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.

I am extremely thankful when someone actually engages me in the discussion.

My hope, Strahd, is that eventually I'll have a pick-up play system tested and which will work for everyone. I'll be honest and say that I don't have the time to make this a second job, and it would be a lot easier with a team of people taking the rules as they stand, testing them, and reporting back to speed up the whole process, but I've got a friend who likes the idea of developing the system as much as I do, so we'll start with just the two of us and see how it goes and how long we remain interested in it.

I follow your basic argument. My issue is that what the company intended and what are actually taking place are two entirely different things. Rackham seems to have a bad rep when it comes to listening to their players and providing the support that is needed. I can no longer accept that the restructuring due to the buyout is keeping them so disorganized that they're not back on their feet and able to start addressing some of this stuff if they care to. If Rackham filed for bankruptcy protections back in 2007 then they are certainly back on their feet now, and have no excuses for not tending to some of these rules and gameplay issues in a serious manner.

The reason I did this poll was because I wanted to see if enough people would actually respond that they play mostly custom scenarios using regular tabletop wargaming terrain. The AT-43 community here is very small, so perhaps I never had a proper sampling size - but I've had these conversations on three different TTWG forums, and always had people coming out to say "I don't even play the scenarios or campaigns, so why are you criticizing them?"

I wanted to try and get something a little more concrete before proceeding with the assumption that what I was hearing was actually more par for the course than not. I don't really think the omission of "all of the above" matters much because that would include play outside of the scenarios and tiles, and therefore just further reinforces the point that Rackham needs to provide support for this style of play.

I actually think that they would do much better at bringing in established wargamers if they got away from the tiles. The tiles are precisely what turn AT-43 in a boardgame hybrid. Keep them around if you want, but make that only part of the official design and support, not the entirety of it. Play on regular tables gives the players more creativity in setting up their play spaces, and encourages the hobby aspect which officially is lacking, but again which happens anyway because that's how many wargamers want to wargame, with superlative paint jobs on their models.

I made the same point you did in the discussion in my review thread about the "adaptive AT-43" so many people seem to be playing. We both recognize what's taking place - so I'm not criticizing Rackham for not including pick-up play rules originally, before they knew how the game would be received and used by the audience.

I'm criticizing them now for their silence on the issue. If they want the game to survive, they need to support all the various sorts of play taking place, and it would seem that a very sizeable portion of their player base wants to eschew the tiles and go with regular tables.

If I were at Rackham I would be making this one of my top priorities. Maybe take a break from new army design and provide the rules support people need right now which will increase the size of the player base and health of the game and therefore increase the number of potential buyers for the ONI army when it comes out.

So what keeps you from calling this poll over and starting a new one?

Oh boy, you really should start to read the rulebook:

Examples of wonky rules - auto-knockdown for indirect fire weapons. If more than half the unit falls down, next time they get activated all they can do is get up. Very wonky as in other games you get a chance to break the pin and then move normally. You don't get this in AT-43.

You are able to stand up the next round and act normal if more than half of your unit is not shell-shocked. If more than half of your unit is shell-shocked they need one round to recover from it. Where is the problem? Teaches you to spread out your unit when the mortars start to fire and is quite realistic.

Babel units can essentially become moving snipers, something the testers complained about but which Rackham went ahead and did anyway even though it unbalanced the sniper ability which is very powerful.

Since I was complaining mainly about it I am very firm regarding this issue. It was a case of bad wording in the English version and it was not clear whether she could sniper 4 times or 2 times while moving. She can move and sniper 2 times. Problem solved. And she is definitely not overpowered. I am good at leading Therians but even she gets problems when a good RB general moves in for a kill. Oh, and by the way, it was just Babel/Nina the discussion was about not H/Babel units.

Cards in the activation order are not tied to individual units - any unit that matches the revealed card may be activated when the card gets flipped, which partially makes the whole concept of the activation order and LP expenditures to switch the order around moot if you run multiple, identical units.

This Rackham leaves to the gamers on purpose. In fun-friendship games and with beginners we we sometimes play it this way cause its easier to get accustomed to using cards. In tournaments we do not allow it. But to be honest, most gamers are fair enough to mark their cards and units and we don´t have a problem. Most gamers have that much brain left that they need not to be told everything in detail.

You are now allowed to target friendly troops with direct fire weapons, something I've never heard of in any tabletop wargame and which seems designed specifically to abuse the Stealth rules. You just target a friendly unit on the other side of the Stealthed unit and catch them in the zone of fire, effectively nullifying the Stealth ability without taking the normal, requisite gear to target that Stealthed unit at range.

It has always been possible to shoot into a close combat, but it was always "at your own risk". And the thread in question was about CC.


You know what, if I had an axe to grind I would a least make sure that the issues I am complaining about are right. But judging from the four above quotes you:

A: havn't read the rulebook thoroughly.
B: misquote people and posts.
C: invent things that were never posted.


That´s very bad style.

