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.

Intro (skip this if you want to get straight to the review, but you'll probably come back here to find out why I wrote it):


It seems like forever since I wrote my first review of AT-43 game back in May of 2009.

Much of what I wrote was in reaction to having put faith into online analysis of AT-43 which turned out to have been written either by rabid fanboys or hosted on websites which needed Rackham's advertising dollars. It all turned out to be clearly biased information, but that's all there was to go on - and after having spent $1,000 on AT-43 rather quickly because I wanted to take advantage of 66% off firesale prices following Fantasy Flight Games no longer being the official distributor of AT-43 at the end of 2008, I believe, I was more than a little ticked off that what I got wasn't what was advertised. So, I sought to provide some counterpoint to the fanboys.

It was also a reaction to encountering something which I had read about, didn't want to believe was actually there, but which I ran into like a brick wall: the disrespect for pre-paints games on behalf of painting gamers. I hail from a gaming club which had its start in a GW branch so of course I'm not surprised that most of the gamers there are hardcore GW adherents with a love for modeling and painting...but the utter lack of interest in AT-43 when I had around 8000 points of Red Blok, Therian, and UNA armies to lend out along with the Army Books, and links to the free rules online...

Those who relish and dissect the game of Warhammer 40,000 often face outright derision for being "power-gamers" or "tournament-minded" without sticking to some Utopian ideal of "the well-rounded hobbyist." Therefore, it retrospect it makes sense that a pure miniatures game lacking the established and required hobby aspect would get ignored by hobbyists - but I really wanted to dig into AT-43 and see whether it deserved the scorn being heaped upon it. So, I went online and dug, challenged, and questioned.

Much of it had to do with the cost of buying into any new game, and of course I understand that...perhaps everyone other than the three people who gave the game a shot thought that trying the game for free would lead to having no choice but to buy in if they found themselves enjoying themselves? I understand this so well because when it became clear that none of my regular gaming opponents save one were interested in playing AT-43, I wound up selling 2/3 of my AT-43 collection in the form of my entire Red Blok and Therian armies to get my money back, which I did when all was said and done due to smart eBaying.

In the time since I shed myself of those two armies, however, I found myself missing the minis (in no small part due to my being an avid toy collector for thirty years) and as I kept reading the U.N.A. Army Book and the Operation Damocles and Operation Frostbite Campaign books, I realized just how much I loved the story of AT-43, which is mostly what attracted me to the game in the first place.

I discovered AT-43 in January of 2009. In December of 2009, due to the generosity of my rather large family, biological and in-laws, and their desire just to make their obligatory Christmas shopping easy (for which I can always be depended upon, being a toy collection and avid gamer), I have 6000 AP in Red Blok, 5000 AP in Therians, 4500 AP in Karmans, and 3000 AP in Cogs on the way, to add to my 8500 AP in UNA which I kept from my original foray into the game, and the 2000 AP in Oni arriving tomorrow. The thing about having large collections is that if you didn't pay for most of them it's easier to justify having them around. I find that to be so, anyway.


Penn Gillete (yes, of Penn & Teller) gave me the best definition of "intellectual" I have ever heard - someone who is capable of changing their mind.

There are a lot of things about AT-43 that I don't like and I haven't changed my mind about any of them...but I have changed my mind, over time, as to how I would express those things...and also about the weight of the positive aspects of the game and how they enter into the formula.

The fanatics can still kiss my patookus as I don't respect fanatics...the review below is neither apology or retraction. However, if I have dealt Jean Bey, and Paolo Parente, and the rest of the Rackham creative crew a disservice in expressing anger over the false advertising of said fanatics and lack of neutral information out there on the web then it is worth writing this in hopes of showing how even the most ardent critic of AT-43 can wind up finding enough things he likes about the game to stick with it, even with full knowledge of the flaws which no one else wanted to discuss openly.


Posted below is clearly not an Objective review of AT-43 because I have decided that I am with the game for the rest of its life cycle, which I hope is long - but it's a review that more reflects what I think the essence of AT-43 is, and perhaps like my first review, it can serve a purpose in educating people about the game.

It All Ended with a Picture of a Space Zombie

Who really doesn’t like the idea of space zombies with zombie guns that turn victims into other zombies to then eat their foes and turn THEM into zombies ad nauseum, all being run by a greedy mega corporation with really cool tanks and soldiers that look like they came out of Jin-Roh or Killzone?

This was my reaction upon seeing the newest faction for AT-43, the Oni Corporation. This new release, the excitement with which it is being received, and the fact that I'm already seeing it sell out at internet stores warrants a fresh look at AT-43 for those who still are unfamiliar with the game.


The first thing I want to say about AT-43 is that the universe it takes place in, IMHO, is the most refreshing and attractive aspect of the game. Considering the only other sci-fi minis game with market penetration has been stuck in the same dark, unforgiving story for 20 years which utterly lacks sympathetic protagonists and kind of makes you wish everyone in said universe would just die and get it over with, for AT-43 to present us with a game universe in which there may truly be no “bad guys,” just various races and factions fighting for what they believe in, is very refreshing, and to the science-fiction fan potentially exciting.

