need ot do it? When's the last time an official FAQ/Errata was released?

I don't want to hear about corporate restructuring, being busy, or having a small staff. feth you: do your fething jobs or close down your business. Sorry, that's just the $1000 I spent on AT-43 talking...

Rules corrections often come up as answers to questions asked on the forums but are never released in FAQs, like the "clarification" on the Cypher Creation Routine:

http://en-forum.at-43.com/viewtopic.php?p=30244&highlight=creation#30244

Major change to the Cypher army, yet no one who doesn't read the AT-43 forums would know about it, and if you and some friends were learning the game for yourselves for the first time you'd never know you were playing the game wrong. This is colossal incompetence.



Luna, I refer again to the Battlefront Flames of War website and forums...I am intelligent enough to realize that the official forums can be the best place to go to for questions/problems. You want information straight from the source, right?

You need faith in the company first, however. Battlefront has never failed to disappoint. When I have issues with the game I go there, not here.

Rackham Entertainment disappointed on a regular basis when I was active on their forums, and they're still doing it now that I am gone. Honestly, even though most of the people responding in AT-43 threads over here and elsewhere online are still Rackham wing-nuts defending their game with fanaticism you are more likely to meet people like Orlanth here on Dakka Dakka who are interested in critical, meaningful debate about AT-43.

He and I disagree on a lot of stuff about the game, but at least we can have the discussion over here. We still have to contend with the wing nuts but not in as high a density as on the AT-43 forums themselves...



And last but not least:

4) I personally think Rackham pays more attention to sites like Dakka Dakka than they do their own forums. They get unfiltered criticism over here. They get wingnut yes-men over there. This input is much more valuable - so this is the ground to stake out and fight on if you give a damn, not the AT-43 forums.

Seriously Cairnus...being one if those so called 'wing nuts' and 'utter hysterics' as you put it, I just have to shake my head in disbelief.
You accuse other people of whining? Give me a break lol. All you do is bash Rackham, its products, staff and pretty much everything associated with it.
The updated rules and revisions coming in this 2nd Edition are PROOF that Rackham does listen.
As for the horrible contradictions and seeming lack of interest on Rackhams part that you seem so fond of pointing out? I have never had a problem hashing out contradictions with another gamer. And any gamer worth playing against shld be able to think just a whee bit outside the box shouldn't they?
Now I am not going to bash any other type of game or company but, in my reckoning at least, a game set up where every possible wrinkle, every slightly obscure thing you could think of, is all laid in a massively comprehensive, exhaustive set of rules seems really boring.
AT-43 is an excellant game with fairly decent online support. Of course they are not going to give strict rulings on everything! You call yourself a gamer? Figure it out youtself for petes sake lol.
Let's face it. You and this Orlanth character despise Rackham for some reason. I find it very hard to believe that you have so much invested in a game that you apparently hate so much. No-one wants to hear it. Going on game forums and repeatedly bashing? Yes, incredibly bold and grown up of you. Have you ever said anything positive? Hmmmmm....not thinking so.
So in closing...Yes, there is a new rules edition coming out. And yes they will be updating the rules and clarifying many of the contradictions. But this is a result of CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and feedback from true gamers. Not mealymouthed complainers like you and others.
That is all...goodbye...

I have no idea who you are, Seabo...

The updated rules and revisions coming in the 2nd Edition rulebook which is reported as being in the pipeline MAY be proof that Rackham does listen. We'll see what's in the rulebook. Right now I would say that it is proof that they are recognizing the reality that there are some things they need to do, one of which is revising the rules. Another was lowering their starting price point. I called both of those things months before the Army Boxes were announced, and now the new rulebook is on the way as well.

I don't care about your hashing out contradictions with other players...the fact that you have to do so argues my point. Any gamer shouldn't have to think "out of the box" when it comes to rules. You think out of the box when it comes to army composition, strategy and tactics. It's the fething company's job to build that box for you as solidly as possible. That's why the previous business plan has had another essential cog tossed out the window and Rackham is changing their tune and working on the new rulebook now and not after armies 7 and 8 come out, because they agree.

seabo_76 wrote: in my reckoning at least, a game set up where every possible wrinkle, every slightly obscure thing you could think of, is all laid in a massively comprehensive, exhaustive set of rules seems really boring.

