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.

Episode 7 will be up within an hour of this post! In Episode 7 we give a detailed review of Shadows Over Camelot, an interesting Co-op game from Days of Wonder.

We also introduce a new segment: "Mullling Mechanics" in which we examine how different games approach solving common tasks in miniature war games.

All that plus our usual "Not too horrible" sense of humor and a "Gamers Travel log of Italy."

Also be sure to watch the site for "D6G Incoming #1" which is a bonus show episode in which we respond to listener feedback and comments.

Happy listening & please let us know what you think!

Our site: http://www.TheD6Generation.com


Link to the discussion about Episode 6:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/211323.page

Great episode as always.

The problem I find with setup is not so much the method used but the terrain on the table. Usually there isn't enough of it in post modern games. these games shouldn't really be played where one side or both do "The last thing they would expect. A day light charge over the minefield" (Rimmer, Red Dwarf) there is a reason why ACW(Pickets charge) and WW1 were so terrible. I know GW brought out City fight to try and bring in more terrain, but the average 40k game still has around 4-6 pieces of major terrain which makes little to no difference with that lascannon blowing up your landraider. Terrain isn't a big deal for games set in the past because it is all about the light brigade charge.

I just like the idea that deployment is not about how the enemy sets up but about the terrain available and how you can best use terrain to play your strategy. It's something often over looked in wargaming and its a shame when there is so much time some poeple put in to those hedges, walls, houses and hills.

Alternating unit setup makes sense to me as it better emulates fog of war.

I prefer the Lord of the rings version I move you move, I shoot you shoot, I attack you attack and changing who goes first in that turn, its the best comprimise. The mechanic of potentially changing who goes first in the turn best represents to me initiative within a battle and that it sways from one side to another. I believe that in warfare one side has initiative and is able to keep dominance in the battle but at some point that dominance changes to the other side, ie waterloo or black hawk down(great movie).

I never got GW and the BS, why didn't they just have 4+ or what ever the roll is meant to be. There aren't that many modifiers that would change the BS so why have it as a seperate number? Just another table to memorise, I know its small but I just don't get it. WS v WS works when hitting in CC but it lends really powerful models to being hard to take down and unbalancing the game unfairly. Again the LOTR version of CC to hit makes more sense. This is where there is a roll off and in the instance of a draw then their stats are looked up, that gives balance where a really powerful character can be taken down if he's unlucky or overwhelmed by hoards of enemy. At least LOTR ranged to hit has the roll required rather than the arbitrary number that you have to go to a table to look up.

I like the idea of PP but that fits more with the olden day style warfare where the target has more of a say over whether they get hit. Flames of war makes some sense but if your out in the open all the skill in the world wont help you ie WW1.

Well that's my two cents

Man, that was an excellent point on terrain in deployment. That whole segement something was niggling in the back of my mind, and damned if THAT WASN'T IT!

Good catch. Hopefully we'll be able to do a quick comment on that next episode. I think Terrain is one of the single most important variables in deployment . . . and we MISSED it!

Good call, Kingcaboose.

Good call.

~Craig

A note about Terrain:

I didn't include covering terrain in the "deployment" section because some games have their own built in mechanics for setting it up.

i.e. There is a separate step for setting up terrain prior to deployment.

I think that's a topic for a future mulling mechanics!

Thanks for the well thought out feedback!!

Fair enough, looking forward to it.

The terrain thing was in response to your comments in the show on how people setup in 40k without knowing who was going first and setting up in the hope they get the first turn. I grew up with ACW wargames where the terrain was just as important as the troops. These days I play more 40k and miss some of the emphasis on terrain.

I would like to get involved with PP games but being in Brisbane Aus we don't have any stores that sell it (as far as I know). I'm also an accedental player like craig and I have never seen it played in the clubs I've been to. I would proxy a game but as you said you need to buy the minis to get the character stats to play it.

Yeah, I think King Caboose is talking about the effects of terrain on deployment, rather than the setting up of the terrain itself. And that is so basic I think we missed the forest for the trees so to speak. Obviously, terrain has a huge effect on deployment.

And that sounds like it could be another mulling mechanics right there!

First of all, GREAT PODCASTS!!!! Even though I do not play WH anymore nor have tried PP's game I enjoy listening to you show. I like your discussions of board and rpgs, and the banter between the hosts. Thanks!

BUT, I am a gamer, so I have to bitch about something....

