Cairnius wrote:It took me three months and a considerable expenditure of funds to learn these lessons - may they come in handy for anyone considering AT-43. Informing potential consumers is my goal. I wish I had had this information, myself, before buying into the game.
Ok, bold start. so its not for you. This doesnt make the game bad... or good. This is a matter of subjective opinion.
I like what I see and would be happy to get a whole lot more
AT-43 that I already have, I also have a friend who wants to start a Therian army and I am kicking myself that I didnt get in early enough for the best discounts. You want out (I assume from your post) we want in. Interested in doing deals?
Cairnius wrote:
This is the first truly important point to make for anyone researching into this game with an objective perspective. These ain’t models, folks, they’re toys. I personally had no problems with this because I’ve been a Star Wars toy collector since I was five.
To call AT-43 toys “models” is kind of preposterous however…the word “model” implies construction by the user, and a degree of care and preparation. I have examined 95% of the AT-43 toy line close-up and first-hand. The sculpts are interesting, but mold lines are legion. The plastic is also rather soft and prone to breaking at thin spots. The paint jobs are passable at best to any serious wargamer. The faces on human AT-43 models are usually a complete wreck.
Here you stop being objective with your toy vs model definition. It implies a distinction of mature game versus kiddy game. My Reaver titan is very much a toy, and is in no less kiddy in its own way than a small childs play robot. Prepaint has its advantages and disadvantages, please to recapture objectivity acknowledge this.
Cairnius wrote:
The vast majority of the AT-43 product line was 66% off online at this time due to the dissolution of the relationship between Rackham and Fantasy Flight Games, the former American distributor of AT-43 product, Buying in seemed a reasonable proposition so I began researching the game.
It was described as “fast, furious and brutal.” The simplified, streamlined rule set provided for free on the Rackham website looked promising. I liked the design of the toys. My wife bought me the Operation Damocles set for my birthday, and I got my hands on the toys for the first time.
Problems with the AT-43 toys notwithstanding I fell in love with them anyway most likely due to the fact that they were practically being given away, and these were toys with rules!
I went all out and purchased 6,000 points of U.N.A., Therians, and Red Blok. I purchased the requisite army books and main rulebook. The fluff was refreshing and entertaining, if very brief. The rules seemed clear enough. I was excited for my future with AT-43. I began to play the game.
How did that cost $1000? I am building 5000 point Therian and U.N.A. lists after spending $350 so far, though I am admittedly not yet in possession of a Fire Crawler but have it in the lists.
Cairnius wrote:
The second truly important point to make for anyone researching into this game: the rules are awful not in theory, but in execution. This game has a lot of untapped potential, but it can be a very frustrating journey to get to this conclusion yourself.
Translation problems from the original French are multitudinous in the rulebook and the early army books. Information in the main rulebook is not presented clearly and precisely, and very often not organized properly and intuitively.
Once you get to the website, which you will inevitably need to do for the most basic of rules queries, the most thorough F.A.Q. available is fan-produced, not company-supported, in a five-color presentation which might be tough for some people to get through.
Official Rackham Entertainment rulings on rules questions belie a lack of integrity to the rules design, often seeming rather haphazard and resulting in radical alterations to the published gameplay.
Rules quality. Ok, Rackham has a lot to answer for, in the same way
GW has. I remember the crap rules booklets with every Confrontation model, I bought one for a Warhammer fantasy character. But that is mainly a Confrontation problem less with At-43.
Rackham still does rule brainfarts and even backs up anbiguous interperetations they could have got out of and make no sense. Good example here is that Med Teams are soldier units not support, so they take immediate break tests for low troop numbers at starting unit size. If Rackham gave them the same exception they gave to *** infantry and support teams it would have been fine, and the medchanics for the exceprtion already existed.
Rackham
FAQ as infrequently as
GW sit in the same sort of ivory tower, just a smaller one and worst of all refuse to update their website talk to customers or retailers. They do need a kicking in the backside, but that should not immediately apply to At-43.
Now for specific rules issues.