It is with comments like these that AT-43 players make themselves sound like wargaming noobs.. You think a game with comprehensive rules where you don't have to haggle over situations, where the structure of the game is clear-cut such that you can focus on the game and not how to play the game, is boring?

So, what you are saying is you've never played a really well-designed game.

Flames of War is a game with comprehensive rules which is incredibly strategic (that which takes place prior to contact), tactical (that which takes place after contact), incredibly balanced (perhaps more so than any other game I've been exposed to - it has this industry reputation for a reason), and the online support is amazing.

Go play it. Learn the game. Give yourself some breadth of experience and a method of comparison. Go through the process of becoming a new Flames of War player, learning the rules, coming up with questions, meeting the community, and then come back here and tell me that AT-43 measures up while hooked up to a lie detector test that will trigger a trap door into a pool filled with hungry sharks underneath you if you are not 100% honest.

Rackham has a lot of work to do before they deserve to be put on the same shelf as Battlefront or Games Workshop. They may get there, but not if they don't accept that they're not doing nearly as good of a job as they need to in order to compete.

@Cairnius

Sigh, even proper reading is a challenge for you.

I wrote "major" company. And with regard to credits, the last time I checked my name was in the impressum of every product I worked on. Oh, and the payment was according to the requirements of the BDÜ (German Translators Society). Of course I do not sho up here with my real name. And you would be surprised how many from our business check Dakka now and then because there are sometimes really good ideas and talented people showing up. But most of us don´t post because of rabid fanatics and if they needed further proof they got it thanks to this thread. Sadly for people like you we also have our blacklists we put people on and those lists circulate between companies.

And to be honest I played Battletech from the beginning on, this may give you a short insight at how long I am connected to this business.

Have a nice day Funboy.

LunaHound wrote:In other words , what im trying to say is .

Stop WHINNING , present your cases properly , politely on the AT-43 main board where RAKAM company READS.

1. I am not whining. Having a different point of view is not whining.
2. I am a Dakka memeber I post here. I dont expect Rackham to listen much anyway.

LunaHound wrote:
Whinning on DAKKA DAKKA where you guys claim the sentinels were faking their connection with Rhakam does you no good anyways ( what you guy said about Wolfen )
( AND if what you said is true ) why whine to the same people you have for the past 6 months and expect ANY CHANGES?

My comments about Sentinels have entirely been around the detected phenomena that they gank critics. It is all about politenes and the right of critics of AT-43 to point out holes in the system. Those who wish to try and refute these claims had better do so on the issues.
Also you are mistaking me for how you have come to assume Cairnius to be, just because I have come to agree with a lot of what he says, and am seeing now the same blatant hostility.

LunaHound wrote:
( what you guy said about Wolfen )

I said I will not be silenced by Sentinels, Wolfen pointed out he wasnt one. Fair enough, if he isnt he isnt. He behaves like one though, and it is interesting to note that the predominant feature of a Sentinel on these boards is not an unofficial spokesperson for Rackham bit a silencer of Rackham critics. There has been way too much of the latter these days. Sentinels should be first in line to ensure behaviour, more often they egg it on. Either way I will stay on topic, keep to logic, and post ahead if I see something relevant that needs comment on. When it comes to AT-43 rules I have a lot to say, this I do - this I have done. If you can see where I am wrong and you want to reply you have two choices Luna:

- Quote it and point it out in a post. I wont bite your head off for it if I reply. I am happy to openly concede points outright or accept that there are two outcomes or the matter is subjective or whatever happens to be the case if your logic holds true. Pride is the destroyer of logical debate, and I dont subscribe to it.

- Write off the entire post as 'trolling', 'whining' or 'ranting'. Which would be a far clearer case of trolling whining or ranting than anything I have written here or elsewhere. Trolling isnt content, whining isnt content, ranting can be content but only if unnecessarily repetetive. While on this: asking Sentinels et al to behave themselves is necessarily repetetive.

LunaHound wrote:
My mind is boggled too ( the high lighted part )
and for gods sake Orlanth, stop quoting wrong things ,
you seem to have missed the point again .

What have I misquoted? Tell me and I will 'correct' it, or you.