Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is not intended as trolling.

I find this a fascinating subject of discussion and am interested in others' feedback as I think this is an entirely-legitimate question, which I am now seeing in a new light due to working on my AT-43 Mission Generator. And yes, I will probably be posting this elsewhere as not everyone reads these forums and I'm interested in as many peoples' thoughtful feedback as possible, and this does not automatically make someone a troll (an idea that I personally find repugnant in its lack of reasoned basis).


When I first discovered AT-43 I looked at it as a tabletop wargame, an alternative or supplement to Warhammer 40,000, in the same vein as Flames of War or Warmachine or WFB all of which go into the same genre in my mind.

Then I started to get into AT-43 and I was taken aback by the posters, and the tiles, the limited terrain rules, and the extremely-strict and confined Scenarios but still the game used miniatures which people and the rules called models, it had Army Books like Codexes or Intelligence Handbooks, and so I thought of the game as a boardgame/ttw hybrid, and reviewed it as such. The more time that went by, however, the more I thought of AT-43 as purely a boardgame with really detailed playing pieces, and that feeling gets reinforced as I work on the Mission Generator.

I am beginning to figure out why Rackham Entertainment does not support pick-up play like we get in tabletop wargames. It makes things complicated. AT-43 is designed to be a very simple game. Streamlined, quick, and brutal. Short game lengths. By prescribing terrain setups and using set Scenarios you eliminate a host of concerns. In the process of getting my Mission Generator into an Alpha state for testing I've had to make pictures to illustrate where Permanent Access Zones go, I've had to write rules for how to use Bunkers and Containers as they need special attention for terrain placement, I've had to make a chart defining Assault/Reinforcement ratios for armies from 1,500 AP to 10,000 AP.

Basically, I need to cover any and every eventuality I can think of, and the system hasn't even gotten to open testing yet.


Boardgames can have their share of complexity, but by and large the more mainstream products don't even hold a candle to the complexity of the average tabletop wargame...and in essence, what is happening is that tabletop wargamers are turning AT-43 into something more familiar, but which the designers never intended it to be. I call these various systems "adaptive AT-43."

Which raises the question: what, precisely, are we adapting AT-43 for, or into? The existence of this question is what, for me, clinches the fact that AT-43 is a boardgame. Otherwise, it wouldn't be such an intensive undertaking to try and formally set out the principles by which players can liberate themselves from the Scenarios and prescribed terrain setups. What I find fascinating is how the AT-43 ruleset seems to be able to support both methods of play, but they are extremely different from one another in execution.


I find myself thinking that if AT-43 were marketed as a boardgame, if it were discussed in boardgame forums instead of tabletop wargaming forums, and compared to, say, Space Hulk and Space Crusade and Hero Quest instead of Warhammer 40,000, I don't think I would have ever developed a single problem with the AT-43 Scenario system. It would have made sense; and the way I thought about the ruleset would also have changed markedly.

Of course, I also find myself thinking that if when I had first looked into AT-43 it had been clearly designated as a boardgame that I wouldn't have looked twice at it due to the price, but aside from this potentially being a hint as to why Rackham chose to market the way they did ironically-enough, the rest is a separate conversation.


So, this leads me to the following question: if Rackham has no intention of supporting "tabletop wargaming-style play," i.e. use of regular 28mm terrain, development and testing of non-Scenario missions a la other TTW systems, are they hurting their own possibilities for success by not truly disassociating AT-43 from tabletop wargaming systems as much as humanly possible?

Might the long-term perception of AT-43 in the gaming community had been different if comparisons between Warhammer 40,000 and AT-43 were never made because it would have been inappropriate from the get-go?

If Rackham is attempting to generate its own audience rather than to steal players from other systems (and whether or not this actually takes place is an entirely separate question than divining the intent of the company) then wouldn't it make sense to differentiate the product from tabletop wargames as much as possible?

I like boardgames. I own a metric frakton of them. I don't see anything untoward, rude, critical or dismissive by calling AT-43 a boardgame, and I think it would be a more appropriate filter through which to view and discuss the game with other gamers and also would lend a MUCH more positive light to the product.


So...what do people think?

You are thinking in 2d.

At-43 is a wargame which has been facilitated to run on stock terrain elements. Thus it is adapted to run on terrain tiles with set identidfying features.

Now there are problems with this such as Rackham failing to provide decent terrain rules, but it is set up for open or tile based play and is thus not a boardgame.

Modquisition: this poster has been suspended.

What do you have against boardgames, Bile? *raises eyebrow*

Orlanth, I'm not sure how you can say that AT-43 is set up for open play on either tables or tiles. We can only speak to what the rules provide for us, and they don't really provide for either.