Cairnius wrote:
In terms of how the rules actually function, AT-43 very much follows a “rock-paper-scissors” mentality which is a result of the “I move a unit, you move a unit” system. There is an utter lack of tactical subtlety. The largest strategic aspect of the game seems limited to the early turns when you are shuffling the order that your units enter the play space to make sure you don’t bring out your scissors while your opponent still has his rock yet to come onto the table.
Now I am new to At-43, but I know more than many about games design, having designed game myself as a hobbyist for a long time and I like what I see here.
'Rock-paper-scissors' sounds overly simplistic but actually it makes the best games, and forms the military triangle. The alternate is to have tiered units where the super unit takes the prize. The military triangle is important as it enhances gameplay for historical wargamers. You play a nval a game and battleships, or carrier dependant on era are the queen pieces, the rest are for colour. you play napoleonic and you have to contend with the rtiangle, cavalry artillery and infantry. This is one of the resons it was the most popular wargames period pre the rise of fantasy hobbyists. The triangle also makes early ancients work, chariot infantry archer/skirmisher. Medieval wargaming is colourful but relatively boring because it lacks the triangle. Renaassance and modern have a false triangle with the third arm either too weak or too underrepresented tactically, the 'weak' corner being artillery.
Now in
SF games the triangle is important and At-43 manages to ensure it within the framework of the standard rules, better yet a double triangle. the first being a costing triangle, light infantry, battlesuits and striders which marks cost vs scale, the second being anti infantry and armour and mid balanced weaponry. This is especially true with such items as DeathDealer
Tac-Arms and Jam
Tac-Arms which are very heavily tailored to destroying a pswrticular part of the triangle at the exclusion odf the others. Rackham did all this without requiring extra sections,
40K needs seperate vehicle and monster and infantry rules, At-43 doesnt, the dcaling is done deftly without.
Cairnius wrote:
What would appear to be a gameplay mechanic which would result in greater immersion actually results in a sort of simple-mindedness in the early turns once you grasp the relevant concepts.
Again looking from a game designers point of view they got this right.
GW has not with the exception of Apocalypse and to some extent Gothic. Apocalypse set up is an example of
GW getting it right most likely an input from a junior
spod adopted my the chief monkeys in studio as their own. it elegantly brought in tactical elements and a sense of balance even into the setup process, something grossly lacking. The Reserves rules are too simple but at least are no longer wrong.
You set up the map, or your tabletop (more on this below) and the gasme immediately begins. The assault vs reinforcement allocation is handled well, you have to earn your reinforcements not get them at random and have the whole game rely on a few rolls at the begining of your turn. the human element over the dice are wemphasised all the weay through. Your set up is
during play so what is normally a chore before you start becomes part of the tactical flow of the game.
If you are having problems with the turn sequence you are likely missing out on the benefits hacving been overly used to different activation systems.
AT-43 does nothing new, reinforcement points that are earned have appeared in rulesets before, as have activation cards, and normally in the high end quality games like Panzer Leader, where activation cards allowed German units with poor stats systemically outmove larger formations of individually superior Soviet units.
Activation is the tactical edge which allows the quality of ther player to be more than the quality of the army. A
40k Red Blok vs Therians would be a wipe out, by the Therians every time. therians are faster, better armed more accurate have a higher rate of fire longer ranged and hit far harder in close combat, and they dont run away. Red Blok only have better armour, and therians are not a light armoured army and from the lists I made Therian armies are not significantly smaller. Yet Red Blok can win because its about tactical activation not a huge
40k style statfest, like Panzer Leader before it the invisible factors even it all out.
Cairnius wrote:
AT-43 disciples praise the objective-based nature of gameplay, but when you have this rock-paper-scissors game taking place and when your units are in such small playing spaces as AT-43 scenarios provide, often as small as 3’ by 3’, you can have entire armies nearly wiped out by the second turn. Some AT-43 players actually laud their ability to do this – but it winds up robbing gameplay of long-term strategic and tactical challenge.
The small maps are there so that players can play a fixed scenario and know it is more or less fair, or at least follows a continuing storyline they can fight over. Rackham made a brave move by attempting to standardise terrain for part of a game, in many cases terrain is the big unknown in gaming terrain light or terrain heavy boards are rarely specified and many armies profit or are penalised by each. At-43 gives an idea of the type of terrain density advised with the map tiles, and while i didnt like them I lied what they were doing.