The problem with the knockdown rules is that they function like a pin in other games, but is SO much worse. In 40K if my Space Marines get pinned I get a chance to make a Leadership check at the beginning of my next turn and then move as normal. In Flames of War any unit that gets hit with mortars or artillery gets auto-pinned, but gets a chance to break the pin at the beginning of their next turn by passing a Motivation check. In both cases, Elite infantry have a much easier time of it as ought to be the case.

In AT-43, you get auto-knocked-down if you receive indirect weapons fire. This isn't so bad to start with, and follows the tried-and-true design formula; but in AT-43 if more than half the unit gets knocked down there is nothing akin to "breaking the pin." You stand up. That's it. The units may not move, shoot, assault, or even take the combat drills which are so important to keeping them alive if they have cover.

That is what's so massively wonky about the rules. If you were allowed, say, to give a Take Cover! drill to a grounded unit at the end of its activation, that would be more balanced. Generally-speaking, troops that get hit with artillery don't just stand up once the shells stop falling. They tend to stay in their foxholes, if they have them, or continue staying gone to ground. In 40K a Pinned unit may choose to Go To Ground and improve their cover save. In FoW infantry out in the open is much harder to hit anyway, and a Pinned unit doesn't move, and thus Goes to Ground at the end of their movement phase and if they don't shoot that turn then they are even harder to hit than normal.

In AT-43, if you can knock down half an infantry unit, not only have you effectively removed them from the game for a round, you've also stripped them of all their drills and more or less made them easy targets for direct fire. To say they need one round to recover from it wouldn't be such a big deal if weapons didn't have such long ranges, and AT-43 wasn't quite so brutal.

So, if I'm playing a game, I can load up on indirect fire units with some ability to reach out, and if I'm smart I can pretty much not care about actually killing your infantry, all I have to do is suppress them. There's nothing you can do about it. You can't break the pin during their next activation. All I really have to worry about is your ability to kill my units that have the indirect fire weapons, if I put them on AFV's for example - but then I just load up on AT weapons and cookie-cutter the game away. If I'm U.N.A. it's rather easy to do this. Lancelots, Cobras, and a crapton of missile launchers with some Tac Arms hanging back to laser designate. JAM TacArms if I really want to be a jerk about it...


The fact that you cannot move while you're sniping is precisely what provides for the balance here. The second you remove that restriction, you've broken the rule...but don't talk to me, talk to all the people on the AT-43 forums like the friend I'm currently playing the game with who tested the rule and complained rather vocally about it. People knew it was broken in testing, Rackham used the rule anyway. Purely a business decision I am sure - allow for the ability to sell models. GW does this all the time and it's awful...again, Rackham could choose to approach things a different way...


I refuse to believe that Rackham originally intended to not have cards tied to individual units. I can't prove this any more than you can prove your point, but the Activating Units section on page 57 states "When a player becomes the active player, he reveals the first card of his activation sequence. The corresponding unit is activated: the player decides the actions it will try to perform and resolves them."

This is not ambiguous language, or bad translation. It's very clear that card corresponds to unit.

What you fail to acknowledge is that this idea of being able to activate any unit that matches the revealed card is something that Rackham did later, after the rules were published, and again we return to my point about a lack of integrity to the rules. The matching of single unit to single card is the foundation of the whole Activation Sequence, the idea that you have to plan out how your army is going to move before the round begins, and then have to expend LP in order to change this. It also is what makes the Red Blok abilities to drain LP and mess with opponents' activation orders so potentially brutal.

If you start using identical units, however, the tactical flexibility you gain is enough to warrant being critical of this ruling by Rackham. They went against the original wording of the rules, and why did they do it? Well...many Sentinels say it's because the game is meant to be played "right out of the box" and marking cards and such to designate which units are which requires doing something above and beyond just taking the units and cards out of the boxes and slapping them down on the table.

Talk about not trusting people to have any gray matter between their ears...Rackham can't expect their players to have a little creativity and figure out how to get some card protectors and some dry-erase markers and settle the problem that way?

And if cards weren't meant to be matched to units, why did Rackham provide individual cards with Special Weapon bearers on them? Why not just have one, generic card per unit which lists all the available weapon options? Could it be that Rackham was trying to be helpful and provide a Star Trooper w/Flamer card to differentiate the Star Trooper unit with Flamers from the Star Trooper unit with Missile Launchers, who have a Star Trooper w/Missile Launcher card I may use to represent them in the Activation Sequence respectively?

So we also return, again, to the "settle for less" mentality. "Hey, we want the game to be easy, so we'll accept this ruling." Do you know one of the key ways that a ruleset is judged for balance and quality in the tabletop gaming world? How easy it is to break them.

A smart player, therefore, taking multiple Star Trooper units is only going to use the generic cards, and then when the card gets revealed activates the best Star Trooper unit to his immediate purposes - and that's legal. You cannot, within the rules, prevent him or her from doing so because Rackham's official ruling is on their forums for all to see.

This ability to break the original intention of the Activation Sequence is precisely why you just admitted that when you run tournaments you actually break the rules! What does that say about the quality of the rules, then, that you can't even use them as written or as ruled on by Rackham in order to successfully run your tournaments?