I hope you give AT-43 another chance, because I have never had a problem with deployment in AT-43. I was baffled that you were baffled and a little surprised that it was dismissed so quickly. It is in the rulebook, though I won't argue with you that some aspects of deployment (drop zones) are contentious, basic deployment is covered in the rules.

Briefly:

I think what may confuse you is that basic deployment is not a separate phase or turn. A player activates a unit (flips the card) and deploys onto the board as a normal movement and can do whatever he normally can do based upon LOS, etc. Players order their units in the first turn, roll for Authority (initiative) and begin deploying units onto the board.

Where you can deploy (access zones) are based on the scenario and there are many variations beyond the simple your side of the board vs. my side of the board found in many other games. I think these variations are a real asset and make deployment an interesting and dynamic part of the game!

If you would like me to break down these variations, please let me know. I don't want to preach at you.

I also think you are wrong about range. My defense is just a little thought experiment. Look at the relative size of a person standing next to you and the same person 50 yards away -- big difference when it comes to targeting them. This a basic tenant of all shooting ranges as well, and the keystone of marksmanship when you think about it. Cover, etc. is covered in other mechanics of AT-43 -- though AT-43 rather unabashedly keeps modifiers and such to an absolute minimum as speed of play is one of its hallmarks. In other words, I am not arguing that AT-43 attempts true simulation. I will argue that using skill+accuracy of weapon vs. Range is a valid mechanic. And with the simple range tool and rules, it takes a second to to determine.

I hope you all get a chance to play at-43 a few times before the next time you do comparisons of the mechanics. It may not be your cuppa', but I think you will enjoy its strengths.

All differences aside, I enjoy the show.

Thanks!

I just read my last post and I should remember to not post while under the affects of cold and flu medicine. Bad caboose, bad.

As Master-Terraformer was saying yes I was referring to the fact that you cant consider deployment without considering the terrain you are setting up in, but as you were talking about the process rather than the tactics I can see, Russ, how it is a seperate topic. Cheers.

Terrain to me is just as important as the models you play with and it makes a huge difference to how the game is played and also I reckon makes the game more immersive and fun.

Any hoo. the AT-43 deployment sounds really cool.

I think Russ is referring to the difficult gamers that hold you to the millimeter and in some games it really punishes the recipiant who's probably trying their hardest to keep out of range and the other guy takes messurement from the absolute edges. I think it's in part the games responsibility (as raff said a few episodes ago) to give players the tools to get themselves out of trouble and the gamers respect for each other to make the game fun while still honouring the rules.

Personally I think progressive ranges holds more to reality, when you are considering what it takes to hit, but I think that the hard line between super deadly and can't hit anything unless your lucky will lead to abuse. I like the idea (although haven't seen it any where) of using a calculated metric, eg (range/power of the weapon) rounded down.

Another great show Russ. Really liked the sound of shadows over camelot. You should consider having a little baby con/get together with the listeners to play some of the board games you have reviewed, have a beer, ect..

I would certainly make the trip and might be a cool way to get to know some of your listeners. Perhaps if most of you are going to attend a major con, or even a smaller local con you could arrainge a side even just for D6G fans?

Just an idea, I never get to find anyone here to play those cool boardgames with so Im jealous of you.

On the mechanics discussion I liked it a lot, I do think you may have given AT-43 a bit of a short shift simply due to a lack of direct experience with the full rules. I like the deployment rules as they, to me, more accurately reflect an engagement in such a small area and give you the chance to create your deployment and react to everything as it happens. Much more active and dynamic IMHO.

You know I love Flames as well and I liked how you compared apples to apples as much as possible.

Just from my personal experience in the army and my very limited combat experience I allways think the PP system is best. Even though I love the Flames system which is a very quick and clean way to reflect the actualities of combat between varying levels of troop quality, I think that the difference in accuracy of the shooter is too important to be ignored.

As critical as tactical movement and proper use of cover is to an elite unit's survival on the battlefield, what really sets the elite forces apart is their ability to do this and lay down extremely accurate and damaging fire despite signifigantly lower numbers.

I like the way PP does this but unfortunately that system is too slow for anything but skirmish, so I suppose either FOW, or AT-43 give the best example of a good firing mechanic in a larger scale game. Even though they both go at it from opposite directions.

Keep up the great work guys!

Oh, and thanks much for the TWIW plug in the voice mail show!

Haven't finished the episode yet, so I'll comment after, but I was so excited to hear "One Night in Bangkok" during your intro that I had to post just to give kudos to whomever knows the Chess soundtrack. Exalt!