AT-43 presents us with a universe to which we could actually relate. Many of the technologies being utilized are not beyond our imagination if not our reality in the not-too-distant future: genetic manipulation, nanotechnology, virtual reality, terraforming, Dyson spheres. This is not to say that AT-43 is to be taken as a “realistic” universe…not with giant gorillas in power armor and zombies with shotguns running around…but just giving us some touchstones upon which the reader may ground themselves makes all the difference.

Touchstones like the fact that the humans in AT-43 are directly descended from us after a fashion. It serves as a tie to our reality in the story which, again, doesn’t make the game “realistic,” but it grounds the whole AT-43 universe in a way that some science-fiction fans, like myself, may immensely appreciate. AT-43 is the only game whose rulebooks I have felt inclined to purchase in their entirety, even if I didn’t play the armies whose rulebooks I was purchasing. I just wanted them for the story.

AT-43 is also a gaming universe that changes. Through use of the Campaign system, published series of missions with terrain layouts and new story arcs, there is a single narrative that ties the entire game progression together thus far, the story of H. Babel, an out-of-control artificial intelligence. I can’t speak to whether other games do this sort of thing, but the sci-fi game with which I had previous experience hadn’t changed one whit in the four years I’d been playing it, and if it was the intention of the company to do so they just missed a golden opportunity with a new version of the game rules, which leads me to believe they have no intention of advancing the story.

AT-43 has the long-term potential to be much more dynamic than other games currently on the market, if AT-43 chooses to be.


AT-43 is a pre-paints game, i.e. the miniatures come out of the box assembled, painted, and ready for the gaming table. I’ve had a year to look at almost every mini in the AT-43 line, save the new Oni releases which I have yet to receive – and I think a fair assessment of the AT-43 minis is as follows:

Inasmuch as “tabletop quality” means different things to different people, AT-43 minis are fairly considered tabletop quality. Let’s define this as “basecoating with a little flair to make aspects of the mini/model pop at 5 feet.” Not the three-color minimum that 40K uses in tournaments – no visible primer, usually with a few details to catch your attention upon casual inspection.

The UNA and Therian lines suffered from a lack of consistent quality in the painting. They were the first two armies, so it stands to reason that Rackham was working out their processes and establishing standards. The molds are excellent, though you will have to deal with mold lines right out of the box. “Highlights” seem to often be a light spray or dusting of color over a surface which can look smudgy and don’t actually highlight the way a painter would think of highlighting. Human faces can often be monotone. The vehicles are of much higher quality than the infantry pretty much across the board.

Red Blok saw an improvement in the painting standards, I noticed fewer mold lines in general, and they also featured an increase in the use of tampography, which according to people who claim to be in the know about toy production is applying paint or ink to a pad and then “stamping” it down on the mini or model to produce an image which other lines might use waterslide transfers for. UNA and Therian vehicles had tamped images on them, but Red Blok featured this on infantry shoulderpads as well, which was extremely cool IMHO.

The Karman line was clearly the superior offering of the original four armies. Dings in armor, tribal symbols, better inking in the faces, more detailing - Karman minis are clearly a step above “tabletop quality.” Their flying vehicles are fantastic.

The Cogs are relatively new, and most of their model line comes from their Army Box, which we will get to in a moment. I own both Army Box and Unit Box Cog minis, and they could stand with some inking and detailing. The molds are still excellent IMHO, however, and so if you know your way around a paintbrush you can get these looking much better without too much effort.

That, actually, is an excellent way to think about AT-43 miniatures: if you know how to paint, you’re being spared model assembly and basecoating. The paint used for AT-43 minis works very effectively as a primer as well as a color guide if you should wish to repaint or touch up while maintaining the original color scheme.

In all AT-43 miniatures you can often face very soft plastic. It is a hazard to be aware of should you be someone who is not particularly careful with your miniatures. It is not plastic which, by my experience, works terribly well with the kind of plastic glue one uses in traditional modeling, so be aware of that as well. You may have different results – I use Crazy Glue Gel Formula myself for AT-43 repairs and it works perfectly.

I have argued in the past that AT-43 minis are “toys,” but will cede the point that even the most carefully-assembled and painted models in the right pair of hands are “toys.” Being pre-paints I personally find that AT-43 minis hold more similarities with my Star Wars collection than either my Warhammer 40,000 or Flames of War model collections, but let’s just call them all “minis” and call it even.

The thing to remember about AT-43 minis is that they are not intended to be perfect works of art. They are intended to be playable right out of the box, and they fulfill that objective perfectly. AT-43 is designed as a game, not a hobby – but you can make it a hobby if you want to. A hobby with a few skipped steps than others.

This is one of the most important points to understand about AT-43 – that it is designed as a game, not a craft hobby. The intention is to make minis gaming accessible to those who do not have the time, energy, or patience to meticulously assemble and paint hundreds of plastic models. The intention is to allow for miniatures gaming without having hordes of gray and metal models littering the table as they await the painting attentions of their owners.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, mind you…I’ve played games of 40K with grey and metal Ork hordes and had a great time – but there’s nothing like seeing painted minis on the battlefield.


