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.

http://jeuxdefigs.free.fr/images/stories/ONI/3675443876_658169419b.jpg

Nice! I'm glad they chose an understated colour-scheme. I will predict that these will be popular with a lot of people, even outside of AT-43.

Very nice... unfortunately I don't knkow where in CT I can get them

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice...

The studio pictures of AT-43 models really don't mean much to me anymore. I learned my lesson from the complete UNA, Therian, and Red Blok armies I owned (Red Blok all got sold for a small profit). The pictures we see in the ads and the army books and the rulebooks are decidedly not what we get from the unit boxes.

I'll look forward to seeing someone post pics of the minis right out of the boxes, to see whether the better standards they established with the Karmans remain the new constant. I don't see why they wouldn't, however.

What´s wrong with you? GW does not print pictures of bare metal minis in their books. Why should Rackham. And they usually write in the texts accompanying the pics whether they are studio or final.

Apples to oranges. GW doesn't do prepaints - and GW also gives you quite comprehensive directions on how to mimic the 'eavy Metal team's stuff, down to the tiny details.

When Rackham posts pictures of their minis, it's reasonable for someone to take a look at that, hear the game is a pre-paint game, and think "Wow, that's what the minis look like?" I certainly expected the stuff to look pretty good when I looked at the rulebook, and when I saw the pictures of items on The War Store when I placed my first order...and then the minis actually showed up...

It might be cool to see Rackham acknowledge the reality that a lot of serious wargamers do re-paints to get the AT-43 minis looking good like the models in their collections. Print up some material on how to mimic the studio paintjobs they get for their advertisements and publications, giving color schemes and such.

It might even not be a bad idea if they produced unpainted models alongside painted minis. Give people the chance to paint up their own armies if they want. I have a Warmachine-playing friend who noted that the ONI stuff bears some passing resemblance to Cryx units from WM, and then had some interest at looking at AT-43, but when he saw they were pre-paints he kind of deflated...but I bet he might have bought some unpainted resin models to assemble and paint up himself.

And then he'd try the game, ostensibly...

Most LGS do not want to keep two SKU of the same model, so there is not much to be gained there. Also Rackham did some workshops on repainting. They did it in the past and probably will do it again.

I still do not see where Rackham does lie to its customers, they go out of their way to tell folks which pictures are studio and which are final products. What do you expect more? Big black letters all over the picture. It is not Rackham`s fault if some cut the explaining text from the picture.

Well Cairnius , they did make those nice boxes with LARGE transparent LIDS for a reason.

So there is no reason that you cant see what you are getting.

Seriously , is this even worth complaining about?

Haha i dunno ... the paint job looks preeeeeeetty close to me , oh here is my pic of UNA

Cairnius wrote:Apples to oranges. GW doesn't do prepaints - and GW also gives you quite comprehensive directions on how to mimic the 'eavy Metal team's stuff, down to the tiny details.

Ahahaha, nice nice, again , with your own way of arguing i'll tell you this.

APPLE TO ORANGES Cairnius , GW is a hobby wargame . They are more obligated to provide info on how to paint ,
which lets not forget to mention it'll help in boosting their sales of their : PAINTS, BRUSHES , PRIMERS , HOBBY BOOKS ,

Is AT-43 a hobby wargame? Nope! does that stop people that love their minis to not buy them to paint for themselves ? NOPE!
Then why are they obligated to hold your hand through to teach you how to paint Cairnius?

Youuuuuuuu so silly

Luna, I can't help but notice that you have those pretty AT-43 models next to unprimed, plastic and metal models. Do you have any painted models that you've produced to put the AT-43 stuff next to, to then take pictures of it? You know....like let's compare some U.N.A. officers to some Space Marine HQ choices I've painted to decent quality:







Yes. AT-43 minis are gorgeous.



The SKU argument makes sense, Duncan, if we're talking about stocking the product in stores...they could still do limited web sales, though, see if the product moves...no stores around here bother to stock AT-43, so it's a tough argument for me to relate to. When I was in NYC recently I went to what was recommended here on Dakka Dakka as the best TTW store in Manhattan, Compleat Strategist, and the owner said they don't even bother to carry AT-43 because it's "too much for what you get."