The rules are everything, Duncan. Your off-topic comments about peoples' brains are irrelevant and inappropriate, and are also making excuses for the way Rackham handles the rules.


In terms of targeting your units...the context of the question (CC) is utterly irrelevant. The ruling was made that friendly units are able to target other friendly units with direct-fire weapons, and when the ruling was delivered it was after protracted discussion with a player and the Rackham designer basically said "Oh, okay, go ahead and do it if you want."

???

Rules integrity?

Please leave behind the Ad Hom attacks, Duncan, if you wish to engage me. They don't help you in a debate, as people have told you in this thread.

Attacks? I am just stating what everybody with a rulebook in his hands can find out in five minutes.

The problem with the knockdown rules is that they function like a pin in other games, but is SO much worse. In 40K if my Space Marines get pinned I get a chance to make a Leadership check at the beginning of my next turn and then move as normal. In Flames of War any unit that gets hit with mortars or artillery gets auto-pinned, but gets a chance to break the pin at the beginning of their next turn by passing a Motivation check. In both cases, Elite infantry have a much easier time of it as ought to be the case.

In AT-43, you get auto-knocked-down if you receive indirect weapons fire. This isn't so bad to start with, and follows the tried-and-true design formula; but in AT-43 if more than half the unit gets knocked down there is nothing akin to "breaking the pin." You stand up. That's it. The units may not move, shoot, assault, or even take the combat drills which are so important to keeping them alive if they have cover.

That is what's so massively wonky about the rules. If you were allowed, say, to give a Take Cover! drill to a grounded unit at the end of its activation, that would be more balanced. Generally-speaking, troops that get hit with artillery don't just stand up once the shells stop falling. They tend to stay in their foxholes, if they have them, or continue staying gone to ground. In 40K a Pinned unit may choose to Go To Ground and improve their cover save. In FoW infantry out in the open is much harder to hit anyway, and a Pinned unit doesn't move, and thus Goes to Ground at the end of their movement phase and if they don't shoot that turn then they are even harder to hit than normal.

In AT-43, if you can knock down half an infantry unit, not only have you effectively removed them from the game for a round, you've also stripped them of all their drills and more or less made them easy targets for direct fire. To say they need one round to recover from it wouldn't be such a big deal if weapons didn't have such long ranges, and AT-43 wasn't quite so brutal.

So, if I'm playing a game, I can load up on indirect fire units with some ability to reach out, and if I'm smart I can pretty much not care about actually killing your infantry, all I have to do is suppress them. There's nothing you can do about it. You can't break the pin during their next activation. All I really have to worry about is your ability to kill my units that have the indirect fire weapons, if I put them on AFV's for example - but then I just load up on AT weapons and cookie-cutter the game away. If I'm U.N.A. it's rather easy to do this. Lancelots, Cobras, and a crapton of missile launchers with some Tac Arms hanging back to laser designate. JAM TacArms if I really want to be a jerk about it...


The fact that you cannot move while you're sniping is precisely what provides for the balance here. The second you remove that restriction, you've broken the rule...but don't talk to me, talk to all the people on the AT-43 forums like the friend I'm currently playing the game with who tested the rule and complained rather vocally about it. People knew it was broken in testing, Rackham used the rule anyway. Purely a business decision I am sure - allow for the ability to sell models. GW does this all the time and it's awful...again, Rackham could choose to approach things a different way...

Sorry? As soon as you are knocked down you are automaticly gone to the ground until you stand up. Thus they are protected from indirect fire. And if you are halfway worth your salt as a gamer you place them last in your activation sequence in one round and first in the next round. I don´t see a problem there. And sorry, even the US Marines take some time to recover from being hit bey a mortar. Normally a mortar does not care whether you are a normal private or elite marine and both need around the same time to recover from the same blast wave.

In terms of targeting your units...the context of the question (CC) is utterly irrelevant. The ruling was made that friendly units are able to target other friendly units with direct-fire weapons, and when the ruling was delivered it was after protracted discussion with a player and the Rackham designer basically said "Oh, okay, go ahead and do it if you want."

From the beginning it said on page 61 that you can fire into a CC. Where's the problem? Your unit is body to body with the enemy and easily can relay information about the combat to other units. It depends on you as the commander whether you take the risk of shooting into CC. If your are unlucky you are handing over two VP to the enemy. And sometimes it is necessary to shoot into the CC which might kill the last two soldiers from a unit that are going to die a few seconds later anyway instead of letting the enemy unit get away and cause even more trouble.

Ad Hominem attacks, Duncan. It's a logical fallacy wherein you attack the speaker rather than debate their argument, as you did above when you accused me of misquoting people. The irony of that comment is that I've studiously avoided copying and pasting posts from the AT-43 forums which could validate some of my arguments, mostly because that's too easy...


"Gone to ground" doesn't have the meaning in AT-43 that it does in 40K and Flames of War. In AT-43 your units are "knocked down" but not "gone to ground" in the same sense of the other two games. The other games have benefits associated with being in the state of "Gone to Ground."

