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.

Anyone got some wide angle images on these monsters. I can only see the same stock image everywhere.

I want an impression of what it looks like from the rear, how big the Fire Crawler looks compared to other UNA stuff and preferably also compared with other *** vehicles. It will be some time until I can buy one so I want to know what I would be getting.

With the Cobra M8 I am thinking along the lines of convert a new swap out gun as the mortar is removable. I can fix one up very easily with a Fire Toad laser but that is the wrong size and looked pretty crap honestly. Anyone able to make a top down image of a Cobra M8 I cannot tell if it has the weapon atach points of a Snake or a Cobra. It looked to be more central to me.
Im reluctant to buy a Cobra M8 itself because I am sceptical of using an Armour 13 vehicle with a direct fire weapon because from experience exposing any vehicle of this chassis type to direct fire is a near guarantee of losing it in a single turn.

However if I deploy it with a Frie Crawler I might provide target saturation and thus survivability. The M8 certainly looks like it has the tools for the job, but I have always owndered if the price between that and the Cobra should have been reversed. UNA are not short of lasers, but the mortar is valued and nasty. Its another reason I am reluctant to get an M8, the Cobras is so much better and is cheaply avaialable.

http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2404621310104386650jOSifs

Not a perfect pic, but should do the job.

I'm unsure about both these vehicles. The collector in me says "Finish the UNA army." The gamer in me reacts similarly as you do to the M8, Orlanth - "It's just gonna die in a turn, why bother?"

I don't remember from the rules whether vehicles ever get any sort of cover saves or not but I don't think so...

The Fire Crawler would be more survivable, but if one is going to be coming in a UNA Army Box, if we ever get one, then I can't see paying through the nose for one right now, especially if the Army Box offering was in the original Damocles color scheme.

I'm actually at the point now where I almost don't want to bother fielding vehicles in AT-43 because they die so quickly...I figure with 100-point missile support teams and TacArms with laser designators, you can field 6-8 missile launchers in a list, all hiding behind cover, and just take out enemy vehicles that way instead of using your vehicles to take down enemy vehicles.

Infantry and TacArms units...I'd probably eschew use of vehicles entirely if I could...as it is, I feel like I just want to fill up vehicle slots in platoons with Lancelots as they're cheap and have two indirect fire weapons, and I own three of them...could just proxy more...

Vehicles do get cover if they are partly obscured, but they can`t get the order take cover.

Actually agood mixture of AFV and infantry wins you the day. If your AFV are dying fast your are doing something utterly wrong.

Either you don't combine them with other minis that cover their weaknesses or you put them on the table where there is no protection of any kind.

A Defender in combination with an infantry unit with mechanics works wonders.

Cairnius wrote:I don't remember from the rules whether vehicles ever get any sort of cover saves or not but I don't think so...

Vehicles and AFVs get cover saves. If you don't know why not just say you don't know and leave it at that?

The Fire Crawler would be more survivable, but if one is going to be coming in a UNA Army Box, if we ever get one, then I can't see paying through the nose for one right now, especially if the Army Box offering was in the original Damocles color scheme.

I thought you were "done with AT-43"?

I'm actually at the point now where I almost don't want to bother fielding vehicles in AT-43 because they die so quickly...I figure with 100-point missile support teams and TacArms with laser designators, you can field 6-8 missile launchers in a list, all hiding behind cover, and just take out enemy vehicles that way instead of using your vehicles to take down enemy vehicles.

Infantry and TacArms units...I'd probably eschew use of vehicles entirely if I could...as it is, I feel like I just want to fill up vehicle slots in platoons with Lancelots as they're cheap and have two indirect fire weapons, and I own three of them...could just proxy more...

While this sounds like a viable technique, if you give it a try you will quickly see that it is not adequate. Besides that, most army lists force you to take AFVs. I tried running an infantry heavy Red Blok Supra list, and it did well. So, I am not saying it isn't possible, but once your opponent knows you like such lists they will start tailoring their list to yours. Then, all bets are off.