Maybe stores might be more likely to stock unpainted AT-43 models that might be more likely to get purchased by the hobbyists who frequent the stores? And perhaps they'd be cheaper to boot.

In terms of studio versus final products, I don't think I've ever seen pictures of the "actual" AT-43 minis on product boxes, online where the minis are being sold, pretty much anywhere. I do think there's a certain amount of false advertising here. Again, if we were talking about models and not pre-paints, that's a totally different story. Everyone knows that GW and PP models are just that, models, that need to be assembled and painted by the user. I can't imagine anyone looking at a box of Space Marines and thinking that that's what they're getting right out of the box.

When it comes to pre-paints, though, I'd prefer that Rackham use the pictures of the actual minis. Let people see what they are actually purchasing, not what the minis could look like if the owners bother to put hobby-level effort into something which is decidedly not a hobby in the same sense that 40K and Warmachine and Flames of War are hobbies.

I've been looking at the ad pictures of the Red Blok minis from the Army Box...I really, really wish they'd had some close-ups of those pictures. I swear I can see some tampography (sic?) on the armor flap on the front of the Hetman, which would be blatant false advertising...but in any case, those look like the regular unit box minis in those pictures, which is a bold-faced, flat-out lie. That's not what you are getting in the Army Box.

Cairnius wrote:Luna, I can't help but notice that you have those pretty AT-43 models next to unprimed, plastic and metal models. Do you have any very nicely painted models that you've produced to put the AT-43 stuff next to, to then take pictures of it? Maybe you can paint, maybe you can't, but your opinion of the mini's quality lacks some veracity unless you can demonstrate that you know how to paint. Otherwise, it just looks like you set a low bar so your praise doesn't mean much.

One has to wonder why Rackham doesn't show the actual minis in their pictures...what are they afraid of?

You know , when you first insulted me back when i was reviewing the game , you said i had no right to because im still learning the game. I wont say much to that because its true im still new.

Now you try to pull the same stunt by saying my standards are so low that i cant properly judge whats good paint job and whats bad?
And to make it worse the reason is so low is because i dont have any painted ( good standard ) minis to show to prove you wrong?

Rakham showing actual minis? what on earth are you talking about? the lid is transparent , YOU CAN SEE IT.
Though why dont you talk about GW then? why do they show nicely painted minis on their package when the minis are not painted , and not even assembled?

Tell you what Carnius , dont be a lazy pig , and click the gallery . Its right there , go view it and tell me exactly how bad my standards are that
i shouldnt be allowed to like pre painted jobs.

Hmm never realized just how small those Imperial Guard tanks are. That Cobra actually looks bigger than GW's tanks One more reason I switched to AT-43. GW's sense of scale is totally off.

Luna, you aren't following me...again.

When Rackham advertises its wares, they do not show closeups of the box fronts. Your argument doesn't apply. I'll say this, when I went to The War Store's AT-43 pages and looked at the Borz and Newton pictures, they look like the same ones I photo'ed above...just wish they would get a little closer...but those are decidedly not the pictures of the models they have in their rulebook and the UNA army book. I think there's something wrong with bothering with studio-painted models in any of their books unless they're also providing hobby support. I like truth in advertising. Just be honest and show what people actually get. Is something wrong with that?

In terms of your pictures - damn straight I'm calling you on photographing pictures meant to show off the quality of AT-43 models when you're putting them next to unpainted models. That's ridiculous. Put them in the proper context for comparatives or assessments - with other minis from other games that you've painted up. The method of comparison is finished product to finished product...

It's not my job to go clicking on your gallery because you posted bad comparative photos. This isn't about an assessment of your painting skills, don't be obtuse - it's about being honest about the quality of those AT-43 minis by putting them next to painted models rather than plastic, resin and metal.

Ah Cairnius, you never fail to make me smile...

And for what it's worth you seem to have been fooled three times, what with the UNA, Red Blok and Therians...