Those knocked down units are not protected from indirect fire if other fighters in their unit who are not knocked down are targeted by another salvo of indirect fire weapons, and the knocked-down units come under the template again. If the unit doesn't have 360 cover such that other enemy units may draw LOS to them, they can also be shot by direct fire weapons. It's extremely wonky.


Also, please address the situation of targeting friendly units with direct-fire weapons outside of the CC situation. The ruling was given in the context of a question about shooting into CC, but the response was never elucidated as only being applicable to a CC situation.

In the ruling, friendly troops were allowed to target friendly troops with direct fire weapons. Up until the point of this ruling, via the rulebook, friendly units could target only enemy units with direct fire weapons.

With no following clarification, that's a game-wide rules change delivered via one post on the official rules forums, and it effectively changes everything. Rules designers need to be exceedingly specific when they write or clarify rules, else you wind up with issues like this.

If anyone is interested in seeing how this developed, just go read the thread over at the AT-43 forums. "Game Rules" forum, the thread is titled "Firing into CC." See how what is arguably a fanboy community over there reacted to this ruling for yourself, then come tell me that I'm not making a valid complaint here about how Rackham handles their rules.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:"Playing all kinds of missions on Rackham as well as custom terrain" is missing.

Agreed. We play what ever we feel like playing on both types of terrain.

If we want to do a campaign, then we use the OD or OF books and their scenarios and a mixture of terrain.

If we want just a quick game or two (we actually fit in 3-4 in the same time span as a normal 40k game) we just roll for one out of the rulebook.

Cairnius wrote:"Gone to ground" doesn't have the meaning in AT-43 that it does in 40K and Flames of War. In AT-43 your units are "knocked down" but not "gone to ground" in the same sense of the other two games. The other games have benefits associated with being in the state of "Gone to Ground."

That's because the creators of Flames of War openly admit that they "borrowed heavily from" 40k to use with Flames of War so they that is why they are similar. Both are created by Native English speaking creative teams.

Gone to Ground in 40k is akin to being in cover or attempting to go prone so that you are a smaller target.

Gone to Ground in AT-43 is akin to "Pinned" in 40k.

Gone to Ground in AT-43 makes units vulnerable, which is cool. Toss in some indirect fire to "soften up the enemy" then lay down the smack down. To me that is more like how WWI was fought. Lots of Artillery before running over the top to slay those that where stunned and dazed by the barrage.

Those knocked down units are not protected from indirect fire if other fighters in their unit who are not knocked down are targeted by another salvo of indirect fire weapons, and the knocked-down units come under the template again. If the unit doesn't have 360 cover such that other enemy units may draw LOS to them, they can also be shot by direct fire weapons. It's extremely wonky.

For heavens sake, please read the book thouroughly befor posting such nonsense.

Either only part of your unit is knocked down or all of them. In the first case your soldiers still standing help the others and in the next round they can act normal in the other case they are not able to do anything (for the reasons see posts before). Now you are complaining that a unit that gets hit does not have a chance to escape a second hit. Sorry, but when I get hit several times during a round of 40K I do not have multiple chances to avoid it, the same goes for FoW. My folks barely made it through a first blast and are surprised by the second. They are definitly not having a matrix-slow-motion-sequence where they avoid every bullet.

Also, please address the situation of targeting friendly units with direct-fire weapons outside of the CC situation. The ruling was given in the context of a question about shooting into CC, but the response was never elucidated as only being applicable to a CC situation.

In the ruling, friendly troops were allowed to target friendly troops with direct fire weapons. With no following clarification, that's a game-wide rules change. Rules designers need to be exceedingly specific when they write or clarify rules, else you wind up with issues like this.

Sorry, but in this case he was quite specific and he was clearly referring to the rule on page 61 where it says from the beginning of AT-43 on that you can fire into CC. Next thing you are going to tell me it was only ment for enemy units in CC? We cann discuss about the issue that te firing unit should maybe pass a moral check before firing, but everything else is ignoring basic rules. Besides it is even mentioned in the fluff that there are internal wars inside the factions and that sometimes folks from the same side shoot at each other, because an officer has a little vendetta.

You didn't just disagree with me on your first point, Duncan. Yes, some or all. If more than half, i.e. "some," are knocked down then the unit does nothing but stand up on its following activation, just like I said.

Fluff has nothing to do with rules, and is usually a very weak recourse to fall back on when the rules just are wonky.

The rule on firing on friendly units was never specified as only pertaining to CC. You are making the unfounded assumption that the context of the ruling specifies the jurisdiction of the rule - but that's not your call to make.

The only thing players can do is follow the letter of the rules, or the clarifications given. In this case, the clarification is that friendly units may target other friendly units with direct-fire weapons, changing a rule which had been in place for I believe two years prior to the summary ruling which didn't seem to have much thought behind it. End of story.

Again, to anyone who is interested, just go read the appropriate discussions on the AT-43 forums. I told you where to find it. I think I'd rather just let the AT-43 forums speak for themselves on this point, so Duncan, take the last word if you want it. The AT-43 forums are going to elucidate my point better than I ever could...and at least if people head over there as a result of our discussion you're getting some more attention for your game than you otherwise would have...