As fro your second turn deaths, remember that the game are is smaller because ranges are shorter and movement is shorter, a standard 20cm move is only 8" and a fast 30cm moving walker is only 12", the longest range in the game esxcepting locked shots is a 60" range and even the long range guns usually run out of effectiveness by 24". In theis
AT-43 ias not alone warmachine uses the same ideology, cut the board size and cut weapons ranges to keep the action localised. 6'x4' is a luxury for a lot of households, games playable on the dining room table are about right, allowing for the %drop in scale from
40K this is more or less what they are aiming for as the movement and weapons are in comperable scale consistency as
40K is with the 6'x4'.
Now going back to your bad games, if you are rushing forward
40k reinforcement style and misjudge the game scale you could well be slaughtered piecemeal, remember wirth reinforcement based games deployment is part of the battle, you need to check where you are coming in from, and if you cant do anything about that, you should check what you are doing when you arrive. Activation does that for you.
Cairnius wrote:
For AT-43 fans this is a positive aspect of the game, not a detraction from it – but it’s something to keep in mind if you are just looking into the game. It’s not information that’s readily given by current players, most likely because they don’t see it as being noteworthy or a problem. For fans of more strategic play with more time to maneuver, flank, plan ambushes etc. (think Flames of War) it’s an important consideration prior to investing in AT-43.
Remember intro games on ther map tiles are the dumbed down version and are also there to make good fun games from units fromt he intro box and a proposed gentle purchase plan of a Fire toad here or an attachment there. Most At-43 I see is played on tabletops just like
40K with space and time to move around and stalk objectives. You mopst certasinly will have time to flank and set ambushes, especuially as you will want to deal with objectives immediately rather than rush for them just before the last turn.
Cairnius wrote:
The third truly important point to make for anyone researching into this game is that this is not quite a tabletop wargame, not quite a board game, but a hybrid of the two.
AT-43 gameplay depends on “scenarios” which specifically define the play space, constructed using either 2D “gaming posters” or “gaming tiles” where terrain is defined by black spaces on the tiles with white lines around them to define the borders, with some additional 3D pre-produced terrain elements spackled on for flavor.
Incorrect, At-43 is two games, the campaign based game played on maps with specific scenarios and the full tabletop miniatures game which is as terrain independent as
40K. You switch to the second when you have outgrown the first.
Cairnius wrote:
The first set of gaming tiles, incidentally, is sold out pretty much everywhere which renders a huge chunk of the published scenarios for AT-43 unplayable…unless you build matching terrain which defeats the purpose of a pre-paints game for the target audience who doesn’t want to build or paint anything, the primary selling point of the game.
There are only two AT-43 scenarios in the rulebook or two Campaign Books for which the terrain layout is not specified. Where the other scenarios suffer from too much specificity, these scenarios suffer from an utter lack of it. No instructions on proper table size. No information on how units enter the play space.
This is the transition from the map tile boardgame to the open plan miniatures game.
AT-43 was easing new customers into the game from the Initiation set this way. rRmember that the new Army boxsets are a different market strategy, too much was focused on the intro and not on the mainstream hobbyist. Now you can get an Army box and you get the main stuff, an army tailored to use templates and a tactics book which is likely a hoew to guide. It is for moving stright into tabletop gaming.
Cairnius wrote:
AT-43 fans have come up with disparate versions of random mission generators all of which are unsupported or undistributed by Rackham Entertainment and which will take some modicum of effort to find on open internet searches. The NEAT group on Yahoo.com has some of the files published publicly for download, and a set of “random mission cards” were posted to Warseer in December of 2007 and are still posted in the “Science Fiction and Fantasy Games” forum.
A fan-created army builder program called “Easy AT” has a “scenario generator” but still involves the purposeful construction of missions and is therefore not a random mission generator.
It takes far more effort than it probably should for an AT-43 player to gain the freedom to design their own play spaces and missions without wandering the wastes of lack of balance and stability as they stumble through the sorts of design issues in the construction of their own, private pick-up game systems that really were the responsibility of the AT-43 game designers to tend to and provide from the get-go.