Actually my point was precisely that it was an understated colour-scheme and thus actually achievable in the mass production process, and not that these were the production paint-jobs. The factory-produced paint-jobs for all the previous Type ***'s really have been very good; I myself have been painting for years and I'm still impressed by the overall paint quality of most of AT-43's final product. Also the ONI can fall in with that whole masked, armoured, non-specific fascist, Jin-Roh, Helghast, or what you will, aesthetic, and so be of interest to a wider audience.

I play many different game systems (which time less and less permits) including AT-43, and I can see a place for the ONI miniatures in many of them, even going all the way back to Space Crusade. That one is for all you oldies out there .

I do enjoy putting on a good performance. *grin*

Yeah, I kind of bought into three armies all at once, Strahd, because the prices were so low. Freelance job, money to burn, went all-in. Luckily the Red Blok prices have gone up considerably on some items so I made a small profit getting rid of it...deciding whether to keep the Therians or not in addition to the U.N.A. There are worse things than deciding whether to make money or keep a bunch of toys.

I will agree that the AFV's are all pretty good. The only Red Blok I felt somewhat sad letting go were the Striders. Starting with the Karmans, I think the painting has gotten MUCH better. UNA and Therian non-vehicle minis kind of sucked, Red Blok were a little better but still unimpressive, but the Karmans looked like they got some real modicum of care to them. A buddy of mine owns one of all the Karman minis so all in all I've been able in inspect every AT-43 model currently on the market up close and person. They're certainly getting better.

I still think it would be nice to see some plain resin like the Grim Golem Overseer so that people could paint entire armies themselves, but hopefully the quality keeps getting better. I am somewhat impatient to see some unit box Cog minis, as the Army Box ones are going to be the same low standard as the Red Blok Army Box minis and I want to see what the Cogs are really going to look like...

Cairnius wrote:
It's not my job to go clicking on your gallery because you posted bad comparative photos. This isn't about an assessment of your painting skills, don't be obtuse - it's about being honest about the quality of those AT-43 minis by putting them next to painted models rather than plastic, resin and metal.

Are you been obtuse on purpose?

Lets see, 2 simple facts.

1) The pic was first taken as size comparison pic , my god what was your point you are trying to make? comparing painted vs plain plastic.

2) The pic is still colored , enough for people to see and judge for themselves. ( who ever asked you to compare the paint job or lack of paint job vs the GW minis next to it )

Do you enjoy dancing when I pull your strings, Luna? Wise up, kid.

I don't look too closely at your posts anymore...I just saw you say they looked "preeeety" and assumed you were opining on the quality of the minis again...but you didn't say anything about a size comparison back there, and we're talking about the quality of the AT-43 paint jobs right now...so why, precisely, would I have thought you were posting a size comparison when I don't see anyone having asked for one...

Look, you're a fanboi. I get it; but you don't have to get your panties all in a bunch whenever someone has something critical to say about AT-43. Hell, you should be thanking me for providing a counterpoint. Fanboi circle-jerks don't hold a lot of interest for anyone other than the Sentinels and the three or four regular posters in these threads...

Cairnius wrote:Do you enjoy dancing when I pull your strings, Luna? Wise up, kid.

I don't look too closely at your posts anymore...I just saw you say they looked "preeeety" and assumed you were opining on the quality of the minis again...but you didn't say anything about a size comparison back there, and we're talking about the quality of the AT-43 paint jobs right now...so why, precisely, would I have thought you were posting a size comparison when I don't see anyone having asked for one...

Look, you're a fanboi. I get it; but you don't have to get your panties all in a bunch whenever someone has something critical to say about AT-43. Hell, you should be thanking me for providing a counterpoint. Fanboi circle-jerks don't hold a lot of interest for anyone other than the Sentinels and the three or four regular posters in these threads...

You really dont get it do you , should i bother explaining to you? Or will you just dismiss it and troll some more?

Try reading this thread and my post without prejudice towards me, or the game . Im sure you'll then realize there is nothing about fan boys here , only yourself and your negativities.
Actually i'll explain it for the mods.

First of all , you cry foul when i present a pre painted AT-43 product next to unpainted GW product . You claim this is my attempt to make GW look bad .
so i told you , this pic was taken and posted waaay back for size comparison.

