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.

This is my first wargame review over on the Samurai Gunslinger. I will be doing one every week, so any feedback on the quality or format of the review as well as what people would like to see in the future would be great.

With TGN just naming AT-43 as wargame of the year, I felt that this had to be the first one I tried.


Enjoy

AT-43 Review

Why are there no spaces between paragraphs? Or
indentations? (One or the other)

Comparing the game mechanics with 40K is not much use to people who don't know about 40K.

You mention the Therians' teleport ability before you explain who the Therians are.

Hordes not hoards (of Red Blok.)

Finally, the paragraph about the Karmans refers to them as Therians, which is confusing.

Despite the above niggles I congratulate you on the effort. You have made some good points, firstly about the card activation and command points, and also about the appeal of pre-painted versus unpainted figure games.

Since the pre-painted aspect is important it would be worth criticising the quality of the painting in the box set. Also it would be useful to know what is included in the core box set and perhaps some indication of the range of add-ons available.

I'm curious what an average "army investment" would be
for a playable, non-starter force.

malfred wrote:I'm curious what an average "army investment" would be
for a playable, non-starter force.

2000 points is an average tourney game, 1500-2000 points is a normal casual game. For that points level you're probably spending about $300 or so full retail. I've found that you're paying about 2/3's the cost of what you pay for 40k, but it's all built and basecoated (or painted for those that don't do touch ups) Of course in AT-43 you only need around 40 models at 2000 points instead of 50-100 in 40k.

Kilkrazy wrote:Comparing the game mechanics with 40K is not much use to people who don't know about 40K.

You mention the Therians' teleport ability before you explain who the Therians are.

Hordes not hoards (of Red Blok.)

Finally, the paragraph about the Karmans refers to them as Therians, which is confusing.

Despite the above niggles I congratulate you on the effort. You have made some good points, firstly about the card activation and command points, and also about the appeal of pre-painted versus unpainted figure games.

Since the pre-painted aspect is important it would be worth criticising the quality of the painting in the box set. Also it would be useful to know what is included in the core box set and perhaps some indication of the range of add-ons available.

Thanks very much for taking the time to read the review and more importantly for providing some valuable and constructive criticism. If I am going to provide a valuable service with weekly reviews then I need to get better with each review.

I will make corrections and some additions based on all the suggestions. I will also add a Section to each review on the contents of the basic set as well as the investment needed for a standard army, I think those will be very usesful to people thinking about picking up the game.

Thanks again!

OK, I went back and made some corrections as well as added pictures for all 4 factions to help give a better idea what I am talking about, hope it helps make the review more usefull.

Standard game is 2000-2500 AP and standard size 6"x4" .

Duncan_Idaho wrote:Standard game is 2000-2500 AP and standard size 6"x4" .

We play on a 4 X 4, sometimes 3 X 3 and things work just fine. I've never seen it played on a 6 X 4. That would give the high accuracy armies a bit of an advantage.

Well, since as translators of the german edition we do quite some playtesting and ended with 4"x6" as the best solution. 4x4 is still possible, but not so good if you want to keep the game balanced. Most of the problems people have with the game stem from using to small a playing field.

(Haven't read the review)

@Malfred: My Red Blok force is running less than $200, including rulebooks and accessories (yes, I bought the silly tape measure). I think it's cheaper to go UNA or Therian by buying the box set as a base, but YMMV.

EDIT: to be clear, I'm running a 2000 point Frontline force, but with a fair amount of infantry.

How much for a Karman force, you think?

Duncan_Idaho wrote:Well, since as translators of the german edition we do quite some playtesting and ended with 4"x6" as the best solution. 4x4 is still possible, but not so good if you want to keep the game balanced. Most of the problems people have with the game stem from using to small a playing field.

well, we'll agree to disagree on that. Thats just too much room. I just see it as terribly unbalanced. There would be no use for Star Troopers or Krasny Soldaty as they only have about a max range of less than 3 feet? They would never shoot in a game on a 4 X 6, or only shoot needing 6's. The long range stuff would be much overpowered. Every US game I've seen played in about 5 different stores have all played on 4 X 4 with no problems.

Even the book scenarios are pretty much done on a 2 X 4. The first two being open, non split force games, are open to gamers interpretation. Maybe we'll try a game on a 4 X 6 and see what the difference for us would be.

Table size must be relative to the number of troops and the amount of terrain. A 6*4 table wants 50% more troops and terrain than a 4*4 table, I should think.

With the standard 2000-2500 you will need that much space or else it is not really fun to play the game. AT is not 40K, don´t try to play it this way. And 2000-2500 because only then you can make better use of the company-rooster system.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:...because only then you can make better use of the company-rooster system.