AT-43 has a strong following to account for such efforts as East
AT-43 and fan published scenario material. Its no more a fault or ommission for Rackham as when someone makes a new conversion for
40k that
Gw had not previously covered.
Cairnius wrote:
The last, truly important point to make for anyone researching into this game: it can be very difficult to find anyone to play AT-43 with you.
AT-43 players seem to exist in very small knots around the United States. In New England one has to make a sojourn to New Hampshire once a month on a Monday night to join a group of 8 people on average to consistently get in a game of AT-43.
With $1,000 of AT-43 armies sitting in my house I had every motivation to do a very thorough search on where I could play AT-43. This was the only “local,” organized AT-43 gaming taking place that I could find after a month of concerted online searches, contacting local gamer groups, and going onto local gaming forums to look for fellow AT-43 players.
If you wish to attempt introducing AT-43 into your wargaming circles be prepared to purchase multiple armies to supply them to other players. Be prepared to take the onus upon yourself to make sure AT-43 gameplay is visible every week, potentially at the risk of not playing other games you enjoy, and which your friends actually play, for a couple months.
Be prepared to do a considerable amount of work tracking down the scattered AT-43 players in your area and attempt to gather them together into local gaming stores to try and create a nucleus of AT-43 gamers to attract others to the game.
Be prepared to become an unpaid salesperson for Rackham Entertainment, attending local gaming conventions to put on demos (and, again, there is no unified, company-approved universal demo system to put towards this end) and hope to generate interest.
While you may hear scattered tales of success if you head over to the AT-43 forums, take a look for yourself at your local gaming clubs and gaming circles and see if anyone is actually playing AT-43 on a regular basis. Let that be your guide as to whether you want give AT-43 a try unless you can get a group of your friends to all go in together simultaneously to make sure you have a variety of opponents if that’s something you look for in your gaming. Or if you are willing to take all the steps prescribed above.
Well it has to come from somewhere, games can grow, Privateerr Press managed it,
AT-43 has not done as well as it should through to mismannagement by Rackham, but that of itself is no condemnation of the worth of ther system. This game can grown on people, it is unfortunate that due to very poor pricing i was completely unwilling to invest in it before this time. likely I will need to seace investment in the system once the bonanza stops, but to me that is not too much loss, there is a lot to play with so to speak.
Cairnius wrote:
Rackham Entertainment has inherited the bad karma of its predecessor company, plain-old Rackham, which went the French equivalent of Chapter 11 in October of 2008, regarding a lack of communication with the fan base. New product has slowly been arriving in online inventories again but is not being carried in many gaming stores due to the lack of communication with the company producing them.
There is still absolutely no public relations effort being undertaken by Rackham Entertainment, and one has to seriously wonder why considering the dire straits they could very easily find themselves in again should AT-43 not get back on its feet and begin growing.
With this I find myself in agereement with you Rackham is the biggest enemy of Rackham and the success of its game.
Cairnius wrote:
To wit: AT-43 has Army Boxes with full, ready-to-play 2,000 point armies being released in June of this year which will cost $56 with the standard price discounts from stores like The War Store online. Call it $61 shipped to start up AT-43 the day you receive the box in the mail and can find an opponent.
A better deal I have not heard of in the entire tabletop wargaming industry since I first came onboard five years ago…but fans had to hear about it from pre-order listings on websites like FRP games months before Rackham Entertainment even opened its mouth about the Army Boxes.
It has been confirmed by Rackham Entertainment in closed circles that these Army Box toys will have lesser paint jobs that the standard unit box releases, and the vehicles will not have the transfers/decals that were so effective on the standard release vehicles. As always, you get what you pay for. It may not matter to existing AT-43 gamers, but to anyone with a nose for good sculpting and paint jobs this is something to be forewarned about prior to setting up a pre-order of the Army Boxes. You may want to get a look at the toys through someone else’s purchase first, or else wait for detailed pictures to hit the web.
I see this as a welcome change, not a last ditch effort.
Cairnius wrote:
In the end, what may do AT-43 in is trying too hard to be “different.”