Ahem, Blokhead, a little bit less rumble in the jungle, please.

Wow, I find an M8 virtually required when I face my Red Blok opponents. I simply can't kill them without the mortar.

If your vehicles are dying so fast even after you take the cover save, run a Morningstar pattern or take some mechanics in our infantry squads.

@ Blok -

Relax.

I don't remember the rules ever using the words "Vehicles 1/2 obscured from view get cover saves." I think the rules talk about "units" and how they get cover saves but considering most systems delineate vehicle cover rules differently from infantry and that's how I think about TTW rules I think that's why I didn't remember the AT-43 rules talking about vehicle cover saves specifically. I don't think they do, they just lump them in with everything else.

For now I am just shedding my Therian and Red Blok armies. I have a Star Wars toy collection if I'm going for volume...considering the frequency of games I can get in I don't need more than one AT-43 army, and I always liked UNA best aesthetically. I spent too much money on this stuff never to play ever again if I have friends who play the game. Especially if one of my best friends dropped a whole bunch of money purchasing an army just to play the game with me...though he's done with the tiles so that pick-up play system I'm working on better work so we can use regular tables and terrain...

I know you have to take AFV's, which is why I want to try crunching some lists sometime to see whether I can fill platoons with nothing but Lancelots to fill those slots. Yes they'll die quickly, but if I have a crapton of missile support teams killing enemy vehicle that might improve their survivability, and that's a lot of grenade launchers to be dropping on people. If you can load up on enough indirect fire weapons with some range, you can suppress entire armies' worth of infantry in a single turn. Then it just comes down to killing enemy AFV's, hence the missile teams.

@ Dal'yth -

The M8 has the Laser Gun and Missile Launcher; the Cobra has the mortar, which is kind of why I don't see why I wouldn't take a Cobra over a "regular" Defender Snake or an M8 every time.

Why not spam indirect fire weapons if you can, considering how disgusting they are on the table?

Orlanth wrote:Anyone got some wide angle images on these monsters. I can only see the same stock image everywhere.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:Not a perfect pic, but should do the job.

Picture didn't really help, when zoomed to 400% it still didnt tell me much.

Blokhead wrote:

Cairnius wrote:I don't remember from the rules whether vehicles ever get any sort of cover saves or not but I don't think so...

Vehicles and AFVs get cover saves. If you don't know why not just say you don't know and leave it at that?

Now now, most of us play to that rule, but At-43 isnt clear on the issue.

Are you the same Blokhead from the AT-43 forums who speaks to Jean Bey, and has lots of teaser info from Rackham.
If so please ask for some F.A.Q.s and a complete rewrite of the blast rules amongst others. We need a lot fixing sooner rather than later, I even have some suggestions that look to be very workable and simple, at least from my and my playgroups persepcctive.

Blokhead wrote:

Cairnius wrote:I'm actually at the point now where I almost don't want to bother fielding vehicles in AT-43 because they die so quickly...I figure with 100-point missile support teams and TacArms with laser designators, you can field 6-8 missile launchers in a list, all hiding behind cover, and just take out enemy vehicles that way instead of using your vehicles to take down enemy vehicles.

Infantry and TacArms units...I'd probably eschew use of vehicles entirely if I could...as it is, I feel like I just want to fill up vehicle slots in platoons with Lancelots as they're cheap and have two indirect fire weapons, and I own three of them...could just proxy more...

While this sounds like a viable technique, if you give it a try you will quickly see that it is not adequate. Besides that, most army lists force you to take AFVs. I tried running an infantry heavy Red Blok Supra list, and it did well. So, I am not saying it isn't possible, but once your opponent knows you like such lists they will start tailoring their list to yours. Then, all bets are off.

A relevant example. I am finding the opposite to be true a lot of the time even with 10cm autoscatter blast weapons are 'bang your dead'. Yes, you should get cover from shells, no, two 3cm blast radiii are not equal to a 6cm radiius. In At-43 with mortars nfantry die die die and there is nothing you can do about it, except house rules or sit in a bunker. Got artillery, then the opponent is in a tactical null zone until its destroyed. what really irks is that smart play cant get your infantry out of the mess, its a no brainer killing spree. I have had players be at give up point after one turn of what a Defender Cobras mortar can do. Heaven help when I field a Dotch Yaga.