AT-43 isn't "adapted" to run on 2D terrain, it is designed to run using 2D terrain in part or in full. "Adaptation" implies "change."

Easy AT gives you access to the really cool Mission Editor, with the tiles and posters and the graphics from the rulebook Standard Missions loaded in, and the icons for the various official terrain elements, but that's as close as we get to open play, and it's still not truly "open" play in the sense that it sticks within the restrictions of rules-based terrain elements.

It's not about thinking in two dimensions, it's about limiting our conversation to available evidence. A lot of speculation goes on as to what Rackham meant in the game design, but that's useless for real discussion. Some people argue, for instance, that the Scenarios are only meant to be for beginners and that AT-43 players are naturally supposed to move on to open tables and 28mm terrain, but there's absolutely nothing to substantiate this claim. It's simply not a truthful statement - it's opinion that can't be backed up with fact.

ON EDIT:

deleted by modquisition as no longer needed

No.

Steel Rabbit wrote:No.

...

Why not?

Hi Blokhead...I'm not sure why you're snoring...particularly in light of the fact that you actually provided some fairly solid evidence to back up my case. You're extremely close to Rackham Entertainment, right? I know you do their English translation, and purport to be in the know about the last two armies which has to be info they keep pretty close to the chest...

To quote you from the English AT-43 forums:

"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."

Again, this isn't official by any means but coming from you I'd say it fairly reflects on the point to Orlanth about designer intent.

No, it is not a boardgame.

My definition of a boardgame being that the BOARD determines the way miniatures move and determine LOS, usually through the use of squares, hexes, or "rooms" that indicate a movement point. I do not know of any boardgame where I need a ruler to measure out my moves.

Space Hulk, for instance, is a boardgame. You have clearly defined movement squares which show how a miniature moves and LOS.

By my definition, this means that any game that uses a hex map, I would consider to be a boardgame. SFB, B5Wars, Heavy Gear Tactical, as examples, would be considered board games.

AT-43 you can play without the tiles. But more to prove my definition, the tiles/posters do NOT determine how a minature must move. The tiles also do not determine LOS for me.

That is a reasonable reply. Thank you.

How would you describe the difference inherent to most tabletop wargames, i.e. the "free play" or "free form" setup they support with the rules design, versus what AT-43 provides, in terms of genres of games?

I think that the game is rather young in comparison to WH40k is the major reason that the rules are fairly lacking in
various areas. Rackham wants to sell you their stuff as well rather than you going out to buy "X" or "Y" from a competing
company, thats just good business, and while I do expect that someday we will see official rules for the things your asking
about in the other thread you'll just have to make do with your own rules and ideas for the time being like your doing anyway.
It's not a board game as the mats and tiles are not required to play it just makes it look nicer if you don't have an alternative
to playing on a bare table.

Cairnius wrote:Why not?

Because I, and everyone I know, play it with our "40K terrain" which we don't do with Carcassone.

I have a question Cairnius , its semi ontopic i guess.

When you first got into at-43 where did you buy them from? like which online store / shop?

And since you brought up selling the material ,

-what do you still have left
-what have you sold so far
-around what % off are you asking for generally (this goes for "at the price i paid you posted " )

I don't know...


I've played alot since the release of AT-43, and less than 50% of those games were played on poster-maps and/or Rackham-tiles.

The rest were played on "regular" TTG-boards.

The way I read it, the AT-43 rules on how to handle terrain can easily be applied to regular TTG-terrain. And the objectives? Just designate strategic and tactical points and assign VP/RP values before the game starts.

(We usually do 1 major and 2 minor VP objectives and 2-4 RP-objectives. )

Game set and match!

How would you describe the difference inherent to most tabletop wargames, i.e. the "free play" or "free form" setup they support with the rules design, versus what AT-43 provides, in terms of genres of games?

I do not see a difference. I have never seen a difference. And it is why I am not having as much of a problem with the game in this respect as you are.

You honestly don't see a difference between slapping down some laminated tiles or posters and putting containers and walls and nanogenerators and such wherever the map tells us to put them, and starting with a blank 6' by 4' table, getting the amount of terrain we're supposed to have or rolling on a terrain generator and following the rough guidelines, and then setting up a table which may never be repeated again?

Or one ruleset designed around this sort of freedom and another ruleset confined to the aforementioned strictness of table setup?

I've been thinking about it, and it's curious to classify games by their movement rules, i.e. on set spaces or "freely." I'm not sure I really see much difference between a BattleMech's movement on a hex-field map or a BattleMech's movement using miniatures on a regular table. The actual movement doesn't really change all that much...you still need to change facings and pay for the movement, for example. And your Marauder is likely going to move to precisely the same spot it would have in that same tactical situation presented on either hex-fields or an open table.