The game of AT-43 has many facets which, to me, were innovative. All die rolls with the solitary exception of vehicle damage locations are rolled on a Universal Table of Resolution. All tests are broken down into a formula of "Relevant stat – Difficulty = Number with corresponding die roll for success."

No one automatically gets the first turn – you roll for it. Units are usually not deployed on the battlefield, they enter on the first turn – so there’s none of the characteristic potential raping of an opposing army before the game has really, properly begun. A full game turn consists of players alternating unit action back and forth, one unit at a time, until all units have moved or shot or done whatever they want to do. Again, there is none of the facing a fusillade of fire from an entire army and then responding with what’s left of yours on the following turn.

Units with poor Morale status are usually not removed from the game automatically or forced to run for the board edge without the chance to rally – you are almost always given a chance to rally the troops and prevent the unit from being lost.

Players must decide the order in which their units will activate by laying out cards representing each unit, and which feature all the relevant stats for the unit on the face side of the card a la Warmachine. This lends a different strategic flavor to the game in addition to the similar tactical nature in other skirmish-level minis games. Some armies also have the ability to mess with an opponents’ unit activation order by moving cards elsewhere in the order in which they were originally laid out. Players can also advance cards further up in the order, delay their activation for a turn, or double-activate using Leadership Points.

Leadership Points are another innovative facet of AT-43 by my experience. I am sure other games use a similar mechanic, but I have not run into it before. Every army has a commanding officer, with a Leadership characteristic. Take this number, add 1 per unit in the army's activation order, and that is the available number of LP for the turn.

LP are used to manipulate unit activation order as described. They must be used to activate units without officers, or whose officers have been killed. They can be used to assign Drills to units which can enhance their cover saves or shooting characteristics, or rally troops with a poor state of Morale among other things, and certain armies can use LP for army-specific abilities.

This also lends a different and additional strategic flavor to the game. LP may be spent and added to the roll for the first movement in any turn or the ability to make the other player go first, but this is a calculated risk based on the assessment of how many LP you will need for the coming turn.

The rest of AT-43 gameplay is pretty “standard” per my experiences with 40K and Flames of War in the sense of a ‘move, shoot, assault’ mechanic, with several important exceptions: in a close combat, only the active player does any damage, and any unit may step out of close combat and then fire its weapons. This not only makes close combat not an interminable event which can last an entire game serving to do nothing but tie units up until the game ends, but it also makes close combat a much more calculated risk.

Weapons ranges are technically infinite, and at close range can often auto-hit. Intervening units between shooter and target will actually get hit before the target does, which is much more intuitive. The “hit, wound, save” cycle is much more simple and brutal: you don’t get armor saves, period. You hit, you Penetrate their armor, and if they are behind cover they get a save. If not, they’re dead. This makes use of the terrain of extreme importance in AT-43, which adds a different sort of tactical assessment.

A summation of AT-43 gameplay is that it’s extremely brutal. Units may die much faster than in other games you’ve played. That is how it is supposed to be, but games go very quickly once you learn the rules such that you can dust yourself off and start another game for an attempt at vengeance – but inasmuch as “strategy” in a wargame is “that which you do prior to contact” and “tactics” is “that which you do once you’ve contacted the enemy,” AT-43 is much more heavily on the side of tactics when all is said and done, even more so than 40K in my experience. If you want a game that is more deliberative, AT-43 might not be for you. It is meant to be fast and brutal – but the flip side of this is that you can get more games of AT-43 in using the same amount of time a game of 40K or Flames of War might take you.

The game does have its flaws, to whatever degree they may be excused by it being the first edition. Indirect fire weapons, what we’d call template weapons in other games, automatically knock down any infantry minis underneath them unless they have an ability which specifically allows them to resist this effect. Units with more than half of its members knocked down may do nothing more than get back up the next time they activate, which can often be a death sentence as you cannot commit any other action on the turn you get up. No moving, no shooting, no taking cover, nothing.

With no way to mitigate knockdown effects indirect fire weapons can be devastatingly powerful even when they kill no one themselves. This version of a Pinning mechanic has turned people off to AT-43, and is really something you are either willing to deal with or not. I don’t think it breaks the game, but it was a shock to me coming from other systems which do not penalize you so harshly for simply taking fire from a class of weapon without even losing any pieces, and I hope it gets tweaked in a second edition of the rules.

Snipers are disgustingly powerful in AT-43. Snipers are always allowed to pick the precise mini they wish to try and remove from the game – think Vindicare Assassins in 40K. Your opponent can use Medics to try and save minis hit with sniper fire, but if the Medics get hit first they cannot use their abilities to save themselves. This means you might have a turn of grace from incoming sniper fire, but then you’re probably in trouble. Again, I don’t think this breaks the game as sniping units may not move and therefore their lanes of fire are clearly delineated for anyone to attempt to avoid, but this does take some getting used to coming from 40K and Flames of War and either you accept it or you don’t.

Most AT-43 gameplay revolves around use of prescribed terrain setups using either laminated gaming tiles or posters, and can often involve use of 2-dimensional terrain to supplement the few pieces of pre-painted terrain the AT-43 line offers. This pre-painted terrain is excellent enough so as to have been co-opted by 28mm gamers for many different games, including 40K – bunkers, low and high walls, and shipping containers are all easily multi-purposed. However, for a wargamer who is used to highly varied tabletops the prescribed terrain setups and limited 3D terrain elements can be tiresome.