Thinking about Raffes comment about MMO and some of my own reflection, I found that after playing LOTRO for a couple of months I it gave up and for WOW I gave it up only after a couple of days. I just found that is was no longer fun and cancelled my subscriptions.

Playing Call of Duty 4 it's fantastic you can play it in two nights and like raffe described you feel great, but I never found that in LOTRO. Yes the initial descovery and learning on how to play the game was loads of fun but after that I found the pay off (which is the thing that keeps you engaged in a game) only happened after a lot of time and effort and it ended up that all I did was grinding to get to that next pay off. What's worse is I was paying by the month to grind.

Games like movies have excitement peek and troughs, this is an idea that is in any good narative. In a scripted game it is controlled to give a balancing trough for every peek. What I mean by that is that there are times in the game where you will be running to the next group of bad guys or forced to take cover or some other cleaver plot idea that makes you wait and take a breath. This pause heightens the action that follows because it's building anticipation. You also know something exciting is about to happen so the wait is tollorable. It is also designed to only be long enough to build anticipation and not be frustrating.

In MMO's the player controls his action, there is no conductor helping you along the way. It is all in the players control and what is it that I have the most fun doing in games? "Proper action and &^*%" (Hot fuzz, great movie). So the player tries to do all that cool stuff all the time. Unfortunately I found that in doing all that cool stuff it no longer held my interest, nor was it fun and I wanted to move on to something else even more fun but I couldn't. In order to progress I had to do a tonne more of that stuff that use to be fun but now is not and it just became grinding. I also found 50% of my time was spent running to the next area which aside from seeing the odd avatar running by is in no way fun at all. That is until I get to the next cool thing then my interest is sparked again and but even that new thing becomes old and turns into grinding until I get the next new thing and so on. What MMO's do well is that they give you that next cool thing just at the point you're about to give up keeping you interested enough not to cancel your subscription.

I hope that made sense? anyway it would be interesting to hear what others think?

To answer your important question, you don't suck. In fact, the podcast is very informative and the humor is not "too horrible" :-)

I am clearly a member of the D6 Generation. I started making up my own wargames with metal LOTR miniatures, moved to the old Avalon Hill games, and then started D&D in the early days (anyone remember Greyhawk?). Unfortunately, higher education, marriage, career and raising kids took me away from gaming for a long time. I did not rediscover the joys of gaming until a few years ago when my oldest son got me playing 40K. All three of my kids are interested in different types of gaming so it is a fun activity to share with them. Your reviews of Tanhauser and the new Descent supplement were very helpful in that regard. I expect both games to be a big hit on the homefront.

I particularly like the demographic you guys seem to be working with, i.e., older gamers who might not have as much time in their busy lives to devote to gaming as they would like. It is often hard to find a good gaming group that has those same issues. Fortunately, I have found two small 40K groups of older gamers who are mostly interested in having as much fun as possible and don't take the game too competitively.

Anyway, keep up the good work. The rough edges are being smoothed out each episode, without sacrificing the conversational, roundtable style. I also like how you worked the Monty Python angle -- so true.

BTW, I enjoyed the Italy report. I have been to a number of those cities and it was fun being reminded of them. I will add: DeGaulle airport does suck.

Best Hollywood minute ever. Great job.

I concur with the best holllywood minute so far.

I'm looking forward to the "soul-drain" explanation for MMORPG's

Love your work guys.

My favourite podcast just keeps getting better. Two talons way up!

Just a little question about Shadows over Camelot, though. How complicated is it? I checked out the rules online and they seemed okay, but not especially complex and when you said that it took about an hour I started to wonder if this was not too simple. And the box art makes it seem more like a kiddies' game to me.


Regarding the hollow feeling from playing MMO games, could that be that you have seen the true meaning of the game? That you have realised that the mechanics are intended to keep you playing and playing with no end? That all the guilds and whatnot are there so that players will exert peer pressure on each other to keep playing and thereby feeding the pockets of the makers of the game?

I must admit that any sort of role playing (regardless of the actual amount of role playing in there; some games are more "roll playing" games) other than one off games like Paranoia or Call of Cthulhu has never really been my thing. Your character improves, but then so does your enemies, so there is no real progression. Whereas in one-offs or in board or wargames, you can do something once and be finished or you can try again until you win.

To me, it seems like MMOs just aim to give you a long experience, rather than a good one.

Avian wrote:My favourite podcast just keeps getting better. Two talons way up!

Just a little question about Shadows over Camelot, though. How complicated is it? I checked out the rules online and they seemed okay, but not especially complex and when you said that it took about an hour I started to wonder if this was not too simple. And the box art makes it seem more like a kiddies' game to me.