Do you really think that the difference between a boardgame and a tabletop wargame is defined mostly by how the playing pieces move? If the mostly isn't meant by you then I apologize, that's just how it comes across.

Or one ruleset designed around this sort of freedom and another ruleset confined to the aforementioned strictness of table setup?

I do not see AT-43 having "this aforementioned strictness". I see you misinterpretting it as being strict. And this is where I am going to agree that we disagree with this issue.

If it's pure opinion then yes, we can't really discuss it further between you and I.

Ok, ok its time for Orlanth to turn up with a bucket of temper reducing ice water. If it works on fighting dogs it should work here too yes.

<Splash>

Cairnius: This question really belongs in your terrain rukles thread or in this new thread but linked to it. Then you can be seen as trying to work out a games dign philosophy for the game which when combined with a much needed rules change - as you are helping with. Then only the most rabid Sentinels, and there are still sadly a few of those will attack you.

Cairnius wrote:
To Luna -

At the risk of feeding your trolling...:....

Now to be fair Cairnius I dont see why you accuse Luna of trolling to her face when she is at least in part restrained while trying to engage politeily with the Sentinels who troll you full on. I do honestly suggest you leave her posts unanswered at this stage. But that is all I have to say in critique of you on this thread.



To whome it may concern: Cairnius asked his question. He opened his discussion with:

Cairnius wrote:This is not intended as trolling.

Now I know some of you wont believe that, or won't get over your own hang ups to try to beleive that. But can't you either:

1. Stay off the thread.
2. Answer the questions posed, in a supportive way or posed as a polite logical disagreement. Destoy his arguements if you can and will, but dont attack the man.

Cairnius wrote:
I find this a fascinating subject of discussion and am interested in others' feedback as I think this is an entirely-legitimate question, <snip>

So...what do people think?

I responded to you, this time only a couple of lines. But then we get this little gem from a new user.

bilesuck wrote:Still trying to tear down R I see, just give up and sell your AT stuff, no one wants you around little bitch.

So he knows all about Cairnius I see, but is very new to Dakka. Four posts at present count, ALL of which are hostile replies to posts by Cairnus.
Where did he import his hatred from? I cannot assume he is a Sentinel but he is here, very very rude and personal which is suspciously rare for someone so new to the forums. Such undisguised hatred might be at least logically acceptable if Cairnius's post was about something that would rile up the public at large, such as an extreme political view. But anger over whether At-43 is a boardgame or not; sorry that only makes sense if he is bussed in to add to the critique against Cairnius on Dakka. There is no other reason for him to have any hang ups with existing members.


Next up a cryptic one word reply, which we will bypass. Then:

Blokhead wrote:

Sorry to reply like that is blatant trolling.
Ok. Now we know Blokhead to also be relatively new, new enough not to have good cause to offend forum members unless he purposely brought his hang ups with him. Blokhead is also identified as a Sentinel with, in his eyes at least, a privileged access to Rackham. On the Rackham forums he frequently posts inside info that he claims to have heard first hand from Rackham high ups.
Now why has he brought his baggage to Dakka? If Blokhead wants to support Rackham here he is free to do so, but veiled trolling based on disagreements imported from other forums is NOT ON.

Cairnius to his credit did not get angry. He did mention similar points to those I mentioned above.

Cairnius wrote:Hi Blokhead...I'm not sure why you're snoring...particularly in light of the fact that you actually provided some fairly solid evidence to back up my case. You're extremely close to Rackham Entertainment, right? I know you do their English translation, and purport to be in the know about the last two armies which has to be info they keep pretty close to the chest...

Next up Haywire. He answered Cairnius' questions and in no way agreed with him. Did Cairnius troll him?

Here is his reply:

Cairnius wrote:That is a reasonable reply. Thank you.

How would you describe the difference inherent to most tabletop wargames, i.e. the "free play" or "free form" setup they support with the rules design, versus what AT-43 provides, in terms of genres of games?

Then Duncan_Idaho chimed in with another Ad Hominem attack:

Duncan_Idaho wrote:
BTW your attempts at deriding Rackham and their products reveal to me a very sad being, especially since most of your so-called arguments can be proofen wrong (most of the times I have better things to do, e.g. earning money with translating and designing games). Do us all a favor, sell your stuff and play Go and maybe you will be able to convince somebody that Go is actually a prehistoric smarties calculator and not a strategy game. It´s people like you that have damaged the reputation of games (every kind of games) with the rest of the world.

Then Luna joins in. But with more restraint and a good idea, albeit under a negative philosophy: write Cairnius off and ignore his posts. While a bit unfair its a step in the right direction, encouraging people to ignore Cairnius rather than flamebaiting them.