@CCotD -

I don't have any problem with the idea of a knock-down rule conceptually...again, AT-43 gets weak when it comes to execution, not theory. Something needs to balance out the ability of direct-fire weapons, probably either allowing the unit that was more than half knocked down the ability to issue at least a Take Cover! drill when they get back up, or allowing them to pass a Morale test and then move as normal when they get back up, etc. The knock-down rules as they stand right now are not properly "broken," as in they don't determine games, but I don't consider them "balanced." The risk:reward ratio, or cost:benefit ratio, just doesn't seem right.

I don't have any problem with the idea of a knock-down rule conceptually...again, AT-43 gets weak when it comes to execution, not theory. Something needs to balance out the ability of direct-fire weapons, probably either allowing the unit that was more than half knocked down the ability to issue at least a Take Cover! drill when they get back up, or allowing them to pass a Morale test and then move as normal when they get back up, etc. The knock-down rules as they stand right now are not properly "broken," as in they don't determine games, but I don't consider them "balanced." The risk:reward ratio, or cost:benefit ratio, just doesn't seem right.

They are broken just because you are not able to deal with a barrage properly? That´s funny. I have more than 500 games under my belt ( stopped counting) and I never had problems with indirect fire.


You can either spread out to make it harder for the enemy to hit the unit or you make good use of the scenery. Also you can send in some other unit that takes care of the mortar in question. A unit of molots send in the right direction works wonders.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:


You can either spread out to make it harder for the enemy to hit the unit or you make good use of the scenery. Also you can send in some other unit that takes care of the mortar in question. A unit of molots send in the right direction works wonders.

How does a unit of Karmans, normal size 4, max size 8 but at horrendous cost, keep enough people out of a blast radius?

Also what help does scenery have, sure the blast can scatter, but IIRC you only need hits to knockdown. Does cover negate hits entirely and negate knockdown?

Remembering now that all terrain is officially blocks and crates, bunker excepted. Doesnt cover get negated if the shell blast centre comes from the other direction?

There is no official scenery, just suggestion what to use. And of course they had to provide some prefabricated scenery and tiles for Frostbite. It´s a huge campaign that is played over a long time that needs some layouts that can easily replicated everywhere.

A normal AT table looks like this:





First thing to do to avoid being hit is of course making use of the scenery by staying out of LOS.

Your enemy can center his indirect weapon only on the soldiers he sees, if you string up your apes (even 4, > 10cm radius around leader and 2,5 cm distance between each other) the chances of hitting the unit are smaller.

Don't let yourself be fooled by others into believing that Rackham wants you to play only using the scenery elements they provide. The scenarios in the rulebook are just basic layouts for beginners. Nowhere does it say that you are not allowed to use your own scenery and if you check the AT-forum you will see hundreds of pictures showing your own scenery.

@Duncan , say unit A is grounded by the enemy , can unit B striders move in and destroy the enemy thus freeing the grounded unit A?

With all honesty, Duncan has not made ANY attacks towards you Cairnius , he and others have replied your questions on other forums too? many many times?

And for what purpose do you have asking the questions you have here ( you get same 2 people replying to you multiply the X amount of other forums you copy pasted to ) instead of the official forums?

Also , yesterday the books and stuff arrived! and i must say the quality is amazing . Its like having a colored art collection book + the army book.

Being grounded in AT means just that you are thrown to the ground by the blast wave and recover from it. So there is no need to free the grounded unit.

There is an order that allows you to go to the ground willingly until the next activation but it is mainly intended for avoiding friendly fire.

*Edit. After reading page 57 , this whole thread reminded me of another 40k thread:

"Can IG give orders in enemies turn"

And summed up by Gogolth :

The rules as written clearly state that you cannot shoot a friendly model. It specifically states in the ENGLISH version that you point your weapons at the enemy (as stated several times on several pages).

I can't believe this has gone on for 4 pages just because a few people want to work around the rules to defeat a close combat unit that, the only thing they have going for them, is to get into close combat.

LunaHound wrote:With all honesty, Duncan has not made ANY attacks towards you Cairnius

You must be reading a different thread, Luna.


@ Duncan -

It's never the rules, always the player, right?

And, man, that's so extremely misleading to put up that picture of the nicely-modeled gaming table and say that that's a "normal" AT-43 table. It may be what you play on, but that's a major stretch to say that it's "normal."

Also, not disallowing use of "regular" terrain isn't the same as "supporting" use of regular terrain. There's a big difference.

Nowhere does it say that you are not allowed to use your own scenery and if you check the AT-forum you will see hundreds of pictures showing your own scenery.

Sigh, just because you are somehow not able to do or get it does not mean that everybody else is like you.
I am too tried to providing links, but a quick search on AT forums should provide you with enough pictures.