Yes UNA ** striders are very vulnerable, in fact the whole UNA army is vulnerable. I really wonder if the Fire Crawler is really any more suirvivable, it certainly has punch though

Dal'yth Dude wrote:Wow, I find an M8 virtually required when I face my Red Blok opponents. I simply can't kill them without the mortar.

If your vehicles are dying so fast even after you take the cover save, run a Morningstar pattern or take some mechanics in our infantry squads.

You mean a regular Cobra yes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thankyou Lunahound, those appeared as I was posting, its part of what I need. It give me a much better impression of the size of the FireCrawler. Is the top picture yours?

Orlanth wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thankyou Lunahound, those appeared as I was posting, its part of what I need. It give me a much better impression of the size of the FireCrawler. Is the top picture yours?

I dont have a fire crawler , even if i think they are worth the points and $

The Grasers looks too much like a boeing jet engine

if that was the only downside I would say convert some guns up. I rather like them, but think they look like searchlights.

Boeing uses Rolls Royce engines for its major passenger aircraft, but I think I see where you are coming from on this.

I don't remember the rules ever using the words "Vehicles 1/2 obscured from view get cover saves." I think the rules talk about "units" and how they get cover saves but considering most systems delineate vehicle cover rules differently from infantry and that's how I think about TTW rules I think that's why I didn't remember the AT-43 rules talking about vehicle cover saves specifically. I don't think they do, they just lump them in with everything else.

pages 66 ff talks about units and cover and right at the beginning of the rules part of the book units are described as being either infantry or AFV.

Orlanth wrote: In At-43 with mortars nfantry die die die and there is nothing you can do about it, except house rules or sit in a bunker. Got artillery, then the opponent is in a tactical null zone until its destroyed. what really irks is that smart play cant get your infantry out of the mess, its a no brainer killing spree. I have had players be at give up point after one turn of what a Defender Cobras mortar can do. Heaven help when I field a Dotch Yaga.

This is an example of what people have meant by "rock-paper-scissors" gameplay, I think. Cobra kills or grounds infantry. Infantry either has to hide or get shelled until Cobra is dead, so next opponent unit activation, say a Kossak, is about killing the Cobra. TacArms try to kill Kossak. Kolossus units try to kill TacArms. Etc.

I think the rock-paper-scissors perception in AT-43 comes from the alternating unit activation, and the fact that everything dies so quickly. One unit can immediately counter another unit by wiping it out to the man in a single turn, rock smashes scissors. Then you can kill the unit that just killed your unit, paper covers rock.


In terms of smart play, Orlanth, the way out of the mess is never to expose your infantry to LOS from the Cobra in the first place...that's pretty much your only defense against indirect fire. Kill the thing with indirect fire, or hide from it. Then the game becomes, until the thing with the indirect fire is dead, all about killing the thing with indirect fire or preventing it from being killed if you own it. Once you know that your opponent HAS to kill something you own in order to free up the rest of the army, your opponent holds the advantage until the unit in question is dead...

In other words deadlock. The only way around that within the rules as writen is more terrain far more terrain. Most of the official mapboard layuts have nothing like enough cover for survivability.
However with some changes the syastem still works.

Anyway back to the M8, I was lurking about in other fiourms and some people claimed success with it, but were not specific. I wonder how viable it is and in what circumstances. The Cobra at least doesnt need LOS but thart vehicle is exceptionally powerful for its price anyway.
Perhaps buying an M8 is a balancing move to counter having two Cobras soon.



Anyway still looking for confirmation on turret architecture.

This is why I was asking you and others how much terrain they thought an AT-43 board needed - if you can somehow delineate amounts per set area, say a 4' by 4' square, you can alleviate problems like these. Cover is almost everything in AT-43 as everything dies so quickly.