LunaHound wrote:Duncan dont , as much as we all know thats true , the dakka mods still have to do their jobs. ( and it will favor Cairnius aslong as the mods doesnt realize/ or know he is trolling )
Just leave him be , people will eventually figure out what Cairnius's true motive is about why he constantly bash on the game (yet why he still plays if he hates it so much is the mystery lawl )

I will ignore the rest of Luna's post because it was directed personally for and to Cairnius. but I have to echo at least part of what she is saying, if not so much the personal assumptions behind it all.

Cairnius reponds to a polite critque from Sikil.

Cairnius wrote:To Sikil -

If you would be so kind, in the other thread where we're discussing my Mission Generator, could you post up the rules or guidelines you use for the following:....

Conclusion.
Dakka is not a companty forum, excepting whatever Yakface happens to do to keep the forum paid for. IF YOU CANNOT ABIDE CRITIQUE OF A GAME SYSTEM GO TO ITS IN HOUSE FORUMS AND STAY THERE. The At-43 Forum from Rackham deletes critical posts in the same way Eye of Terror did. If you dont want to see critique of At-43 stay on those forums or at least stay off the At-43 threads here. On Dakka we speak our minds. Dakka is not a vessel for Rackham, people who think well of the game are welcome to speak their minds, people who dislike the game or the parent company, rules, miniatures or whatever are equally welcome to speak their minds. If you have a problem with that . GET OVER IT.

It is not acceptable for persons, many with a vested interest in a particular company come to Dakka for the purposes of silenceing critique of the comaopny they support. Sentinels do get benefits for joining, privileged information, according to one site US sentinels even get gifts. In return for support.
Support Rackham by all means, but if you think support equals instigating a wall of dogma and hostility against critics then you are crossing the line.

I will have to admit that I am not in complete agreement with Cairnius, but I will also admit that he puts his case forward and is willing to discuss his point of view with critics in a non hostile way. itsabout tiome people learned from the good example of Haywire ans Sikil who can disagree in a mild mannered and inoffensive way. Its also time that if those who can't leave their personal baggage from other forums behind should take it back with them. especially if they have a vested interest and cannot prevent that from clouding their ability to discuss this in a fair and level way.

I am not a mod and cannot deal with this except by pointing out that people are not behaving, people who really should know better. it speaks volumes that some of those trolling here are mods on the Rackham in house forums. Really they should know better, if Rackham has any control over their website they will know better. it also explain s this post. if these peole were not veterans from another 'professional' forum I would have written them off as obnoxious teenagers or equivalent and simply pressed the call mod button. but this goes deeper, there are too many attacks, all narrowly focused from too many peoople jumping on the forums. So I call an exposure and make a claim:

I have come to beleive that Sentinels and or bussed on fanbois from the AT-43 dforums are purposefully joining Dakka in order to silence a critic of the AT-43 game and Rackham company. Its the only logical answer remaining, and I do not like what I am seeing. Not all recent arrivals need be 'in on it' but still too many jump on the pile-on. I cannot prove it but I suspect that many of the recently arriving critics of Cairnius were PM'ed or otherwise messaged on the Rackham forums and asked to come here to aid in what might have at first been arguments against Cairnius's opinions but has since devolved into blatant and repeated ad hominem attacks. The man is getting ganked. I don't blame Rackham for this behaviour, and if proven I am sure they would distance themselves from this 'policy' if they knew of it. It is probably just a lame headed attempt by a network of individual members of the Sentinel program to support and protect the Rackham corporate image by making critique untenable on neutral forums where Rackham does not have the right or ability to close down threads ad lib. Possibly this shutdown is limited to Cairnius himself, and likely because he was a Sentinel. On this note I am finding similarities to how people in the Sentinel program treat Cairnius here with how cult members treat former memevbers who leave a cult. At-43 is not a religion, but where you get a community and someone from the 'insdide' leaves it is possible if the community is not guided by wise and gentle leadership for members do start a hate on for the leaving member. Its part of the ugly side of human nature, part of our caveman pack instinct, its just odd to see this psychological trend arising over sometihng as seemingly insignificant as a game companies volunteer support program. Perhaps it is Rackhams responsibility to ensure ethical behaviour of its members of the Sentinel program and non-Sentinels who are led on by them.

Whatever way, I hope this is dealt with and the mods refrain from including Cairnius in the prohibition to 'appear fair', but look at how he has actually behaved; not how his critics attempt to paint his behaviour. Just because Cairnius is repeatedly accused of trolling it doesnt mean he is a troll. He is not completely blameless, he needs to be better at how he handles his discourse with Luna, and that is a seperate one-on-one issue. Besides Luna for all her support of the AT-43 system and Rackham is not a Sentinel and has not been bused in to attack Cairnius.