Terrain rules in AT-43 revolve only around features of the gaming tiles and these limited pre-painted terrain elements. Therefore, to play on regular gaming tables using the sort of handmade terrain one typically uses for Warmachine or 40K, players have to extrapolate their own rules for that terrain. For some players this is an opportunity to shape the game themselves in a participatory manner. For others, the lack of officially delineated terrain structure is an annoyance. Generally-speaking the AT-43 gaming community can come to consensus on questions per how to handle terrain, using the official rules as a guide and finding apt comparisons between official terrain and what one wishes to put on the table, but more robust and official terrain rules would be a boon for AT-43.

The same holds with missions. There are no mission tables for AT-43 as featured in 40K or Flames of War, where one can lay out a table with terrain and then roll to see the mission to be played. In AT-43 all but two of the missions given in any rulebook or campaign book have an accompanying terrain map, and the two missions which do not are Annihilation and King of the Hill, which means limited variety of official mission to accompany variety of table setup.

This can be problematic for some gamers because AT-43 shines when centered around Objective based play, which brings up the last truly innovative aspect of the game. In Objective-based games, victory is often determined through holding Primary Objectives which earn Victory Points, and you play until one player reaches a set number of VP or the player with the most at the end of the game wins.

In some missions, players must divide their army into Assault and Reinforcement groups. Assault troops start from the first turn, but Reinforcements can only be brought into the game by “purchasing” their cost in points with a matching number of Reinforcement points, earned by seizing and controlling Secondary Objectives.

It should be obvious to any experienced wargamer, therefore, that Objective placement is of supreme importance for creating not only challenging but fair pick-up matches of AT-43, and rules for Objective placement would therefore seem to be in order. Again, the void is filled by the AT-43 gaming community and several fan-produced systems for pick-up play, a few of which prescribe limitations for objective placement, are out there; but it would be nice if official rules existed for this sort of thing.

It also should be said that in missions where Primary and Secondary Objectives are being used, these objectives must be played to from Turn 1 rather than danced around for several turns before seizing them as can take place in 40K, and to a lesser degree in Flames of War. For some players, this is an absolute godsend as it eliminates the sort of “kill everyone for a few turns, and then play to the objectives” that can take place in other games when they use objectives, i.e. a mission which is meant to be more tactical in nature in other games can still remain a bloodbath like any old Annihilation mission.

The advantage of using the prescribed terrain setups and missions is that you get to follow a story if you use the Campaigns, and the setup and breakdown for AT-43 is a fraction of what you will go through for other tabletop games. The advantage of using posters, laminated tiles, and hard plastic terrain elements is you can throw them out of a box to set them up and throw them back into a box when you’re done. It takes me about ten minutes to lug my 6’ by 4’ MDF tabletop out and get all the terrain I made out there with it, and another ten to stash it all away again.


AT-43 also has rules issues. The layout of the rules in the main rulebook is not always intuitive and can slow down solving rules questions in the middle of a game. You really need a veteran present if you want to learn the game as smoothly as possible, more so than with other games with multiple-edition rulebooks which have had more of the kinks worked out.

Rackham Entertainment is not terribly great at handling rules queries. Earlier Army Books had translation problems from the original French which had to be hashed out on the official forums, and even still an official Errata with all the myriad clarifications has never been produced by the company. Some official errata documents exist, but they are not all-encompassing. You will have to peruse the official forums to get the rest of the answers.

It is not uncommon for AT-43 players to complain about rules questions being answered one way on the company forums and then answered in a contradictory way by the official rules arbiters on the same forums. Considering the importance of rules this can be extremely disheartening for a gamer.

In the end, it comes down to this: AT-43 is in its first edition. Either one sees past the imperfections in the rules and appreciates the majority of the ruleset which DOES work and which can be very fun for the appropriate audience, or one does not. In my opinion, the positive aspects of AT-43 outweigh any annoyance from lack of open-ended pick-up play rules and smooth rules queries. The instances of game events that generate contradictory answers to rules queries are few and are not situations that you will encounter with enough frequency to break games. The rules are simple enough to extrapolate your own pick-up play systems if you like without breaking gameplay, and there are now plenty of pick-up systems of varying levels of depth such that you should be able to find one that works for you while waiting to see what a second edition of the AT-43 rulebook brings.


The last thing to keep in mind about AT-43 if you are considering taking up the game is that you may be a pioneer in doing so. AT-43 is played in small knots around my area. One store hosts games on Wednesday nights, another store on Saturday nights if you pre-arrange it with the gamers there on their schedule, and there are two other stores about an hour away or less where AT-43 is played – but it is something that often needs to be sought out.

AT-43 is no less expensive than other games, and given its status as fairly still being a “new game” in the sense of being in its first edition and still having the full panoply of armies to be developed and released, much less all the miniatures for all the unit choices in the two new Army Books, Cogs and Oni, there are likely many gamers unwilling to place bets on a new tabletop game when they have so much money invested in other systems which are played with greater frequency and easier to find matches for.