There are complex decisions to make, but the rules are not complex. And just because a game plays quickly does not make it simple. i.e. Two chess masters can play a hard core game of chess in under 15 minutes. But I would not say chess is a simple game to master. ;-)

Also definitly not a kiddie game. Young players will certainly enjoy it, but if the table isn't really working togeather you will loose.

Just to give you an idea. In the 4 games I've played, all have been adult players (18+) and all are veteran miniature war gamers (5+ years experience). At no point did the game feel easy, and we all had a blast.

Currently when I walk into the game store it is the first game everyone asks to play. "Russ, did you bring Shadows?"

It's a great game because it is so different. It is easy to set up, plays in a reasonable amount of time, is very social, and is more fun with more players.

I think it would also be GREAT GREAT fun in a high school environment as an add on to a class that is covering the Arthur legends. There is a lot of subtle stuff in the game that folks who have recently 'read up' on the lore would appreciate.

@ Russ, Raef and Craig,

Great episode as usual. The quality gets better and better. My buddies and I love to listen while we sit at our hobby table at the LFGS and shoot the breeze. It is good grist for our group to discuss.

@ Russ,

I do have a detailed comment on your "Mulling Mechanics" segment.

It is in regards to how deployment in AT-43 works. You said that "no where does it describe how deployment is supposed to work. Anywhere". You then go on to refer to the AT-43 forums describing the huge debates on how it works.

Now, while there are many questions from newcomers to the game regarding how the various deployment functions work from people who are used to playing other wargames such as 40K, the questions are usually quickly and simply answered. Not only by the people who frequent the forums but personally by the designers themselves.

Anyways, for reference, I will refer you to page 112 of the main rulebook. This is the handy dandy glossary section everyone should refer to when they need to find something quickly in the AT-43 rulebook.

I wont blame you for not knowing where to look, because games such as 40K have a distinct lack of effective glossaries to utilize...

Page 86 is the page where the deployment rules are completely laid out.

First of all, there are three possible ways a unit may be deployed in AT-43.

As such, depending on the scenario, you can either come in from Access Zones (basically portions of a board edge), from a Deployment Zone or from a Drop Point (drop points are somewhat similar to the 40K deepstrike rule, except it is a fixed location according to each scenario).

Secondly, it is scenario driven.
This part I feel is important. While you can play the typical "cleanse" style scenario, due to how the AT-43 mechanics work and how it is measured, it is very important to play scenario based games for more balanced play.

While most of AT-43's scenarios don't use alternating deployment as many other wargames utilize in the traditional sense, there still is a large amount of tactics involved with deployment. This usually prevents one side from picking the "sweet spot" in deployment, and forces the players to think about how they will use their units better.

Here is a typical description of how most scenarios are deployed and played:
Both players set up their activation sequence.
Once the activation sequence is set up, the players then check the highest officer they have in their force to see what authority they have.
Each player then rolls a D6 and adds the authority to see who gets to activate a unit first.
Each activated unit is deployed on the table, in the way proscribed in the scenario, completing all of its possible actions if it so chooses (move, assault, shoot, etc.)
After the first person activates a unit, the second player activates a unit, alternating until all units in each players activation sequence have been activated.


My apologies, Russ, for being so long winded. But as you know, I am very vocal about how good of a game that AT-43 is on Dakka and take every opportunity I can get to make sure that this great game gets its fair shake in the public eye.

I felt the correction was necessary because it feels you have dismissed this game due to poor rules writing, when it simply is a matter of the reader not easily being able to find a rule during cursory inspection.

Thanks for your time and thanks for giving us such great pod casts to discuss.

[edit]
Just finished listening the the entire 'Mulling Mechanics'.

I am sorry, even though you have consistently said you haven't played AT-43 many times, I really feel the game wasn't fairly compared due to a painfully obvious lack of knowledge on how the rules work.

To be honest, it would have been better if AT-43 wasn't included at all in the comparison. I understand that the segment deals with three opinions, but if you were to hear people compare a game you like, and show absolutely no working knowledge on how the mechanics work, in a mechanics comparison segment no less, you could understand the chagrin that is felt by people who do understand the mechanics and feel really robbed of a chance to be fairly portrayed in such a comparison.


Its still a great podcast and will continue listening. I really felt that this critique needed to be said though, as it really seems like an unfair shake to a game that already gets alot of bad press due to the controversial nature of its minis.

Its a real damned shame too.