Frankly this is a serious problem for Dakka if this trend is not crushed like a bug. How would the forum here be if GW supporters shipped in fanbois, or staff, to get real nasty every time HBMC, Kid Kyoto or myself or another grognard decided to bad mouth one of their poor marketing or rule making decisions? Dakka memebers must be free to speak their mind without having self appointed corporate volunteer wannabe spin doctors acting as thought police.

I would like to open up discussion about this unpleasant trend later on the main forums. We can have it out here and now and see if the Sentinels will get in line, or give them time to refute my claim. If they do neither then this should be taken on a new thread, on Dakka Discussions. Not regarding Rackham or Cairnius or Sentinels but simply: should we tolerate volunteer advocates of a game company targeting critics of the game company concerned.

We need to point out to Dakka that this trend is emerging, and getting nastier. I have my old posts to be back me up on this and have called for calm and caution and politeness many times on these threads For my part I have been fair and patient and not quick to make any accusation.

This is no longer a case of 'report trolling to the mods', or 'not feeding the trolls'. Those are policies regarding individuals. The attacks I am seeing on critics of AT-43, Cairnius in particular, are a group effort by members of an organisation who receive benefit for supporting a company or game system. Thus they have a vested interest and an orgqanised network.

For me the next stages are obvious:

1. Give the Sentinels fair time to respond.
2. I will then if not satisfied PM Yakface and inform him of what I intend to do as a courtesy.
3. Then open up a thread on Dakka Discussions mentioning that forum members are being trolled by embers of a company support program. Leaving all details aside, the basis of the thread is: Is this trolling or is this something more than trolling? We need to raise awareness of the trend and formulate a policy because this is not covered in normaly netiquette, trolls normally work alone or in groups by accident. Cairnius, please let me handle this - unless Yakface himself steps in.

There is a possible easy solution. Rackham, or for that matter any game company with an advocacy program would not want it to be thought that they were encouraging their volunteers to hound critics. They need that reputation like a hole in the head. As I stated above I suspect such companies have a code of conduct and would not in any way endorse hounding of critics. It is quite possible that Rackham itself would immediately disavow such behaviour if contancted (assuming the respond at all), and I seriously doubt they would be stupid enough to be behind it.

At that point someone speaking for the forum, likely Yakface, if he agrees and preferably with a forum concensus to back him should write an email to the company concerned and ask them to review the behaviour of those who claim to speak on their behalf. This would then set in place a policy regarding group hounding of other forum members by members of any support program. Though I am yet to see PP Press Gangers here behaving that way to critics of Warmachine, and frankly dont ever expect to see such a problem ever existing.

This is not intended as an indorsement of Cairnius or his opinions, let me be clear on that. It is intended as a move to protect Dakka from those members of company support programs who use their mutual connections to network together and abuse the principle of the intention of the support programs by 'supporting' the company by underhand methods of silencing critics of same company.

Note to Mods. While you might want to close this thread, please do not delete it. we need to have this out, we need to deal with this trend of attacks because this is an escalating trend that hampers the free thought that Dakka is known for.

I've been thinking about it, and it's curious to classify games by their movement rules, i.e. on set spaces or "freely." I'm not sure I really see much difference between a BattleMech's movement on a hex-field map or a BattleMech's movement using miniatures on a regular table. The actual movement doesn't really change all that much...you still need to change facings and pay for the movement, for example. And your Marauder is likely going to move to precisely the same spot it would have in that same tactical situation presented on either hex-fields or an open table.

Actually, that is not true at all. With a hex map game you cannot make a true 90 degree turn and then move forward X inches. You can only make a 45 degree turn and then zig zag along that line of axis. You will end up a few (more than likely half) hexes short of the same distance.

The same goes with a square/grid based game. You cannot make a true 45 degree turn and move. you either have to spend 1.5 movement points or move forward, sidestep, move forward sidestep.

A tabletop game you can make anywhere between a 0-360 degree turn and not lose movement afterwards.

Do you really think that the difference between a boardgame and a tabletop wargame is defined mostly by how the playing pieces move? If the mostly isn't meant by you then I apologize, that's just how it comes across.

No. I am trying to figure out where a tabletop and a boardgame may be considered the same thing and "draw the line". Your argument as I understand it is that AT-43 needs tiles and is hence a boardgame. I say the tiles do not define movement and therefore not a boardgame AND you do not need the tiles to play, hence not a boardgame.

Thread temporarily closed while I hurt the guilty.

Re-opening now. Thank you Orlanth for being a bit of sanity and keeping this Mod from doing some spray and pray disciplinary proceedings.
its bad form to suspend more than one person on a thread and I want t save that for special posters.