Luckily, Rackham Entertainment has done what I consider the most brilliant thing I’ve seen in tabletop gaming since I first began four years ago: Army Boxes. Army Boxes go for around $53 at online stores, and they contain a full 2,000 point army for AT-43, this being the smallest, standard army size when the game was first released. The game tends to balance better at 3,000 points due to the release of armies like the Karmans which are very low-model-count, and the Cogs seem to be very similar – but for $53 to be able to have a full army, receive some terrain, a gaming poster for play, dice, the single template used for AT-43, and a measuring tape, and be able to start learning the game the second you get the minis out of the box…

When I first started playing Warhammer 40,000 it took me six months to get even a small army assembled and painted before I could really start playing the game. It took me around a year to get my 1,500-point German army for Flames of War assembled and painted to tabletop standards. I was able to play much earlier than I was with 40K, but it still didn’t feel like I was really playing for about a year due to a lack of 15mm terrain (which had to be built or purchased) and due to no one having painted armies at my club.

I also must have spent at least $500 or more to start playing either game. $500 just to get started.

With the Army Boxes, which are now available for the Red Blok, Cog, and Oni armies for AT-43, I could arrive at that same place for one-tenth of the cost and saving at least six months of my time.

Considering the freshness of the game universe, the innovative aspects of the rules, and the ability to get started right away having fun with your friends playing games, I think the strengths of AT-43 outweigh the weaknesses. It’s important to recognize those weaknesses as honesty is always going to stand out from salesmanship, it’s better to inform than to surprise, and it’s critical to set level expectations when introducing someone to a new game in the hyper-critical world of tabletop gaming fandom – but when all is said and done, if you approach AT-43 as a game to have fun with and not as a hobby to lend devotion to you will enjoy playing a refreshing science-fiction skirmish-level tabletop game that you don’t have to invest months and hundreds of dollars to get started with.

To me, that’s worth putting up with any tweaks of first edition rules or having to figure out what French people are actually trying to say to me.

Again with this "game isn't a hobby" crap I always see with regards to PPP.

For the millionth time: A Hobby is defined as ANYTHING you do that isn't your profession. This thing about assembling and painting models needing to be done for it to be a hobby is remnants of GW's brainwashing propaganda BS that they tell us.

AT-43 isn't as much WORK as GW, but it's just a as much a HOBBY.

Also, IF doesn't knock down ANY model it touches. Heroes inside a unit are immune to being knocked down.

Great review. I was in the same boat as you, having bought up a lot of stuff and then disappointed. I agree that the fluff seems refreshingly novel but there isn't really enough of it's only novel when compared to 40k. It's pretty hackneyed otherwise, same as PP IMO. The space monkies really disappionted me and the Oni Corp looks kind of gak, that sniper aside. I'm not sure that anything in the AT-43 is really all that sympathetic, actually. Still, thanks for taking the time to write this well thought out review.

@Plataun4th: Completely agree. I think the debate you're talking about only makes sense as a GW fan "internal issue," and makes no sense when you start talking about GW/PP style hobby and pre-assembled, pre-painted stuff.

This is different than what you wrote back in May cairnius?

I think this is more sympathetic.

Platuan4th wrote:Again with this "game isn't a hobby" crap I always see with regards to PPP.

For the millionth time: A Hobby is defined as ANYTHING you do that isn't your profession. This thing about assembling and painting models needing to be done for it to be a hobby is remnants of GW's brainwashing propaganda BS that they tell us.

AT-43 isn't as much WORK as GW, but it's just a as much a HOBBY.

Also, IF doesn't knock down ANY model it touches. Heroes inside a unit are immune to being knocked down.

So, are you going to be to AT-43 what Gwar! was to 40K? If so, I have one word for you. Nomex.

As for Cairnus' review, I am enthusiastic about AT-43 because although it doesn't have as many Wow! moments as 2nd edition 40K had when I first got into it, it also doesn't have any rules for mechanics that I hate. Though I must say that changing to D10 would make for a much better chart of universal resolution. You wouldn't even have to get rid of the smiley face/frowney face bookends. I also was dran in by the walkers, the the fact that no one or two armies have a monopoly on powered armor. I look forward to the second edition with great anticipation, if it happens in my life time. You never know with Rackham...

warpcrafter wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:Again with this "game isn't a hobby" crap I always see with regards to PPP.

For the millionth time: A Hobby is defined as ANYTHING you do that isn't your profession. This thing about assembling and painting models needing to be done for it to be a hobby is remnants of GW's brainwashing propaganda BS that they tell us.

AT-43 isn't as much WORK as GW, but it's just a as much a HOBBY.

Also, IF doesn't knock down ANY model it touches. Heroes inside a unit are immune to being knocked down.

So, are you going to be to AT-43 what Gwar! was to 40K? If so, I have one word for you. Nomex.

Are you saying this because you think my reasoning is that by RAW models have to take an Impact to be knocked down and Heroes in units don't take Impacts until they're on their own?