Great job on the Podcasts, They keep getting better and better. AT43 is alright, just that it's a different type of game. I don't think it should have been included for about the opposite reason.

Italy...

Tell dude to go check out Domino over in Vicienza.

Hellfury & AT-43 fans,

I didn't mean to blast AT-43, and as I've said, I've never played the game beyond a couple demos. And thanks for doing the research on where a 'deployment zone' is defined in the book.

I was able to find the glossary, which is nice. However it does have that annoying problem of actually being 'not quite' at the back of the book. I've always hated that. The glossary should be the LAST thing in a book so you can easily find it, not 5-10 pages from the back of the book. But I digress...

I was able to find 'deployment zones' defined on page 86, but what I wasn't able to define was 'deployment methods' defined. The list of activies Hellfury outlines as 'how deployment works' can't be found in the book. Unless I'm missing some other page.

What is confusing, for example, is a senario like "Mission-3" on page 90 of the book. The defender's deployment zone is in the center of the table. Does he simple place units in that zone as they activate... i.e. they sort of 'magically' appear in the middle? I guess I'm fine with that, it's just a little unusual and probably could use a bit more explanation, IMHO.

So after reading all that I figured I was missing something and I searched the forums to find out how deployment worked in AT-43, and what I found was that different folks did it different ways, and there was some debate about the correct way... that's all.

Not say'n the game doesn't rock the shizzel. Just say'n that although they clearly define WHERE you can put your models on turn 1, they don't clearly define HOW you put your models down in turn one.

At least, not in an obvious way to a veteran gamer who spent a half hour reading that section of the book and searching the web.

So sadly, I think I'm going to stand by my comments that AT-43 is a bit fuzzy on how deployment works. But the method Hellfurry describes sounds like it would work and be cool, I just think the book could stand to have that described clearly with perhaps an example since it is so different than other miniature games.

Is this perhaps covered in a FAQ section on the AT-43 page?

RussWakelin wrote:Also definitly not a kiddie game. Young players will certainly enjoy it, but if the table isn't really working togeather you will loose.

Just to give you an idea. In the 4 games I've played, all have been adult players (18+) and all are veteran miniature war gamers (5+ years experience). At no point did the game feel easy, and we all had a blast.

my wife and I run an after school game club for 4th & 5th graders seen here...
http://pierce.cr.k12.ia.us/schoolactivities/boardgameclub.html

this is a game the kids love to play, even though they have only won 1 time.
i find that it does become a little boring with adults after about the 20th time playing it. but for 32$ its was well worth the cost per play !

find that it does become a little boring with adults after about the 20th time playing it. but for 32$ its was well worth the cost per play !

That is perhaps the best endorsement of a boardgame I have heard in a while! I can't remember the last boardgame that I have played 20 times ( Axis and Allies and Risk are probably the only candidates) before it went into the closet of forgotten games.

And Russ, after re reading the section on deployment in AT-43 I can see your point. I understood it to be the same as the way Hellfury described it, but I can see that it was more that I got what they were hinting at than that it was very clearly written.

I will agree that the main book is not as well put together as I would like and I have a hard time on ocassion finding exactly the section I want ( thank god for the glossary section ).

In the scenarios where you are starting in an area not on the edge I have rationalized it as the enemy detecting my units as they activate on turn one, but again that should be better defined and explained.

IMHO the rules are beautifully designed, but somewhat poorly presented, which is a shame because the game plays beautifully. The alternating activation, and the use of the hidden cards which force you to pre plan your order of activation add a great level of aditional tactical play to each turn not found in I Go/You Go games.

But as has been mentioned before, I am biased

Soory Russ if it seemed like I was jumping on you. Not my intention and apologize if it did seem that way.

I do wholeheartedly agree that, while the rules are elegant, they way they are laid out isn't. Its kind of funny that people who ply 40K etc have a tough time getting it nailed down, but people who I have demoed it to who haven't played wargames before find the arrangement rather intuitive.

I had to sit down and read the whole book twice, and then back track and work out how certain rules actually functioned.
It is somewhat brainwracking and overwhelming at first...


To this day, I still am baffled by a few things and have to reread alot of rules while playing. I write the last part off as not playing as often as I used to play 40K, so my familiarity with it can be dim due to lack of repetitious play.

And yes, I also agree that the glossary does indeed need to be placed in the very back. So close, and yet, not quite... Bad Rackham.

I wasn't sure if it was covered by the FAQ, so after looking it up (The FAQ itself is also buried and not easy to find.... *sigh* ) and it seems to not be covered. I think it merits being included.