I have tried to edit out some hostile comments. Some worthy comments may have been caught in the blast. You may repost those. Lets keep the tone in accordance with Dakka Rule #1 and remember, if you can't argue the points and have to attack the person, then put that person or ignore or employ some self control and don't post.

I don't remember what got modquisitioned out of my one post so it can't have been too important.

I wasn't aware that there were movement rules written to govern movement separately for "open terrain" games versus "hex map" games in BattleTech. I was under the impression that the same movement rules applied...and also, if I remember BattleTech correctly, these small differences in distance between hex-map and open field wouldn't translate into anything appreciable in terms of gameplay effects...but perhaps someone can speak specifically to that as I'm curious...

I'd like to rephrase my argument, if I may, because you're quoting it back to me and it's wrong. First, I want to establish that this conversation relies upon the perspective of viewing games as product. Boardgames and tabletop wargames are, IMHO, classifications of products.

I would argue, first, that you do need the tiles and posters and official AT-43 terrain to play AT-43. As a product, AT-43 is fairly defined as what is published and sold officially by Rackham Entertainment, and nought else.

In ALL but two instances (Standard Missions 1 and 2) AT-43 uses either prescribed terrain setups (Standard Missions 3-6), or uses actual tile or tile and poster combination playing spaces, much in the same way that a boardgame provides a pre-drawn, prescribed gaming space.

I am sure that if we pick at straws that we can come up with games which are clearly packaged and marketed as "boardgames" which allow for more freedom of play-space setup than that...doesn't HeroScape allow you to place some terrain elements on varying positions on the hex field play areas? If so, this would be an example...but I would then argue that this "variability" is still held in extremely-strict constraints, i.e. the terrain they give you.

This would be the same case for Standard Missions 1 and 2, which can only support the official AT-43 terrain as ruled on in the main rulebook and Operation Frostbite.

Therefore, without tiles, posters, and official terrain, we can't play the product of AT-43 anymore. We have to make up our own rules, which places us outside the product, and for purposes of this discussion brings us outside its fair boundaries and turns it into another discussion about how one CAN play AT-43 if they are willing to make alterations, etc., for which I have another thread going on elsewhere.


I think if we're going to discuss these broad genre definitions at all we have to look for the common denominators. If I walk into Toys 'R' Us and go into the boardgame aisle, how do those products differ from the products I see at my FLGS in the "tabletop wargaming section" where 40K, Flames of War, Warmachine/Hordes and WFB are sold?

1) Playing pieces in the tabletop wargames require assembly, playing pieces in the boardgames come with the game and require little if any attention usually

2) Play space in the tabletop wargames isn't really sold, it's built. Well, before GW had the modular table it wasn't sold, but even still that's more a canvas for construction as I don't know a tabletop wargamer who plays on a blank table. That would be like the kitchen table is to AT-43 that gets the posters and tiles and terrain put down upon. Play space in the boardgames comes with the games.

First two that pop into mind, but I think they're pretty accurate.



I do not think that the actual movement style of the play pieces is the best way to draw these lines. By and large, in most boardgames the movement of the pieces is extremely prescribed, but the level of prescription varies. In Monopoly, you move around in a clockwise circle unless space directions tell you otherwise. In Risk, you have to move from territory to territory or over oceans via the black lines. In Stratego, you have to move in the squares, etc.

But aren't there also boardgames that use counters and hex maps which provide a lot more freedom of movement than that? I would argue that hexmaps are still prescribed terrain, but there's more freedom of movement here than in the other games I just mentioned...but I think most people would still call the games that allow this sort of movement, but which are packaged and sold as boardgames in Toys R Us, "boardgames."

Even in tabletop wargames, we could argue that movement is prescribed to a degree. Move 6". Run an additional d6". Roll 2d6 for movement through rough terrain. Vehicles roll a 1 and are immobilized or Bog Down. Yet, would anyone truly like to make the argument that this is similar to the prescription of movement in a boardgame such that Warhammer 40,000 is actually a boardgame on account of it?

Likewise, I can't see arguing that AT-43 is a tabletop wargame just because its units move in a fashion similar to Warhammer 40,000, not when the play space is so radically-different in terms of definition and freedom as supported by the rulesets.


ON EDIT:

I could also note that this is only the most obvious line of inquiry I can think of. One could also speak to the expandability and adaptability of tabletop wargames versus boardgames. Much of AT-43 uses prescribed AP sizes for missions...yes, you can change that, but for missions with prescribed Assault/Reinforcement breakdowns you have to figure out those splits yourself, which in some cases is not going to be even. I'm working on a chart of splits for my Mission Generator right now and figuring out a 2:1 ratio for army sizes from 1,500 points to 10,000 points at 500-point increments isn't as smooth as one might think, not if you want to have the kind of nice, 50-point increment numbers that AT-43 seems to want to have...