You claimed that im so obtuse that i cant realize you are discussing the quality of the paint job. THE IRONY . again , your eyes are so clouded . You cant even see that pic for what it is.
ITS A PIC SHOWING THE QUALITY OF THE PAIN JOB , here i even made it red for you to see the relevance.

Im a fan boy? well thats wrong on too many levels . But faster said , im just not an disgrunted wife of a bad marriage.
And lets be fair here , i dont openly praise them anymore than you openly whine about what you hate about them.

Lastly , i dont care if Mods punish me for this . But im sure im speaking for many others .

Way to go turning another thread into how much you hate AT-43 JERK . WE GET IT YOU HATE IT OK? FOR ****s SAKE

I call you a fanboy because you keep defending AT-43 against whatever you perceive as a slight or an attack from me like you work for the company, or own stock in Rackham Entertainment. You posted up a thread about helping people get into AT-43 which nobody was looking for, as they could go over to the AT-43 forums and get the information they needed. You're being a fanboy, or fangirl as it were, so why deny it? There's nothing wrong with it - just be honest!

The ironic thing is, I was right with you two months ago. I hung out on the fan sites, I even became a Sentinel, suppressing what seemed like obvious criticisms of the game in the hopes that the good outweighed the bad and the criticisms could just be ignored. After a while the cheerleading got to me, just like GW cheerleaders get to me, and I've had my day getting in their faces as well.

In both cases, I think I was better able to appreciate the game better after admitting to all their problems, or better able to see the strengths for admitting their weaknesses.

I enjoy playing the counterpoint to all the AT-43 fans because no one else does. People seem to either love AT-43 or laugh at it, with no middle ground, so the only people talking about it on a regular basis generally-speaking are the fans, and there aren't many of them online outside of the AT-43 forums. 50% of the people in these AT-43 threads on Dakka Dakka are Sentinels, many of whom opened accounts here very recently after I posted my review. That should tell you something if you're a bright bulb in the chandelier.

I'm the middle ground. Welcome to the party. *grin* If you can't get that someone can be harshly critical of something without that meaning that they abjectly hate it...

No one in their right mind kvetches, moans, and cries the way you do when GW or 40K get attacked. Maybe no one cares because GW is at the top of the pile and no one's knocking them off the spot, and we all know it; but Rackham E. is on more tenuous ground so people are more sensitive to criticism?

Tough. If Rackham wants to play in the same league as the big boys, it's going to get the same treatment they get. GW, PP, Battlefront, they all get shellacked on a regular basis by many more voices than my own, but I don't see women rending their garments over it.

If you can't handle my opinion, put me on ignore - but for the love of God stop bitching about it!

Cairnius , you mis read things on purpose , and tried to insult me with it.

The moment i corrected you , you fall back to me = just whinning.

You sir, should be the one stop biching and moaning.

I defend against things falsely accused , its simple as that. I care not for what or who it is.

See , your attempt to "guide" others and you said we should "thank" you for it = reading your moanings.

Heaven forbid i actually compiled a good thread with good info and good link, you call it useless.

What a jerk...

You see , 2+2 = 4 . I'll defend that fact all i want , and it has NOTHING to do with me liking math . see it now?

And again , no im not same as "you 2 months ago" I'll never whine and moan even if AT-43 collapes NOW
Its simple , i simply dont look at the game the say way as you do. For example , you see the ONI Tac Arms,
first thing that comes to your mind is whinning about it. When i see it, i thought " wooo , time for some 40k Obliterators"
Different mind set sir , im just not the whinny disgrunted wife type.

and FFS, stop ruining other's thread with your petty whinning about what you hate about the game.

You posted up a thread about helping people get into AT-43 which nobody was looking for

As far as i know the 500+ reader might be people that wanted to know about it , hence why they clicked the thread.
If not , then atleast i know the 3 people in that thread appreciates the thread. Then even doing it for 3 people = worth it.

Like i said , im just not so petty like you. I dont need a reason to be helpful or nice (unlike you , joining sentinel just for the updates news and info ),
i'll do it aslong as people need it , from the bottom of my heart.