Is the rooster some sort of company mascot?



BYE

Duncan_Idaho wrote:With the standard 2000-2500 you will need that much space or else it is not really fun to play the game. AT is not 40K, don´t try to play it this way. And 2000-2500 because only then you can make better use of the company-rooster system.

I've never played it like 40k, hence the 4 X 4 table size. At 2000 points, i just dont' see needing any bigger space and you haven't sited any reasons why I'd want to, while I've given you some reasons why 4 X 4 is better. Anything bigger than 4 X 4 and you lose out on great mechanics like overwatch (you'd be too far to do any harm to anyone, what woud be the point of going on overwatch) and would lose out on the extremely tactical first game activation movements as you come on the board. If you're playing deployment zones, maybe 4 X 6 would work, other than that, no.

Doesn't terrain help you use overwatch better?

malfred wrote:How much for a Karman force, you think?

No idea, though from reading the army book, it seems like they'll be a pretty low-model count army: just big and tough and fast. Probably about the same as a RB force, or a UNA/Therian without buying a boxed set. So less than $300 for sure.

@ malfred

depends. Are you talking about help in shooting while overwatch, or help as in being shot and avoid being killed? If it was the latter, then yes terrain will help you

Less than 300?

Oooh.

2.0. I was talking about helping mitigate gun armies vs.
less gun armies on a larger table, since that was cited
as a reason to play on a 4x4.

malfred wrote:Less than 300?

Oooh.

2.0. I was talking about helping mitigate gun armies vs.
less gun armies on a larger table, since that was cited
as a reason to play on a 4x4.

Looking at the Warstore, you can do 2 Anakonga units + UAs for $80 ($20/box), and K-fighters for $24. That's 2 * and 1 *** units, at max strength, with officers and max special weapons. You're talking ~1500 points (depending on ranks and things like grenades etc) before adding Trikes and special characters. I'd expect trikes to cost about the same as other AFVs. So 2000 points for $200 seems pretty reasonable to me.

If that's the warstore price, then I'm guessing retail price
is 25 or thereabouts? Interesting.

I haven't bought much online because I want to make my
local shop (17 miles away, lol) secure for another 30 years
of life (or however long it has been around).

malfred wrote:Less than 300?

Oooh.

2.0. I was talking about helping mitigate gun armies vs.
less gun armies on a larger table, since that was cited
as a reason to play on a 4x4.

Everyone has a "gun" army of sorts. Close combat is actually pretty rare in the game for the most part. But like the Star Troopers I cited, to give a bit of insight on the rules, most weapons have 'battlefield range' sort of. There are no max ranges listed on a weapon. Instead every weapon has an accuracy rating. There is one chart that rules the game that says anything over a -6 is an auto failure. Star Troopers are a Accuracy 3. Range in 10cm bands is a difficulty. To make it this quicker, 90cm is an auto failure for the accuracy range for a Star Trooper (Acc of 3 - 9 range bands = -6). Sorry if thats confusing, but its related to my point. They do have better troops with better weapons, the average being a 5 accuracy. So a weapon that can only go about 30" (80cm) and they can only move about 5 1/2" and still shoot, and without any sort of transport vehicle in the game 'yet', it would really make this squad useless on a 4 X 6. There are no deployment zones for AT-43, you come on your board edge when you activate. So you come on with your move and you're over 3' away from the nearest enemy still. The game isn't 40k. It's not about travelling across the board as fast as you can to kill the other guy (thats an abstraction, not a slam on the game, as I still enjoy a game of 40k now and then). AT-43 is about tense beginning movements. Trying to get to your cover and overwatch the firing lanes as well as you can, hoping to sometimes out-overwatch the other guy, so that the last few activations really have to plan their move to keep from triggering too much. From that point on, its about securing objectives and using cover to max benefit to try to hold those objectives, which is intense on a 4 X 4 board. A 4 X 6 would really water that process down I think and the intensity of the first turn movements, and one of the reasons this has been my main game since this last summer would mean so little.

Thats my longwinded 2 cents

Sounds like I have to try it to see.

Too bad my friends are mostly painter-gamers.

We use quite some ammount of terrain, normally at least 1/4 of the playing field is covered with it. There is not much sense in playing AT in an wide open area. The scenarios in the rulebook are nices as introductions but in no way useful for tourneys.

I STRONGLY agree with 2.0 on the subject of playing table size.

4'x6' for anything less than 4000 pts is a game where you take all day to resolve a game. In 4000 points, you have almost twice as many units, so the spread works well on a 4'x6' table.