Lucky for me I collected 'evidence' and PM'ed me all four of Bilesucks posts.

Things have been escalating for a while, and I know the mods are already aware. I suspect that at least one occassion mods have been called on to ban Cairnius. i find that, if true to be the worst part.

Time and againmany of the Serntinels have openly told Cairnius he is not welcome here at various means and tones. While such vile posts should be binned in doing so we are losing the pattern and indicates there is a pile-on occuring, even if not an out and out conspiracy.

Now technically and directly we are all here on Yakfaces sufference, but in the real we are here because of the community, and it is time the community stood up and said a firm no to hounding of forum members by comopany volunteerr support groups.

Frazzled I hope you keep records of deleted threads and posts, because Yakface really sghould be made aware of what is happening, and if all the anti-Cairnius posts would disappear we would have nothing to show and no reason to claim, ultimately to Rackham itself that many of their advocates are crossing the line and abusing the hospitality of Dakka.

While I am not asking for myself per se, it puts the point accross simplest if for now I ask for assurances from Yakface that:

Any member should feel permitted to be enabled to criticse Rackham Entertainment, At-43 and its miniatures and rules in a polite and topical way without fear of a systematic harassment by members of the Sentinel program. No matter how many times in however many relevant threads they choose to state their case.

haywire wrote:No, it is not a boardgame.

My definition of a boardgame being that the BOARD determines the way miniatures move and determine LOS, usually through the use of squares, hexes, or "rooms" that indicate a movement point. I do not know of any boardgame where I need a ruler to measure out my moves.

Space Hulk, for instance, is a boardgame. You have clearly defined movement squares which show how a miniature moves and LOS.

By my definition, this means that any game that uses a hex map, I would consider to be a boardgame. SFB, B5Wars, Heavy Gear Tactical, as examples, would be considered board games.

AT-43 you can play without the tiles. But more to prove my definition, the tiles/posters do NOT determine how a minature must move. The tiles also do not determine LOS for me.

haywire has said exactly what I would have said. A boardgame is (almost always) defined by the abstract grid imposed on the terrain to control LoS, ranges, movement and terrain conditions. It could be hex, square, offset square, irregular square, rooms or some other grid. There is always this fundamental aspect to the board.

I have played a couple of board games which actually make you measure LoS past the painted image of a wood or house, etc. This is rare and can be considered the exception which proves the rule. Even in those cases, range and terrain type was still determined by the hex.

@Orlanth , first , you need to know im not a fanboi , and im not speaking against Cairnius just because Sentinels are doing so.
Lets look at the basic facts ok?

You believe Cairnius is trying to fix things , i will believe that i really do.
But there are ways to do things differently , present things differently ,
the way Cairnius is doing things you cant deny it'll scare the new players away. ( agree? )

You dont understand Orlanth , Sentinels arnt here to bully him . Im sure they would love to ignore him , but as i said before , they cant.
Honestly im quite surprised that you would accuse them of doing so . For example what KK said , a board game is certainly not what AT-43 is.
The way Cairnius said it , its belittling a wargame to call it a board game ( why would you be surprised that sentinel feels insulted )

Let me try to put it in an analogy . Cairnius is the maggot that is trying to eat away the dead flesh on a wound . Sentinels are trying to brush him off the wound because
its honestly quite a scary sight. ( Thus we see , even if Cairnius is attempting to do good , it ultimately is presented so badly people wouldnt even bother with it )

So one way to make everyone happy family with 1 positive outcome? Easy.

Cairnius will finish his project , and we should all support him.
He shouldnt make anymore complaint threads till he finish the project , and when he is done.
He'll be the hero .


That or i have offered to do the next best thing Cairnius said earlier "buy all my at-43 materials , and i will never talk about at-43 again"
Im putting money at where my mouth is ( hope thats how the saying goes rofl ) for the sake of not having you guys fight anymore.

I have been extremely patient and fair Orlanth , maybe you havnt seen it.

When Cairnius told me i have no right to like Over Watch rule because i havnt played many games , i kept quiet.
( how many of you didnt think Terminator deep strike rule was cool when you first bought codex and someone comes to tell you "You cant like deep strike because you havnt played a game of 40k yet )
When Cairnius told me my painting standards are low and my praise for AT-43 pre paints are worth nothing , i let him. (ya how many times can someone use that against me)
When Cairnius said AT-43 is stupid for not having materials on teaching how to paint like GW have , i calmly said GW is also a hobby they are more obligated to do so
When Cairnius says the starter armies are filled with units he can easily beat , i didnt fight with him , i made a thread.
When Cairnius says the Thread i made compiling all the links and info and programs into 1 post , he told me my effort was useless . I politely responded then i'll take the 2 people that thanked me for it as it is (atleast 2 people appreciated it)
since he said the 600+ views arnt accurate.