All this argument about the paintjobs is irrelevent, since Rackham pre-paint minis fall apart if you handle them repeatedly. Flimsy game, flimsy miniatures. Just another reason why the French suck.

warpcrafter wrote:All this argument about the paintjobs is irrelevent, since Rackham pre-paint minis fall apart if you handle them repeatedly. Flimsy game, flimsy miniatures. Just another reason why the French suck.

While i have no idea of warpcrafter is serious or not ( i have tested by scrapping it with xacto knife , it never came off hmm ) , atleast i admire his actions of saying it out in the open. I like you warpcrafter
Unlike Cairnius that attempts to take some pokes every thread and hope no one notices it. (learn from WC , what he did was very manly)

Um...the # of readers isn't "unique number of readers," Luna...

See, while I think warpcrafter's post was hilarious, he makes the point well. This is one of the two primary reactions to AT-43 that gets posted online. Either people love it, like you, or people think it abjectly sucks, like him.

Thank whatever God or Gods you worship that there's at least one example of the middle ground around.

You don't correct me, Luna, you throw fanboyisms at me, which is fine - but call it what it is. If you're "defending" the game you're a fanboy. Both of the guys I play AT-43 with, both of whom have considerably more experience with the game than you do, have no problem calling a spade a spade and pointing out the glaring problems with AT-43 that offend you so.

One of them prefers to only play AT-43 anymore and has been at this game since it was first released, and even he doesn't react with the drama you do when I issue complaints about the game. He usually agrees with me - and then he and I can also agree on the positives.

It's much more difficult to talk to cheerleaders. I keep hoping you'll figure that out. I really wish you would just tell me your age, finally, like I was asking you to when you were stalking me in PM's, because if you really are a 14-year-old kid or something I need to stop engaging you purely out of propriety...otherwise I'll keep enjoying watching you lose your cool against perceived attacks until the threads get locked.

The fact that you actually fault me for having joined the Sentinels to get updates, news, and info I otherwise could not just belies your youth, I think. It's pretty naive to think that a good number of Sentinels don't join for precisely the same reason...they just don't react poorly to what they learn in there.

By your own logic, if I jump into a cheerleading thread and even three people learn something about AT-43 that they otherwise wouldn't learn because the fanboys and cheerleaders don't volunteer the information, and that saves them from spending a good deal of money on the game and then learning that information afterwards and having a bad reaction like I did, then I'm being just as helpful as you are, but to a different end.

I think people should be informed - that means taking the good with the bad. I don't know how much proper "bad" I've seen in your discussions of the game.

I did look at some of your painting work, incidentally. Some of it looks very good, which just makes my mind boggle even more that you sing the praises of the AT-43 stuff so much when what you do is so colossally better than anything AT-43 is putting out and makes the AT-43 stuff look like crap. You've got your own method of comparison right there in your house...

Cairnius wrote:
I did look at some of your painting work, incidentally. Some of it looks very good, which just makes my mind boggle even more that you sing the praises of the AT-43 stuff so much when what you do is so colossally better than anything AT-43 is putting out and makes the AT-43 stuff look like crap. You've got your own method of comparison right there in your house...

Well Cairnius , since this last sentence sounds sincere , i'll explain to you how my thought process works.

How do i judge AT-43 Pre paints , ( i suggest you to read this Cairnius , and take it to heart on how i think )

K, i'll just list them and comment on them.

1) The pricing . Without the discounts , they are still cheaper than GW . Thats a plus.

2) The material / options . True they dont have option sprues GW do , the attachment box sort of solves that problem.
Further more , they can be posed differently any time because the minis are made to be swivel. So thats a tie.

3) The pre paints (woo here it comes) Now this will differ depending on the models themselves. The AFV are insanely well done even compare to GW hobbiest standards.