If you play the published scenarios, that's how it is meant to be. If you want your armies around a little longer, you need lots of cover. Without the cover, I think that's really playing to rock-paper-scissors. Yes, I think you should pay for mistakes, but not being in cover when you don't have enough around you isn't a mistake IMHO.

Thanks Cairnius. I always get them mixed up which is why I said mortar.

Our group plays with lots of cover - like 50% of the board is cover. Too much IMHO, but then we don't play scenarios either. As much as I'd like to give them a whirl, most of the group wants a more 40K deployment and game objectives, so that's what we usually play.

My UNA generally has no problems taking out vehicles, it is the infantry I have fits with which is where the rock/papers/scissors analogy works.

Well, playing without missions is only half the fun, on the other hand we do have quite some problems persuading our 40K gamers to play anything else but stand and shoot when they play 40k, so, I can understand where your problem comes from.

A good third of the table covered should do the job.

I hate sit-and-shoot 40K.

33% actually sounds like a reasonable amount, Duncan. This is the sort of information I need. The only mission system we were shown on the AT-43 forums that spoke to amounts of terrain broke it down by terrain pieces, but used AT-43 terrain pieces as the standard. That's not gonna work for a formal system using regular boards and terrain.

I'm still wondering about things like true line-of-sight blockers, i.e. terrain that blocks LOS from ANY vehicle or infantry unit on the table. An AT-43 table filled with LOS blocking terrain is going to be boring, I think. Long-range shooting is just part of the game and shouldn't be removed from gameplay. This feels like something that rules should address by setting limits on it. The closest we came was no more than 3, 12" long LOS blockers per 4' x 4' table.

The part I'm working on right now is the missions, actually. That's both the easiest and the most difficult part. The easy aspect is that the "kinds" of missions AT-43 uses are pretty readily-discernable - kill everyone, king of the hill, holding the line, skirmish-type mission, objective-based. It's the sixth mission I'm unsure of because I feel like the first five cover all the most-typical sorts of AT-43 gameplay. I'm thinking some sort of escort mission, but I have to study all the currently-existing ones first to make sure the basic design principles are balanced.

Once that's done...I think I have the workings of a pick-up play system that would work for just about everyone, AND it has a table of six "standard" missions to roll on like 40K and FoW. Then we just need testers...

Orlanth wrote:Are you the same Blokhead from the AT-43 forums who speaks to Jean Bey, and has lots of teaser info from Rackham.

Yes, that would be me. I don't really speak much with JB anymore, but I still converse with a couple of the other Rackham employees quite a bit. As of about a year ago, I do French-to-English translation work for Rackham. My first "big" translation release will be the Cog Army Book. I am close to finishing the ONI book, and the RAM book for Confrontation: The Age of the Rag'narok.

If so please ask for some F.A.Q.s and a complete rewrite of the blast rules amongst others. We need a lot fixing sooner rather than later, I even have some suggestions that look to be very workable and simple, at least from my and my playgroups persepcctive.

There is a compiled FAQ (unofficial) linked to on the AT-43 forums (it has been kept alive for quite some time now). Here is the post describing it on the forums:

Overseer Bilesuck wrote:I compiled the FAQ that Duncan did and allot of the answers from Collin from the rules questions and here into one document. It is organized by what section of the turn it happens in IE:shooting, combat, movement,ETC.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgjk9n73_1gfnf5f&hl=en

New answers are in blue until the next time I edit it. Then they go to the black red scheme.

Hope this helps.

P.S. It only contains english forum rulings.

The topic of an officially updated errata has been requested numerous times by Sentinels and non-Sentinels alike. As with everything Rackham does, we will get it when we get it. I don't really like the way they keep us (their gaming fanbase) in the dark, but there isn't much I can do to change that.

As far as a rewrite of the blast (AoE) rules, I (and many others) don't believe there is an issue with them. I am all for hearing your suggestions as I am always open to debate. Better yet, why not join the AT-43 forum and write them out yourself?