Thats not too say we dont play on a 4'x6' table on occasion in smaller games, it just takes a bloody long time to resolve anything when you have a table that is filled with intervening terrain (as it should be). AT-43 is a very bloody game where casualties (when taken) are atrocious. If you have a handle on the rules, then there is no reason that a 2000 point game should take 2 hours to resolve. It should take an hour, max. Taking 4 hours to move across the table to get into range really isnt "Fun". But that last point is subjective, as many people's idea of fun, is infact, watching paint dry.

3'x4' seems to be optimal for around 2000-2500 points (which is half the size of what Idaho suggests as "standard").
Rackham itself also seems to want you to play close to 3'x4' if you use the missions in the book (hint: each square is 10cm in the missions, which makes a board 120cmx60cm or 47.2"x23.6").

I will agree with Idaho that the missions in the rulebook are meant more for tournies, but if your trying to learn how to play the game, there is no substitute. I will also add that if you want to play a wargame in a tourney environment, don't bother with 40K, as AT-43 is much more sound if you want a better tournament.

As for how much armies cost...depends on what youre getting. I made a pretty cheap RedBlok "Frontline" army that came out to $230 at full retail which consists of 3 Nakovalny Sierps (these are proxied, for the AT-43 know-it-all who'll argue that they aren't released yet), Urod, 2 full squads of strielitz kollosus, and a minimal dragonov squad.

But it can be expensive, especially considering how the minis are packaged nowadyas. Case in point: Red Blok Infantry units to full maximum potential. If you want a full sqaud of Spetznats with all the trimmings, it can cost you about $90 just for that lone squad...

As for being back on topic, I will have to say that it is both a good thing and a mistake to relate AT-43 to 40K in the review.

40K is the most popular tabletop Wargame out there is game shops, so most people will need something to relate to, but comparing 40K to AT-43 is very hard to do correctly (if at all).

[edit]

I do however, really agree with this closing line from the review. Its so very well said, especially the last sentence.

"In the end I do not believe that games like AT-43 will take much audience away from hobby games like Warhammer or Warmachine. I think that, in fact they will be a boon for such games, by bringing in people who never would have considered a table top game due to the intimidation factor of having to assemble and paint your army. Some of those players will eventually desire a deeper experience and move over to the painted figures camp, most will not. Those that do will add to that fan base of the hobby, and the rest never would have considered it anyway. I can only see this as a win for everyone, and the sooner that we all accept that new is not bad, and enjoy AT-43 for what it is the more everyone will benefit."

Sorry, but some got a lot wrong here.

- The scenarios in the book are for introduction, in no way do they offer useful scenarios for tourneys. They were ment to offer a starting point, hence the more complex Damocles campaign.

- 2000-2500 points over 6 rounds with two players takes no longer than two hours with beginners. With 4 beginning players 2-3 hours the longest. With experienced players it takes between 1- 1 1/2 hour for two and 2 - 2 1/2 for four players. I do not know what takes you that long. And besides we use nearly every option available to us during the game. Withe some games we have so much scenery on the table that 1/2 of the table is covered and the game still does not slow down much.

Finally, I more and more understand why other game developers do not write any longer on forums. Especially when gamers think they know more about the game than people working on the game.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:Finally, I more and more understand why other game developers do not write any longer on forums. Especially when gamers think they know more about the game than people working on the game.

Jesus christ on a roman hurt stick...of all the pontificating asses around, you have to be the biggest one, eh?
I dont see "Andre Winter" anywhere in the credits for people who have designed the AT-43 game.
Who the are you to act as though you are so integral to the game that anything anyone else says is gak

Yes, you know more than anyone else.
All should bow down to you.
You are the last word on everything and no one elses opinions matter.

You have proven this time and time again every time you rear your ugly internet persona here.

I hope that keeps working well for you in life as it does on the intarnetz!

Finally, I more and more wish game companies would better research who they pick to represent their games in public fora. The assitude you display could get you kicked from such programs...Oh I forgot, there is no longer a sentinel program... but you are in your own mind, so that all that matters.

Double post

Now wait a minute. I haven't really seen any unnecessary
information in the post. All of it was based on player
observtions and made by people who have spent money
on the game. This isn't like the people who speculate on
how to win at a game they've never played ("In
Warmachine you lose if your commander dies, so people
should just buy lots and lots of options for their commanders
so they're hard to kill.") They're giving impressions based
on actual gameplay.

I've seen other threads devolve into flaming game systems,
Duncan, but this one wasn't one of them.