4)Now here is the discrepancy between me and you Cairnius , the type * and ** Infantries. Now , its true these are basic paint jobs . However , neat base color where it should to be , neat washes where it should be.
How do they compare with the AFVs? around 3 lvls ( commission standard wise ) below. So how do we compare these?
Easy , 2 ways.
step 1) compare commission types , such paint job is around lvl 2-3 . Which is normally charged $3-$4 per figure. Again , this would make the AT-43 minis practically FREE , just the painting fee alone.
step 2) for the painters: The pre paints are applied very thinly , yet extremely durable for what it is. This is already the base color + the washes , which means all the hobbiest have to do is :
trim the minor mold lines if there is , apply the final high lights / detailing . THATS IT.

So there you go Cairnius , true comparisons here. Nothing to do with fan , all pure none biased opinion. And why i LOVE their pre paint jobs , its win win situation for me no matter
what aspect i want to look at it.

Ultimately ( incase you skipped through it all ) Its not whether i can paint better or not ( no i cannot paint the AFVs better then they come with, unless i have air brush )
Its 1) Is it worth the price? Yes.
Its 2) Are hobbiest able to repaint them? Yes , with incredible ease too thanks to the neat pre paint job they laid out for us.

* In addition , i love decals ( or the chemical stamp or w/e they use ) i love them , thus its intimidating for me to repaint ( because its almost impossible for me to paint around it properly )
Thats why the new army box are great for me. CHEAP , pre painted base color , no wash i think? thats ok too , no decal ? thats alright , then i'll be motivated for re paint.

And did i say cheap? whole army for same price as 1 Terminator squad.

And if you want to see the #1 thing that's wrong with Rackham games, just look in Luna's sig. By the way, she's started stalking me in PM's now, Cairnius.

Ok, lets be fair Apples with apples

You said your "good" standard quality paints Cairnius are better than the product RE sales ---its good but not as good as it is advertised by GW in the next image for example, does that makes GW worng? NO, does that make you rant to GW no?

I am sure than FEW and read again a small percentage of the people ever achieve this degree of quality paints, some people not even paint at all a bring grey or black half finished armies to play.



this is RE advertising the product




in the end you get te product form GW this way:



and from RE this way:



In general, many players even those in the "hobby" never achieve a degree like you when you paint and compare them (and you) with the RE or GW studio paints is 100% apple vs. oranges as neither them nor you is a profesional painter.


Many GW player have a black white or grey army because they dont paint as the "hobby masters" say so.... and even then RE has the advantage as their army looks "good" on the table top

Small repaint.... even less job than painting a full army..








if you want to compare apples vs apple, please do not compare the "HOBBY" with a prepainted miniatures game

I bought the Confrontation Age of Ragnarok starter set and tried to play the game with a friend, and boy was it underwhelming. Not only was it badly translated, but that universal resolution chart is just stupid. And I don't like the cards with symbols instead of abbreviations next to the stats. And before we figured out the game, half the minis came apart in our hands. I have lots of plastic GW minis that I put together with plastic model cement and they're so tough they survive being mistaken for cat toys. Perhaps I'm just being picky, but every game system I've checked out has something in it that I don't like. I am stuck with 40K because it's the least objectionable and easy to get a game together at my FLGS. How anybody kept those minis together long enough to repaint them is beyond me.

warpcrafter wrote:I bought the Confrontation Age of Ragnarok starter set and tried to play the game with a friend, and boy was it underwhelming. Not only was it badly translated, but that universal resolution chart is just stupid. And I don't like the cards with symbols instead of abbreviations next to the stats. And before we figured out the game, half the minis came apart in our hands. I have lots of plastic GW minis that I put together with plastic model cement and they're so tough they survive being mistaken for cat toys. Perhaps I'm just being picky, but every game system I've checked out has something in it that I don't like. I am stuck with 40K because it's the least objectionable and easy to get a game together at my FLGS. How anybody kept those minis together long enough to repaint them is beyond me.

I dont play Conforntation, I dont care about confrontation...I cannot give an opinion at all about the conf minis

However, if you think the universal resolution chart is just stupid i cannot imagine what you think of...lets say: a unit in the line of sight between a shooting and a target unit gives COVER saves to the target unit...

Whatever fluff/explanation that you or anyone try to give to that situation are deluding themselves to really NOT consider that rule stupid...