Not fair, you are penalising orginality as something 'emo'.
AT-43 has a lot of strong features which deserve to be looked at on their own merit and not as the red headed stepchild because they are different.
Cairnius wrote:
Rackham Entertainment has pretty much across the board ignored the conventions which make proper tabletop wargames successful: the emotional “buy in” that producing your own models creates; the freedom to design your own playing spaces as a matter of standard, supported gameplay; and making your rules design and updates a primacy among priorities.
Where do you get this idea? Rackham teried hard to engage exactly that with the intro sets feeding in new boxsets at regular intervals to build up a hobby base for whover gets the Initiation boxset for Christmas. Also look at the pacjaging, very well done by some marketing eyes. Where they utterly fail is on pricing, the individual sets are too far out of most kiddy pockets and the mainstream hobbyist will baulk at the prices for buying a whole army retail.
Cairnius wrote:
Considering the supposed strength of the rule set is the second primary selling point of AT-43, and perhaps all that will attract established painting and modeling wargamers to try the game, this lack of attention to the rules may be particularly problematic and one has to wonder why Rackham Entertainment pays so little attention to it. The company has gone on record as saying that it will not produce a badly-needed second edition of the rulebook until all eight of the planned AT-43 armies hit the shelves.
The new Cogs army being released in June is Army #5. The ONI army for which a few pictures of test models have been released is Army #6. At this pace AT-43 players may not see a 2nd Edition rulebook until 2012…if the game even survives that long.
Rackham Entertainment’s failure to understand some of these basics of the tabletop wargaming industry may ultimately be responsible for the fate of their company. They would be well-advised to learn the lesson and start paying as much attention to support for previous and existing products as they are paying to getting new product onto the shelves.
In any objective analysis AT-43 is extremely problematic as a wargaming product at best; and if it already lacks the most crucial element to wargaming success, namely a large player base to expose other wargamers to the product, then the climb up this hill is only going to get more difficult over time, not easier.
It may be that the release of the Army Boxes is going to have to expand the player base, not cater to the existing player base, in order to secure the future of AT-43 considering the size of the existing player base was already in place when Rackham declared bankruptcy.
This makes it sound like the success of the Army Boxes will make or break the longevity of the game, which is an ominous precursor to their release. That’s an awful lot to be riding on the release of only two products.
Rackham can make it but need to make bigger chasnges to their pricing strategy than just the Army boxsets. One way of doing this is to sell two teir boxsets by the front door.
AT-43 and
AT-43 Premium with the Premium sets including work of the quality one would expect for thep rices they charge, some At-43 sets had veery good paintjobs included, as you got
FFG old stock you may have got older stiock which was an inferior paintjob. The Chinamen in the factory got better over time, only now with the reduction in production allocation to quality for the army boxsets is the quality visibly slipping again and for what you get having no decals on the army box Dotch Yaga is no great loss.
the other thing they need to do is to revamp the rules, ad yes by saying thwey want all eight armies out fiorst they are getting it wrong, thedy dont need that many for a start. Cogs makec sense as the army is deliberatly set up to have a low model count which means less work for more margins, 2000 points of Cog didnt go far in plastic, but has some nice new robots. ONI are confirmed so tyhery must come, quasi undead faction, ok I can go with that, its also another part human faction and puts a darker tint to the Avan society. after that thety need no more races, though I would stretch to one because one has already been mentioned as having survived the Karmans. Aghain like the Cogs make this race something set up for easy production, I would prefer, for Rackhamas point of view to have a naked furry beast race, thimnk wookie if you will, but better if they are overasized mostly because furry beasts so the models look really cool and the army looks impressively large, also you get for your 'vehicles' larger beasts as you get warbeasts to your warjacks. a good theme, but the real reason for this other than having a barbarian army is because furry monsters are very simple to factory paint to a decent quality. Race 8 if not a cylon/necron style - and againset up for easy painting should be scrapped.
This is the way forward for them to offset the huge workload involved in paiting Red Blok armies in particular. The red Blok striders are nice but are hard spray painted, this must take some time and effort which costs even at chinese factory prices.