Also what little we need on extra rules to make best use of the scenery we agree upon before the game. I think even Jervis Johnson himself wrote that you shouldn't stay with the basic suggestions but develop something yourself. Apocalypse is a good example that it works even without providing every detail. And we are talking about details and not some fundamental rules.

Cairnius wrote:
And, man, that's so extremely misleading to put up that picture of the nicely-modeled gaming table and say that that's a "normal" AT-43 table. It may be what you play on, but that's a major stretch to say that it's "normal."

See? this is why i cannot believe (trust me i tried) that you ever had any good intentions.

I have never seen someone goes to such length to bash a game , now bringing in terrain / scenaries issues?
When is the last time you ever hear someone whine about Games Work shop players and their terrain they play on? its making me sad....

How big are these boards and how many points do you play on them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Duncan_Idaho wrote:Being grounded in AT means just that you are thrown to the ground by the blast wave and recover from it. So there is no need to free the grounded unit.

There is an order that allows you to go to the ground willingly until the next activation but it is mainly intended for avoiding friendly fire.

Ok, something to ad to this.

If you have a unit with aspecial rules special rules grounded do the special rules still apply? So if Dragonovs with an EW specialist are grounded at the start of the turn do they get to remove an LP point from the enemy?

CCotD Fancy meeting you here! I really need a match between you and my 3 Sierps!

So my 2 cents... I think they could use better pick up play rules, and terrain rules. But really who cares? I play exclusively pick up rules, and play with what ever I have at hand. (I also play a watered down version with my 7 year old son.. major special abilities, but no leadership points). You're complaining that they aren't as good as some other games... and its only version 1.0 of AT-43. At least I don't have to spend 10 hours scrapping flash off my miniatures before I paint them.

When I use real terrain, I play with 40k style, "if you can see it, you can shoot it." The only problem I have with that is that my UNA Wing Troopers are a little tall... of course it works in reverse... they can see you better. With AT-43 I have the option of simplifying the terrain rules and simply deciding on the height of the terrain elements and play the game "Tile Style".

Cairnius, sit down and crack the statistics on each of the armies. It will open your eyes. They are all identical and quite balanced. Any differences are quite subtle. I play Red Blok on open fields with no trouble, that's why Red Blok gets more troops. Sucks to be Karmen in that boat... but heaven forbid they should get even a single unit near yours.

Seriously, sit down with Microsoft Excel and crack the numbers. It will cure you of your personal and biased fear that terrain is a serious concern.

Any statement that you need more complex rules for hit resolution (Armour saves) like Warhammer 40k has, is vacuous at best. Crack the numbers, and you'll realize, you're just rolling dice a lot more with 40k. It works out to being the exact same thing, a percentage chance of success.

Lastly Rackham is listening to game players and changing rules as need be. The Indirect Fire rules (now automatically off by 10cm when you miss) are a perfect example. Read the Errata, and you'll see that they are indeed listening.

If and when they do decide to spruce up the terrain rules, I'm sure it will be a happy day. But its hardly a requirement now.

The board is approx. 10 ft by 4 ft and we were trying out how many AP such a board could support. We are planning a huge battle and we need some numbers to prepare enough scenery and gaming boards. We scaled up. What you see are pictures from our 4000 AP each side game. In the end it turned ot that with two parties such a board can support up to 10.000 AP each side without being too crowded, but 6000-8000 were optimum.

This thread contains picture from a 30.000AP tournamnet with 10 participants we held in february:

http://www.at43-forum.de/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1535

If you have a unit with aspecial rules special rules grounded do the special rules still apply? So if Dragonovs with an EW specialist are grounded at the start of the turn do they get to remove an LP point from the enemy?

No, a unit that is completely grounded is not able to use it. A unit that is only partly grounded on the other hand will be able to use it nedt round.

Besides some units have stabilizers that keep them from being knocked down, mainly Battlesuits.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:The board is approx. 10 ft by 4 ft and we were trying out how many AP such a board could support. We are planning a huge battle and we need some numbers to prepare enough scenery and gaming boards. We scaled up. What you see are pictures from our 4000 AP each side game. In the end it turned ot that with two parties such a board can support up to 10.000 AP each side without being too crowded, but 6000-8000 were optimum.

Good, so my 6k build army lists are in fact just right for a 6'x4'.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:
Besides some units have stabilizers that keep them from being knocked down, mainly Battlesuits.

Just Karman and UNA ones yes, or is it now a general rule?

Only them.

After working on a system for a little while, this is what I've come up with so far in terms of using "regular" 25mm or 28mm terrain for AT-43, which is incorporated into the Random Mission Generator system a friend and I are working on:

Rules for incorporating 25mm-28mm terrain

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

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

3) Rivers or other waterways will halve a Combat Movement if even a single model moves through the terrain, but will not provide a Cover Save.

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

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



This is what kills me about AT-43 - these rules are pretty simple. They may not be perfect, but so far they work and cover most terrain I could ever forsee using. It should have taken the Rackham designers a day or so to write these up, and they could have just stuck them in the main rulebook.