Rackham has already said they will not produce a Rulebook v2 until all 8 armies are released. Expect that if I am around during this time, I will do my best to ensure that the translation and playtesting efforts are doubled. For now, there isn't much we as consumers can do, but wait it out. Consider that 40k has existed now for, what, 20 years? During that time they went through many serious changes. I expect that if AT-43 gets anywhere near that number in shelflife that it, too, will have undergone many changes. Only time will tell...

Duncan_Idaho wrote: A good third of the table covered should do the job.

Cairnius wrote:

33% actually sounds like a reasonable amount, Duncan.

Its interesting how Duncan says 33% terrain, you say 25% and I say 20-25%, though that was for 40K adn was including terrasin footprint only, I will likely take more for AT-43, though by using linear terrain you get the blocking effect and cover without too much volume. Also linear terrain skews the % results.

Cairnius wrote:
I'm still wondering about things like true line-of-sight blockers, i.e. terrain that blocks LOS from ANY vehicle or infantry unit on the table. An AT-43 table filled with LOS blocking terrain is going to be boring, I think. Long-range shooting is just part of the game and shouldn't be removed from gameplay. This feels like something that rules should address by setting limits on it. The closest we came was no more than 3, 12" long LOS blockers per 4' x 4' table.

This is why you are having problems.

Blocking terrain should be easy to move around, small enough to provide cover only from a limited angle and frequent enough so you can leapfrog. If you only take thrre pieces of blocking terrain then it bog the game down. Multiple blocking terrrain piecesm, just under a dozen of all sizes will provide cover from varied directions, its not just the terrain you are behind, its the terrain items in the way. Blocking terrain should open up long corridors of fire that can be moved, moved into and open or close according to tactical play.
This is when you will get a fixed gameplay area, too few pieces and they become static cover in amongst the open, enough and you have an LOS maze that benefits the player with the smarter battle plan, you also get the advantage that static deplotyments with blindspots are inherently disadvantageous, so no matter your amy it always pays to redeploy at leasrt part of your assets.

Good idea for blocking terrain are tall ruined walls and building corners, small mesas or rock canyon formations and impenetrably dense foliage such as deep thorn bushes. Generally about 3' to 7' a side in varied shapes, with at laasrt one side long enough to hide a vehicle or full squad from the game system but from a limited angle.

Cairnius wrote:I hate sit-and-shoot 40K.

33% actually sounds like a reasonable amount, Duncan. This is the sort of information I need. The only mission system we were shown on the AT-43 forums that spoke to amounts of terrain broke it down by terrain pieces, but used AT-43 terrain pieces as the standard. That's not gonna work for a formal system using regular boards and terrain

I missed your other thread, apparently. Here is what I posted in another thread on another forum:

Blokhead on AT-43 forum wrote:

Q1) If we want to add new terrain pieces like forests / small ruins / rivers
etc , how do we go about with their stats?

A1) There are no hard and fast rules. AT-43 is a game that is meant to be played with objectives in mind, especially based around a mission format. It can be played "free flow" like other games, but was not originally designed to do so. See this thread for a discussion many of us have had on how to place terrain not defined in the main rulebook: http://en-forum.at-43.com/viewtopic.php?t=3691

Q2) How do we determine how much terrain% is adequate ? I realize it depends on what type of terrains too. But is there an over all guide line?

A2) Again, as a mission-specific game, the missions will list how much terrain should be placed, and where it should be placed. However, for those of us who like "free flow" gaming, the general rule of thumb seems to be 25% for non-mission-specific games.

I would even consider Duncan's 33% terrain coverage to be accurate as well. It seems like the larger the table, the more terrain should be added (to keep certain shooty armies from being overpowered).

http://www.at43-forum.de/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=1842

The above thread contains quite some pics of a table that caters to all races. We had much fun creating and testing the layout.