Guess what, it's also RAI. We actually asked Jean Bey, you know, they guy who WROTE THE RULES, at GenCon and that was his intent, because the other soldiers are willing to shield the Officer from the blast with their own bodies. This actually DID come up in the game we played at GenCon and Martin Terrier sided with this being how it works(for the same reason as JB). That's two RE employees with a RAI reasoning. Wanna tell me how else I'm like GWAR? Ironically, GenCon is the very first time I ever actually read that rule and realized I'd been playing it wrong(that and Medic, which we all thought wasn't worded the way it actually is, apparently).

I'll also defend non-RAW answers that he told us, like that models in Confrontation that are on top of an objective that's also terrain have priority in controlling over any other units within range(something not addressed in the Confrontation rules), because his intention was that if a model is physically controlling something(in contention with units NEAR it), it's controlling it.

My second favorite reason for going to GenCon, actually was asking them rule stuff that wasn't being answered on the forum(who better to ask than the inventor?).

My fave reason? Playing games all day. And the pay(including free stuff).

Platuan4th wrote:Again with this "game isn't a hobby" crap I always see with regards to PPP.

For the millionth time: A Hobby is defined as ANYTHING you do that isn't your profession. This thing about assembling and painting models needing to be done for it to be a hobby is remnants of GW's brainwashing propaganda BS that they tell us.

AT-43 isn't as much WORK as GW, but it's just a as much a HOBBY.

Also, IF doesn't knock down ANY model it touches. Heroes inside a unit are immune to being knocked down.

Plat - I think you're nitpicking here on both counts.

Where the idea of what constitutes a hobby comes from really couldn't matter less. You write to your audience, and most people will understand precisely what I meant.

As it stands I already think the review is too long...I wanted to get this up before I had to go out tonight but I might have edited it down even further for length had I had more time. I felt inspired to write and so I did. Have I mentioned that I write professionally and do some editing as well? "Heroes don't get knocked down" is an inappropriate level of detail. I didn't discuss Heroes at all because it's rules minutiae and therefore inappropriate. A good editor would have struck that, and any other minor details like it, on the first pass through the draft.

LunaHound wrote:This is different than what you wrote back in May cairnius?

...

You're joking, right?

Cairnius wrote:
Plat - I think you're nitpicking here on both counts.

Where the idea of what constitutes a hobby comes from really couldn't matter less. You write to your audience, and most people will understand precisely what I meant.

It may be nitpicking, but you're writing for an audience whose hobby is playing warGAMES. Saying one is "just a game" and one is a "hobby" is being disingenuous to a portion of your audience. In essence, you're being even more nitpicky than I am. Read the General Discussions Thread on SW Minis, where this is (again) addressed. In fact, comparing the game to D&D Minis, Heroclix, SW Minis, and other PPP games may be a better way to go if you're so insistent on your point that one is a "game" and one is a "hobby"(or rather 2 separate sub-sects of the Wargaming hobby: Ready to Play Wargaming vs. Modelling Wargaming).

Were you writing this in a forum where the majority of the subject was the hobby of MODELLING, that would be a different story. They may sometimes overlap(such as with GW games), but they are different.

Well, playing a game isn't necessarily a hobby. For example, if I enjoy a game of Go Fish with my nieces and nephews at family get togethers on holidays, Go Fish isn't really my hobby. Now if I play poker with my friends every week, that's closer to a hobby. So frequency of participation is important. I think the example also shows that depth of participation is important, too. My twice a year games of Go Fish with nieces and nephews are incidental. Conversely, I have to put time and effort into organizing my weekly poker game. Same thing with wargaming, as you mentioned. Fortykay (you never see it spelled like that, huh?) takes a lot more effort than AT-43. It's only natural that people might think that it's more of hobby whereas AT-43 is more incidental, like happening to play a game of Runebound or Talisman with some friends you're visiting.

From the SW Minis Thread:

insaniak wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Roleplayer wrote:What's the point of a game with pre-painted figures?

Without building/conversion/painting i'd have no interest in this hobby Might as well play computer games.

The problem is you're confusing a game with a hobby.

Or, rather, he's confusing the hobby of wargaming (which doesn't always even include miniatures, let alone unpainted ones that you need to build yourself) with the hobby of model building. As much as GW would like to convince everybody that they're part of the same uber-hobby, they're really not.


Don't get me wrong, I love converting and painting models. But I also like playing games... and I see that as two hobbies, not one.

There is no rule that says that a wargame has to have pieces that you must assemble and paint yourself. And if a given game comes with prepainted models, then that means it's all that much easier to start playing. And if I feel an urge to repaint the miniatures later on, well, there's nothing stopping me from doing so.

Battletech didn't have models when it first came out(and can still be played without) and Little Wars(regarded as the first wargame) only used little pieces of wood. Were these somehow NOT a hobby?

Is that a response to me? Because it doesn't actually respond to what I wrote.

No, it was in addition to my earlier post.

Although I don't get your statement that AT-43 is somehow more "incidental", as you have to know when it's being played in your group or organize it just as much as 40K needs.

Getting people together to play AT-43 requires the same time. But everything that happens before that in 40k is missing in AT-43 (except work to afford buying minis, of course).

Manchu wrote:Getting people together to play AT-43 requires the same time. But everything that happens before that in 40k is missing in AT-43 (except work to afford buying minis, of course).