Since how it works can prove to be quite alien to how other games of this ilk functions, I will see if I can get something like this submitted to the designers so that they can put their seal of approval or denial on how it works.

Here is the link to the FAQ in case you do decide to revisit the game in the future and are in need of it:
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dgjk9n73_1gfnf5f

Even with its oddly arranged rules, I think it has alot of potential and with enough customer feedback (which Rackham seems to collect with open arms) the next edition should be streamlined for a more intuitive read for veterans of numerous wargames.

Thanks for the detailed info on that.

Here's a question for you AT-43 fans: would you say AT-43 is a skirmish game or a war game? i.e. What is the average model count on the table for a AT-43 game? What are the average number of unit cards involved?

I'm just curious.

I would say that it is a war game as it can get pretty signifigant in size with some of the larger troop units.

The company organization system basically breaks the game up into platoon and company engagements with a platoon being from 2 to 5 units and company from 7 to 20 units. I tend to play 1500 point games and depending on your faction you can field one full and one partial platoon for an average of 7 to 10 units including heros.

Karmans on the other hand are lucky to fill up a single platoon at that point level, so it really varies heavilly with your faction.

It is not on the level of 40k, you will never see a normal sized game with 100+ models on the table as you would with imperial guard or orks.

I would say if falls right in the middle between Warmachine and 40k as far as the size of games goes, unless you are playing a very walker heavy force in which case it can quickly look like a warjack force with 3 or 4 walkers and one or two supporting infantry units.

Once the size 5 walkers/speeders come out I think you will see bigger games just to justify the cost of those massive units.

RussWakelin wrote:Here's a question for you AT-43 fans: would you say AT-43 is a skirmish game or a war game? i.e. What is the average model count on the table for a AT-43 game? What are the average number of unit cards involved?

I'm just curious.

Wargame.

Model count nearly matches 40K point for point. "Suggested" average game is 2000 points. In that point spread it depends on the army due to points cost of the unit. Karmans for example, don't have as high of a model count, while red blok (a mixture of orks and IG for model count) is pretty high and on the opposite end of the spectrum. I usually run 50+ redblok models in 2000 AP.

I think people get around 7ish units in 2000AP. So, 7 unit cards in the activation deck, and a few that are outside of the deck for reference (such as cards that denote damage to vehicles, since the dry erase marker rubs off when in the activation que).

Rackham is releasing skirmish rules for AT-43 though. "AT-43 Tactics" is what it will be called. Very narrative. Kind of like what rogue trader was in those terms. I have played their preliminary version that they released in Cry Havoc Magazine and it was pretty fun.

I would classify AT-43 as a war game instead of skirmish as actions are taken at the unit level instead of model level. One of the biggest misleading factors is the relative cost of units when compared to games like 40K. While a 2000 pt 40K game is a pretty good size game, 2000pts in AT-43 is IMO considerably smaller. This is because of the average cost of units in AT-43 is much more. Minimum sized units (6 minis) in AT-430 are around 250pts while Karman units of 8 minis is 500 pts or more.

The game works well when playing games equivalent to a 40K 2000pt game but in AT-43 terms you are talking about a 3500 to 4000 pt game.

The cards are a nice way of tracking unit activation though you still need a second card or army list to track vehicle damage.

Russ, in your game mechanics, you didn't mention one of the features I like in the Battlefield Evolution series and that is the reaction. It is still an I go You go approach with one variant, units can shoot or move in the opponents turn. This is similar but not the same as the old Overwatch ability in 40K or in AT-43. The biggest difference is that the unit doesn't forgo its actions in its own turn to be able to react. In Battlefield Evolution, any unit may move in shoot in its own turn, but if it is shot at in the opponents turn, it may take a free action and either shoot back or move provided it hasn't already reacted previously in the same turn. Each unit is allowed one reaction in an opponent's turn. A unit may also react if an opponent performs any action within 10 inches of it again provided it hasn't already performed a reaction that turn. Also a unit cannot react to a reaction, so reactions can't be chained. If you react to a unit shooting at you, you can only shoot back at that unit. However, if you react to a unit that performed an action such as end a move within 10 inches of you, you are free to shoot at anyone you want.

This provides an additional complexity to the game. If a unit is shot at, you can save your reaction for later, shoot back, or if it looks like the unit is to exposed, you can move your normal move distance in an attempt to get out of range or behind cover.

That one mechanic keeps both sides involved and doing something during the opponents turn. Unlike 40K when playing large battles, you can disappear while you opponent is moving.