Orlanth wrote:Blocking terrain should be easy to move around, small enough to provide cover only from a limited angle and frequent enough so you can leapfrog. If you only take thrre pieces of blocking terrain then it bog the game down. Multiple blocking terrrain piecesm, just under a dozen of all sizes will provide cover from varied directions, its not just the terrain you are behind, its the terrain items in the way. Blocking terrain should open up long corridors of fire that can be moved, moved into and open or close according to tactical play.

This is when you will get a fixed gameplay area, too few pieces and they become static cover in amongst the open, enough and you have an LOS maze that benefits the player with the smarter battle plan, you also get the advantage that static deplotyments with blindspots are inherently disadvantageous, so no matter your amy it always pays to redeploy at leasrt part of your assets.

I'm not sure what you mean by "moving" blocking terrain, Orlanth. The only pieces of cover that can ever be moved with a Hoist ability are low walls. Everything else stays where it is.

What blocking terrain does in TTW is to close down, not open up, fire lanes. It defines them, or rather, defines where they may be if one player or another positions his forces accordingly.

I disagree that a bunch of blocked fire lanes benefits "the player with the smarter battle plan." It benefits one army, or one build, over another. Lots of cover benefits Red Blok but may screw UNA. Less cover benefits UNA but screws Red Blok. Therians would like cover but they also have ranged builds. Karmans prefer ranged but can handle themselves in close combat with aplomb. Given, you pick your armies after mission selection and terrain setup, but still - armies like Red Blok have few very units that would benefit from a lack of cover. Kolossi move slow and need lots of cover. Red Blok infantry needs lots of cover, other than Dragonovs with sniper rifles. They love open fire lanes, of course.

I'm less concerned with recommending specific terrain pieces than concerned about *types* of pieces. This is when trying to delineate amounts/types of terrain becomes very difficult to impossible to do well in a universal system. I can see why one person chose to stick solely with AT-43 terrain as it then becomes easier to say "Use this much in this sized space." Once you start using "regular" terrain, which comes in many varieties, shapes, and sizes, you start working into percentages of table covered, not amounts by piece.


@ Blokhead –

That thread was drawn upon when I wrote up my terrain rules.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I posted this in another thread, I think it's become applicable here, and this is also a more civil discussion:


Rules for incorporating 25mm-28mm terrain into AT-43

1) All terrain on the table must have a Size characteristic.

[Size characteristics are an integral part of AT-43 and I think a good idea design-wise, so I think this should remain in place as "official" AT-43 terrain all have size characteristics, I believe]


2) Any terrain which is considered “Area Terrain” in other game systems will provide a standard 5+ Cover Save, improved to 3+ as normal with a “Take Cover” drill. Any such terrain will also halve the Combat Movement of any units if even a single model moves through the terrain. You may not perform a Rush Movement through Area Terrain. Area Terrain is not considered WYSIWYG for purposes of blocking Line of Sight.

[This is a compromise between various systems people proposed in the thread Blokhead posted a link to. Because the terrain has to have a Size characteristic, this will determine whether it blocks Line of Sight or not, and for whom, by reading the unit cards]


3) Rivers or other waterways will halve a Combat Movement if even a single model moves through the terrain, but will not provide a Cover Save. You may not perform a Rush Movement through a body of water, river, or other waterway.

[This just seemed reasonable - the best cover you will get is the banks, but even then it may be way too thin for modern weaponry
as substantial river banks are more likely found in larger and rougher rivers which may be uncrossable by AFVs, which may get too restriction for pick-up play. Rivers and bodies of water would also certainly slow movement]


4) For all buildings, points of entry must be discussed and specified. AFV’s may not move through building walls. For purposes of vertical movement, units may move an equal horizontal and vertical distance in their turn. An intact building will not hinder movement. A ruined building will be considered Area Terrain as above.

[These are just borrowed from other systems, and they seem to work there so work here.]


5) All terrain in the terrain pool should be discussed prior to placement upon the table. If it does not match any of the types above, it should be determined whether it is WYSIWYG or Area terrain, whether it provides cover, whether it is intended to block LOS, and whether and how it hinders movement.