So it's incidental because it's not also a modeling and painting hobby?

This is the problem that insaniak was talking about in the quote. 40K isn't ONE uber-hobby, it's at least 3 hobbies: Wargaming, modeling, and painting.

So what you're talking about before "playing the game" is 2 supplementary hobbies(painting and modeling) that just happen to be in addition the separate hobby of playing. Neither is actually required for 40K as a wargaming hobby.

Actually, painting and modelling are a part of being involved with GW games. This isn't just a myth that GW created. If you don't believe me, try playing with GW products right out of the box. Yes, some people love modelling more than gaming and painting , some enjoy painting the most, and some enjoy playing the most. Yes, some people get invested in one of these aspects more than the other (now especially easy for the gamers thanks to affordable painting services) so that for them 40k or WHFB is just about that aspect. But that's not definitive of the GW gaming hobby as a whole which is actually a unitary modeling/painting/playing hobby.

Insaniak has a valid point about this "myth," however, if you take GW's model as the official or ideal standard for all other wargames. That is what I meant by saying the game/hobby debate doesn't really make sense outside of the GW context (or maybe the PP context, too, since they also offer a unitary model/paint/play hobby).

AT-43 is obviously more "incidental" than 40k. The proof is not but a few yards away from me now: a box of AT-43 stuff that could be played at any minute because it requires no effort on my part and the untouched, un-assembled, un-painted, unplayable boxes of Sisters of Battle next to it.

Platuan4th wrote:It may be nitpicking, but you're writing for an audience whose hobby is playing warGAMES. Saying one is "just a game" and one is a "hobby" is being disingenuous to a portion of your audience. In essence, you're being even more nitpicky than I am. Read the General Discussions Thread on SW Minis, where this is (again) addressed. In fact, comparing the game to D&D Minis, Heroclix, SW Minis, and other PPP games may be a better way to go if you're so insistent on your point that one is a "game" and one is a "hobby"(or rather 2 separate sub-sects of the Wargaming hobby: Ready to Play Wargaming vs. Modelling Wargaming).

Were you writing this in a forum where the majority of the subject was the hobby of MODELLING, that would be a different story. They may sometimes overlap(such as with GW games), but they are different.

I think colloquial speech is also important, Plat.

Most wargamers would probably agree that AT-43 is a game, not a hobby. You may disagree with that on a literal basis, but words mean what people want them to mean, and sometimes you just need to roll with it because you'll never be able to correct it, no matter how much it gets on your nerves. Some fights aren't worth fighting. I see what you are saying and concede that you are correct in the literal definition of "hobby" as one would find it in Websters or dictionary.com - but that's not how most wargamers use the words and it's the colloquial meanings that count the most when addressing an audience if you want to make yourself understood.

I'm generally more concerned, when I write, with the majority of my audience rather than a small portion. A small portion of any audience will always nitpick and find fault. In my experience, it's best to ignore those fears when writing and try to get your point across to the most people you can. If you try to make something perfect it's either eight times as long as it needs to be, or you never wind up finishing it.

Also note that I have compared AT-43 to Heroscape and Heroclix in the past.


Anyway...I wrote that because my intention is to give people something to point others to. I think that's a pretty damned fair review of AT-43 that one could point a friend at who was interested in the game and wanted to know more. That's its purpose - and that guy isn't really going to care much, 99% of the time, that I didn't go into great lengths to talk about what you and I are talking about. I'm extremely secure in that assessment, to wit - you're the only person who seems to care about this.

ALSO note that the fact that GW uses the term "the hobby" makes it even more appropriate to use the word as a means of differentiation.

Wow! that was very long but It was good!
"one could point a friend at who was interested in the game and wanted to know more" would be the perfect title for this thread so it could stay on topic... I like the way the key points of game play are talked about this would/is a perfect item for new players to have available . You surprise me Cairnuis I like this "Im just playing games and having a good time" side of you... bravo!

The definition, as far as I seem to figure it, is how much time you spend related to playing the game, when you aren't actually playing the game.

Boardgames: Take it out, blow dust off of the top of the box, play the game then put it away.

AT-43: Take out the game, spend five minutes making an army list, play the game, then put it away.

Warhammer 40,000: Buy the miniatures, assemble them, paint them, make up an army list, post it on Dakka because you're terrified of losing, buy more miniatures and don't paint them then play with them anyway, take horrible blurry sideways pictures of a few miniatures that are partially painted and post THESE on Dakka, play the game, post a battle report on Dakka, complain about how your army is the victim of codex creep because you lost a game, choose a new army and start the whole dismal cycle again. (Guilty of most of these things...)

It all depends on how much time you want to spend, and that's everybody's own business, not everybody elses'.

This whole argument is simply PLAIN SILLY. Any new player can decide what is considered a game or a hobby. They are not kids and definitely do NOT need your guildance, advice, opinion and suggestion. "All toddlers have to fall in order to learn to walk."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For any new player who want to know about AT-43, one should simply direct them to the main official site rather than giving them your own biased opion.

wildger wrote:T
For any new player who want to know about AT-43, one should simply direct them to the main official site rather than giving them your own biased opion.