@Orlanth
The problem is only with Cairnius and it emerges from the fact that he over and over repeats the same stuff and every time gets the same answer. He does not want to hear it though everyone proves him wrong using the rules at hand. When he was not satisfied with it he quitted as a "Sentinel" (beyond me why someone not wanting to promote a game joins a promoting team) and swamped half the internet with his same questions. It has been over three months that he swamps the internet over and over again with the same questions that have already been answered before. There are some variations, but 90% is still the same stuf that got answered.

Now, after being nice to him and being kicked in the ass for it and witnessing all the swamping for over three months the nerves of some people are raw and I can understand it. I am a very nice person as anyone can testify that met me in person and it takes a lot of BS to make me become aggressive.

This is not silencing a critic. As everyone can witness on other threads in this forum everything went fine until Cairnius started his crusade. This is about someone who intentionally and fully being aware of it badmouthes a game he claims to like/play.

If there are several thousand people playing the game worldwide (and I know quite a share of them personally or via forums) and alle are playing it this way and suddenly Cairnius shows up and claims to be the only one being able to know how the game is truely to be played, maybe then Cairnius might be wrong. The problem is: He can´t accept all those people to play the game the way they want it to be played (and as it is intended to be played, he even attacked one of the designers (though he might not have known it, since he was using an alias on the forum)).

That´s like explaining to Jervis Johnson how GW games are to be played. You make a fool out of yourself and if you repeat it over and over you are just a nuisance to all interested in the game.

@Topic
AT is as much a boardgame as 40K is. My 5th edition book has as much scenery rules as the AT book, even less when it comes to destructable scenery. If you add weather and scenery rules from Frostbite (which are official additioneal rules) 40K looks even worse. This makes me wonder which kind of 40k Cairnius is playing. Cities of Death is OOP and Planetstrike does not really add any new scenery rules, which at the moment leaves us only with the 5th scenery rules. I really am interested where the "more complex" 40K rules come from.

Right at the beginning of the AT rulebook rules section there are rules the describe how 2d and 3d scenery is handled and later there is a whole chapter that describes how 3d terrain can influence the game. There is NO mentioning that players are expected to use predescriped scenarios, rather they are always described as suggestions and that players should go forth and develop their own missions and scenarios. I do know all Rackham books by heart (No wonder, having translated all of them into German) and i still have to wonder where it says that you have to use certain stuff to play the game.

Also Rackham has been very open regarding people developing their own home rules if they think they are better than the original ones and is willing to include them (if they proof usefull) in a future edition. What Rackham does not tolerate is one person forcing its point of view on all other players.

I would argue, first, that you do need the tiles and posters and official AT-43 terrain to play AT-43. As a product, AT-43 is fairly defined as what is published and sold officially by Rackham Entertainment, and nought else.

And again I will say that here I will agree that we disagree.

haywire wrote:

I would argue, first, that you do need the tiles and posters and official AT-43 terrain to play AT-43. As a product, AT-43 is fairly defined as what is published and sold officially by Rackham Entertainment, and nought else.

And again I will say that here I will agree that we disagree.

I also disagree about the map tile / posters too . They are implemented as an easy solution to deal with not having to need pre existing made terrain .
For something made as a convenience to (game literally can be played right out of the starter set) Cairnius was using it as excuse to bash the game.

Not to mention how many people with personal collection of terrains ALWAYS uses it ? they can and they do.

On packaging... when you buy the game you buy... The AT-43 Rule Book, your army book, and then your miniatures! You do not buy posters or tiles. The missions in the rulebook does not use the posters or tiles. Hence... NOT A BOARDGAME or packaged as a boardgame!

Packaging wise, I would say you are confusing AT-43 with the Operation: Damocles Initiation Set which is like comparing Space Hulk to WH 40K.

I would also like to add that the back of the poster is open ground. No walls! and are used in 4 of the 12 missions in Operation: Damocles (not the initiation book) and 4 of the 12 posted missions use the blank table. So we are looking at about a 1/3 mission ratio that do not require tiles or posters.

Now, you and I can agree to disagree till the universe ends that the missions presented are strictly represented or guidelines for setup. But the fact is that those two missions without maps have suggestions (or strict guidelines in your opinion) on how to place terrain.

And I also noticed this wording:

Pg 84 AT-43 Rulebook

All sorts of obstacles provide cover to the fighters and hinder their advance. Scenery Elements (low walls, containers, CUSTOMIZED TERRAIN ELEMENTS , etc.) can be used to represent this.

** I went a little off topic there. But anyway my point is, can we stop this useless banter over semantics and do something more constructive. Like a battle report or something