The fact that they did not is what indicates to me that Rackham never intended AT-43 to be played on anything other than their gaming tiles and posters. The fact that it's been two years since the game was released and they haven't even released anything like these sorts of rules in Cry Havoc or on their website further reinforces my conviction along these lines. I think the idea is really that the intended audience for AT-43 has always been tabletop wargaming noobs who are unaware of other game systems, or who have never shown interest in tabletop wargames before, such that they would have no reason to question strictly using tiles and the pre-fab AT-43 terrain; and Rackham certainly wouldn't want to do anything to point these noobs in the direction of other game systems.

Kind of like some people have talked about GW doing its best to pretend like there are no other games out there in the world besides theirs.

Cairnius wrote:but this is all we had because Rackham doesn't support play outside of their scenarios with the gaming tiles and the prescribed terrain setups.

As a Sentinel, I call BS on this. Several Rackham supported tournaments don't use either the "published" missions and/or the tiles, and that includes the Rackham run tournaments at cons/events(such as GenCon).

Why don't you actually check things out and make an effort to find out the truth before making blatantly uninformed statements like that next time.

It's not my job to conduct investigations - it's your company's job to state clearly what their intentions are per how AT-43 is "meant to be played," or to fully-support all the fashions in which they "want the game to be played."

If they do support tournaments that don't use the published missions or the tiles, and if they were using non AT-43 terrain for those tournament missions, then where are the rules they used for the terrain? You're telling me that rules exist to support the "free table" gameplay that all the adult AT-43 players seem to favor by far and Rackham has never distributed them on their website?

No one would put up with this kind of nonsense from Games Workshop....GW fans foam rabid at the mouth when GW doesn't provide proper rules support. You AT-43 disciples are extremely, extremely kind to your game company.

Cairnius wrote:It's not my job to conduct investigations - it's your company's job to state clearly what their intentions are per how AT-43 is "meant to be played," or to fully-support all the fashions in which they "want the game to be played."

If they do support tournaments that don't use the published missions or the tiles, and if they were using non AT-43 terrain for those tournament missions, then where are the rules they used for the terrain? You're telling me that rules exist to support the "free table" gameplay that all the adult AT-43 players seem to favor by far and Rackham has never distributed them on their website?

No one would put up with this kind of nonsense from Games Workshop....GW fans foam rabid at the mouth when GW doesn't provide proper rules support. You AT-43 disciples are extremely, extremely kind to your game company.

We're extremely kind because we can actually communicate with the company and designers directly, unlike GW.

As to "the way it's meant to be played", you're forgetting JMT's First Rule: AT-43 is a game that is best played with a degree of maturity.

Platuan4th wrote:

Cairnius wrote:but this is all we had because Rackham doesn't support play outside of their scenarios with the gaming tiles and the prescribed terrain setups.

As a Sentinel, I call BS on this. Several Rackham supported tournaments don't use either the "published" missions and/or the tiles, and that includes the Rackham run tournaments at cons/events(such as GenCon).

Why don't you actually check things out and make an effort to find out the truth before making blatantly uninformed statements like that next time.

I would like to get to the bottom of this, I want to see your informed opinion. I get so many attempts to shout Cairnius down that if there is a case of 'blatantly uninformed-ness' it is time we saw the evidence of that. I have not read Cry Havoc. But assumably you have, or something similar from Rackham, by your decision to silence Cairunius' criticism as 'blatantly uninformed statements'. If so please prove Cairnius wrong by showing us the expanded terrain rules, post them, link them, quote them. How you do is up to you, it's not like to you dont want to prove him wrong, so you should have no problems with this, unless they dont actually exist. I ask Cairnius to refrain from trying to confirm this one way or another, let's give Platuan time to find his evidence.

Platuan4th wrote:
We're extremely kind because we can actually communicate with the company and designers directly, unlike GW.

As to "the way it's meant to be played", you're forgetting JMT's First Rule: AT-43 is a game that is best played with a degree of maturity.

You can communicate with GW directly too, its called Roolz Boyz, for what its worth.

Sorry the must be played with a sense of maturity 'arguement' shows how shallow the defence is. This applies to every game from chess onwards, and is not an ad lib for poor games design to hide behind. GW has a very similar argument (read fob off) woth the 'Most Important Rule'. Sometimes things will turn up that are not in the rules, fair enough. But all too often Gw throws back its bad games desuign decisions into the players faces.
Anyway basic terrain rules should really not be amongst the list of ambiguitoes of any game.

Also in case you hadn't heard FFG gave up on Rackham apparently because the company was ivory towering and was inaccessible.

Now our 'degree of maturity' is leading some of us to two obvious conclusions; first you need to house rule elementary stuff like area basic rules for effect weapons and terain before the game is playable, second because you need to house rule so much basic stuff Rackham are not doing their job.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cairnius wrote:After working on a system for a little while, this is what I've come up with so far in terms of using "regular" 25mm or 28mm terrain for AT-43, which is incorporated into the Random Mission Generator system a friend and I are working on:

working, as in present tense. So you are not entirely off the ship then Cairnius.