Heh.

Sadly, the Rackham site never was very good at promoting its own game AFTER its initial release.

The Ava daily times were pretty sweet, as was the flash animation that built up the anticipation for the game.

I would NEVER send a new player to the rackham site to display the game. I mean no disrespect to Rackham, but their fans promote their products far better than they ever will.

warpcrafter wrote:The definition, as far as I seem to figure it, is how much time you spend related to playing the game, when you aren't actually playing the game.

Boardgames: Take it out, blow dust off of the top of the box, play the game then put it away.

AT-43: Take out the game, spend five minutes making an army list, play the game, then put it away.

Warhammer 40,000: Buy the miniatures, assemble them, paint them, make up an army list, post it on Dakka because you're terrified of losing, buy more miniatures and don't paint them then play with them anyway, take horrible blurry sideways pictures of a few miniatures that are partially painted and post THESE on Dakka, play the game, post a battle report on Dakka, complain about how your army is the victim of codex creep because you lost a game, choose a new army and start the whole dismal cycle again. (Guilty of most of these things...)

It all depends on how much time you want to spend, and that's everybody's own business, not everybody elses'.

LOL..... one reason I gave up 40k at the local GW store.... too many "that stupid codex f-ed me!". Now I play with my friends who also play AT-43, Monsterpocalypse, Chaos in Carpathia, Chaos on Chronos, A Wild West Variant of CinC, Confrontation........ etc. Playing Wargames is a hobby, so's model railroading even if you buy "out of the box" scenery and have someone else do the layout... the running of the trains is the hobby.

I find it sad and pathetic that people argue over what's a hobby and what isn't, especially when they could be using their time wisely and doing their hobby instead of arguing about it.

Well...if you are posting from work as I am wont to do then you can't really spend that time doing the hobby, CC.

Again...that was not an argument I wanted to have, and I tried to end it early. Also, I think things were taken out of context...I think it's pretty clear that AT-43 was designed as a game, not a modeling and painting hobby, which is precisely what I said. The only references to painting I can think of in all the official rulebooks are from the ability to paint masks on Therians to designate a certain unit honor, and painting your miniatures in Frostbite colors for the 5+ cover save on open ground.

I said that you can make AT-43 a "hobby," I think people just need to exercise the imagination to add "painting and modeling" before the word "hobby." I take it for granted, perhaps, that most people have a background in Games Workshop games and thus will understand the meaning of the word as I used it. I don't see why it was worth arguing about, however. That's such a minor part of what I wrote, and it doesn't mean anything offensive from a reasonable point of view any way you look at it.

What I find sad is when someone tries to write something positive and it still turns into some level of rancor - but this is Dakka. You pays your money, you takes your chances.


I'm glad you liked that, Saint Anuman. That side of me was always there...I'm a Jedi by natural temperament who gets tempted by the Dark Side very often because they have cookies...but I lost a very close family member who I lived with for 12 years back in October, and it lent me a lot of perspective on life. I really can't sweat tabletop gaming anymore. It's too unimportant in the grand scheme of things, even though I love it. It's not worth getting worked up over.

AT-43 may not be a perfect game, but it's a fun game if you take it for what it is. I had my first game in months last night, I played a UNA M.Ind list with Oni mercenaries versus Karman Libra. I got my ass kicked, but I had fun anyway. That's the spirit I want to exemplify at the table.

I took your review to be more upbeat than the drivel you posted the first time. The first one was full of hate and discontent. This review should have been your first one... to me this one is more objective because you are taking the good with the bad.

But you are correct, people (and I'm included) have latched onto the "hobby" argument.

No game is perfect. AT-43 is my favorite game hands down even with all it's flaws because it's a much better game for the setting.

I think a lot of what I said the first time is still true, but how I said it was definitely born out of frustration for no one warning me about any of that when I asked about the game for a few weeks before making any purchases.

As far as I am concerned, if the mods felt so inclined I'd have the original review and the entire thread deleted so that if people Googled AT-43 reviews they'd find the new one, and I'd erase the "explanatory" post before the review. Not sure whether Big Brother is willing to revise history like that, but I just found out another close family member has advanced pancreatitis that we caught just in time to give him maybe a few more years, 60% chance if the treatment takes.

I feel even less inclined to be negative about games right now than I did before. Know what teaches a person to be grateful for what they have? Loss.

Very sorry to hear about your family medical issues, Cairnius.

This is a very nice review. Thanks for writing it.

When I play any sort of board game, I don't care about painting or conversions or any of that "hobby" stuff.

I've owned Heroscape (prepaints, collectible), and I've since replaced that with BattleLore (unpainted, expandable).

To the extent that AT-43 is treated as a expandable prepaint board game, I'm completely good with it.

I think it legitimately fits into a middle ground between Heroscape or Battlelore v. 40k or FoW. Less time investment/non-gaming preparation, but still designed to give some visual joy, and the pre-paints do make a nice base for further work and painting to really up the level of visual appeal.

The biggest obstacle to my painting WH & 40k stuff, lately, is being sick of the kit cleaning and assembly work.

I hope you are still up for advocating turning the ruleset on its head and ironing out the obvious major flaws.