[Again, basic to other systems. Just talk about it beforehand if you are not sure, BEFORE it goes down on the table]



I really feel like these five rules cover anything we could think of to put on a table during an AT-43 game. Pick them apart, please, if you can, otherwise, done deal.

Cairnius wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Blocking terrain should be easy to move around,

I'm not sure what you mean by "moving" blocking terrain, Orlanth.

You are reading it wrong, the post made sense. Units move around the terrain. Blocking terrain should be small enough to not get in the way for too long if you asre trying to advance. I covered this on aniother thread regarding building sizes. Make a terain piece too large and it takes two or three turns to get around, in a game lasting 4-6 turns this is unacceptable.

Cairnius wrote:
What blocking terrain does in TTW is to close down, not open up, fire lanes. It defines them, or rather, defines where they may be if one player or another positions his forces accordingly.

Actually you misunderstand a fire lance is quite literally the arc of LOS betqween two pieces of blopcking terrain. This is a FIBUA term (Fighting in built up area), as a rule of thumb the more you can see the more you can be seen by. So as a machine gun can only be pointed in one direction it is often advisable to create a fire lane, by putting the mkchi9ne gun at the end of a street rather than an jutting exposerd house with a wide fire arc.

Now translated to gaming, the more terrain youi have up to a point, the more fire lanes you create. No terrain, no fire lanes, two rock columns in front of your position equals threre fire lanes (to the left to the right and between the two). now a fire lane also implies length so if another terrain piece bloecked my of the LOS to the left of the rock columns you would get no fire lane there, even though you couod still sdhoot up to the blocking terrain. Fire lances are important when you look at a city of empty streets and machine guns with very long range, you end up some units being like bishops in chess, hidden amogst the eenmy lines and largely dormant until you stray onto the diagonal they are watching.
At-43 being one of the games which include rules for cover and overwatch, the two rules required for good urban games, fire lanes become important, as lethal traps effecting a limit area. Especially as At-43 allows long range accurate fire

Cairnius wrote:
I disagree that a bunch of blocked fire lanes benefits "the player with the smarter battle plan." It benefits one army, or one build, over another. Lots of cover benefits Red Blok but may screw UNA. Less cover benefits UNA but screws Red Blok.

Red Blok are penalised on low covedr games because they have to get in close, but the opposite is an equaliser rather than a red Blok advantage. UNA have artillery too, and laser designators can be used to paint a vehicle, hidden or not and then shaft it with a swarm of missiles. So tactics them resolve around dealing with TAcArmas befroe they can paint targets vs dealing with sieprs and other artillery striders.
Again admittedly some house rules/rewrites are needed to unsuck some rules.

Cairnius wrote:
I'm less concerned with recommending specific terrain pieces than concerned about *types* of pieces. This is when trying to delineate amounts/types of terrain becomes very difficult to impossible to do well in a universal system. I can see why one person chose to stick solely with AT-43 terrain as it then becomes easier to say "Use this much in this sized space." Once you start using "regular" terrain, which comes in many varieties, shapes, and sizes, you start working into percentages of table covered, not amounts by piece.

There are ways around this. You delimit types of terrain and give examples. In doing so you pretty much mimic Sun Tzu with dangerous ground, entangling ground etc described tactically rather than on what it is.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your ammedndedc post arrived while this was in writing. Start it up in a new thread and lets work this out. We do need to open a an At-43 terrain thread.

This was supposed to be about whether terrain density is good enough reason to justify fielding an M8 or Fire Crawler. It might be best if we got bsck to that vbecauise the efficiacy of the Fire Crawler has not yet been discussed. Anyone got one?

Got two. They are wasted if left alone, but pure gold when used together with other troops.

Why is this?

As their name says: They are support striders. They pack the heavy artillery, but need the lighter units for protection, though they can absorb quite some damage.

Ah, right it looked like you meant you needed two Fire Crawlers.
Sure I would not send a Fire Crawler, or anything else, in alone.

Well, you can use two Crawlers, but those are 5000+ games. and they still need infantry support and should be deployed seperately.