Card with symbols and not abbreviations --> I like it more instead of going trough all the army books / codices etc etc etc... and if you cannot learn 5-8 symbols then I think the problem is in another place...not in the cards

least objectionable and easy to get a game together at my FLGS --> doesnt make neither good nor bad....

Mod:

People are entitled to make critical opinions of paint jobs and rules and to have different opinions but you must keep away from personal attacks on other users.

If people find it impossible to discuss the topic without getting angry with each other I shall just lock the thread.

Thank you.

LunaHound wrote:Well Cairnius , they did make those nice boxes with LARGE transparent LIDS for a reason.

Luna, how did that help you with all those internet orders you made?

Cairnius wrote:Luna, I can't help but notice that you have those pretty AT-43 models next to unprimed, plastic and metal models. Do you have any painted models that you've produced to put the AT-43 stuff next to, to then take pictures of it? You know....like let's compare some U.N.A. officers to some Space Marine HQ choices I've painted to decent quality:




Yes. AT-43 minis are gorgeous.

Decent tabletop quality paintjob Cairnius. But how long did it take to paint that? I think At-43 paint quality is more than fair, and the vehicles are very good indeed.

Cairnius wrote: The only Red Blok I felt somewhat sad letting go were the Striders.

I need to get some of those.

Cairnius wrote:Do you enjoy dancing when I pull your strings, Luna? Wise up, kid.

Not that smartest thing you have said.

Cairnius wrote:
Look, you're a fanboi. I get it; but you don't have to get your panties all in a bunch whenever someone has something critical to say about AT-43. Hell, you should be thanking me for providing a counterpoint. Fanboi circle-jerks don't hold a lot of interest for anyone other than the Sentinels and the three or four regular posters in these threads...

Cairnius, you would have a point if you didnt cover it with spikes and try to hit Luna with it. Yes there are At-43 fanbois here who dont appreciate the open minded critique Dakka is known for being directed at their game, its a worrying trend. Your comments are both imflamatory and if I might say so mistargeted. I get the impression Luna thinks for herself.

LunaHound wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:All this argument about the paintjobs is irrelevent, since Rackham pre-paint minis fall apart if you handle them repeatedly. Flimsy game, flimsy miniatures. Just another reason why the French suck.

While i have no idea of warpcrafter is serious or not ( i have tested by scrapping it with xacto knife , it never came off hmm ) , atleast i admire his actions of saying it out in the open. I like you warpcrafter
Unlike Cairnius that attempts to take some pokes every thread and hope no one notices it. (learn from WC , what he did was very manly)

Luna, I wouldnt count this as an educated post style for Cairnius to emulate. So the French suck, coz my minis fell apart. Frankly I would prefer Cairnius as he is.
Besides he must have had a very bad batch, end of the glue pot. I have the opposite problem wirth some things supposedly mobile being stuck fast, but no complaints though, if I wanted articulated toys I would buy Action Man.

Ok, lets knock heads together here. You are so far from a standpoint of argueing the issues that the issues you choose to argue with are holding decreasing logic. At this point you are grasping for anything as ammo to throw at each other. Please stop.

Cairnius wrote:
See, while I think warpcrafter's post was hilarious, he makes the point well. This is one of the two primary reactions to AT-43 that gets posted online. Either people love it, like you, or people think it abjectly sucks, like him.

The middle ground is still here.

Myrnir wrote:Hmm never realized just how small those Imperial Guard tanks are. That Cobra actually looks bigger than GW's tanks One more reason I switched to AT-43. GW's sense of scale is totally off.

Actually real scale MBT's for 40K would be very cumbersome, a real MBT today is not too far off Baneblade scale for 40k.

warpcrafter wrote:All this argument about the paintjobs is irrelevent, since Rackham pre-paint minis fall apart if you handle them repeatedly. Flimsy game, flimsy miniatures. Just another reason why the French suck.

Modquisition on: This thread has been reported
Ixnay on the french insultey...

@Orlanth: Yep, just teasing about the GW scale. I've always known the vehicles were too small. It just struck me about HOW small they are when I saw them next to a Cobra. I'd actually have preferred the tanks being the size of Baneblades. And no, I wouldn't be using many in a game