Cairnius wrote:
Rules for incorporating 25mm-28mm terrain

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

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

3) Rivers or other waterways will halve a Combat Movement if even a single model moves through the terrain, but will not provide a Cover Save.

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

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

We are playing something similar. You have area terrain and blocking terrain. Blocking terrain works by TLOS but if a sizable fraction of them odel is covered you get a save and can take cover.

Area terrain allows infantry to get a cover save, and halves movment. we do allow rushes/dashes, but at half movement.

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

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

3) Rivers or other waterways will halve a Combat Movement if even a single model moves through the terrain, but will not provide a Cover Save.

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

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

Well, the rulebook suggests that you discuss sizes prior to game in case size is not perfectly clear from a simple LOS test. Takes us 20 seconds even under tournament circumstances.
Points of entry are easy to, sinze it says that the minis only can ge where their base fits through.
Moving throught walls, well, there are rules für destructible terrain alrady in the rulebook and some new in Frostbite. Most of the time they suffice and if we need more we can easily deduct them from the ones already given.

I don´t need a company to rule everything to the last point and even FoW who are rather detailed regarding scenery trust their players and provide mainly suggestions: cf. Rulebook p.30

Good rules from Orlanth and Cairnius, both here and in the other thread, although I'm missing the point of the necessity for a size characteristic if one is playing "off-tile". Care to expand upon that?

Essentially these improvised terrain rules are how we have always played, even if it is not written the rulebook. It simply seemed to be the natural progression of the existing cover rules and a bit of common sense.

@ Cairnius: you are just repeating the same point again and again regarding the lack of full terrain rules, while saying that you suspect that AT-43 is designed only to be used on tiles. If this were true, then there is no reasons for further terrain rules to exist; the rules for playing on the tiles are already there. I absolutely understand what you are saying, but the argument is a bit of a dead-end as both points are effectively exclusive of one another.

If one extrapolates house-rules from what already exists in the book, as I and many others do, then it becomes a different subject. I do not really understand the degree of hand-holding that seems to be expected of Rackham, but I would much rather read suggestions on how the rules can be sensibly expanded for a full tabletop 3D game, than listen to yet another dig on Rackham, followed by the attack of the Sentinels who seem to insist that the Rulebook can cover everything. It quite clearly does not.

From my perspective there are two different things going on: one is an argument about Rackham that is becoming quite heated, and the other is a fan-made set of guidelines that can add more depth and breadth to the game. If people stepped back from bickering about the company, we could actually find out how people play the game and expand upon it.

Yeah dude, I'm not off the ship yet. You know I'm slowly bleeding off my Red Blok army and I've already got my Therians up for auction, gonna stick with the U.N.A. as they were the design aesthetic I got attracted to in the first place and no one in my gaming club really cares about AT-43 so there's no longer any justification for holding onto multiple armies for demo purposes…but I’ll hold onto one army as long as there are people who want to play the game with me.

I have one local friend who prefers AT-43 at the moment, and between the two of us we've played enough TTW to be able to draw from other design elements that we know work properly and adapt them to AT-43. Borrowing liberally from all these various pick-up play systems I’ve found and had offered to me by AT-43 players, taking the good and tossing out the bad, my friend and I have cobbled together what I'd call a pre-Alpha state of a pick-up play system with 5 out of the 6 missions we want to end up with. The missions represent the "mainstay" of AT-43 gameplay but are removed from pre-determined terrain setups, and the system focuses in large part on using "regular" 28mm gaming terrain.

So far we're having fun working on it, but we'll see how long it remains fun. If it becomes a tremendous pain in the ass to develop this system such that the work:fun ratio swings too far in the wrong decision, the U.N.A. army will go as well and I will stick to games that don't require effort on my part to make them playable without frustration.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Strahd wrote:Good rules from Orlanth and Cairnius, both here and in the other thread, although I'm missing the point of the necessity for a size characteristic if one is playing "off-tile". Care to expand upon that?

Size characteristics are a central aspect of how AT-43 handles terrain, and I think it's a good idea. There's nothing more irksome than arguing whether one unit can see another unit over a piece of terrain. Size characteristics provide a good way to resolve terrain issues; therefore, if you're going to use non-standard AT-43 terrain while keeping in line with the AT-43 ruleset, you have to assign Size characteristics to everything.

Strahd wrote:I do not really understand the degree of hand-holding that seems to be expected of Rackham

Asked with all due respect - do you consider the 40K 5th Edition rules to be "hand-holding?" Or the Flames of War 2nd Edition rules? That's all I and others are asking for - complete rulesets that spell things out clearly and obviate the need for house rules and homemade FAQs and the like.

In tabletop wargaming the rules are everything. I don't care how awesome your models are, pre-paints or otherwise, or how cheap the game is, if your ruleset isn't tight and balanced people are going to quickly get turned off to the game as there are better rulesets out there.

I appreciate your not wanting to discuss Rackham as a company, so I just edited out some of my response along those lines - but this is a two-way street. I'll stop criticizing if others stop defending and we can tend to the business at hand, namely how to adapt AT-43 to "regular" 28mm terrain.