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.

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

About scale...

Even the Kollosus semm far much bigger than Termies....

and *** AFV are really monsters in terms of size

Wolfen wrote:

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

About scale...

Even the Kollosus semm far much bigger than Termies....

and *** AFV are really monsters in terms of size

When building walkers you can be more generous than with tanks. Footrprint not height is what breaks rulesets.
This is a problem experienced by the new line of Eldar superheavies and in all likelihood especially the Tau manta, though I cannot really speak of the Tau manta as I have never seen one. Look at all the problems people are having with Valkyries, this is why I went with the underscaled Grendel Corvus instead.

Orlanth wrote:

Wolfen wrote:

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

About scale...

Even the Kollosus semm far much bigger than Termies....

and *** AFV are really monsters in terms of size

When building walkers you can be more generous than with tanks. Footrprint not height is what breaks rulesets.
This is a problem experienced by the new line of Eldar superheavies and in all likelihood especially the Tau manta, though I cannot really speak of the Tau manta as I have never seen one. Look at all the problems people are having with Valkyries, this is why I went with the underscaled Grendel Corvus instead.

Sorry but i lost you there as i dont play/own any FW Tau or Eldar or nothing... do you havesome pics or could you describe more your point?

What do you mean with Generous?

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

Interesting...interesting indeed. I didn't have this issue with any of the 4 CAoR starter boxes I bought (2 for me, 2 for friends). Would you mind elaborating on how they "came apart in your hand"? I am venturing a little dab of super glue would have kept them together.

As far as the mini-rulebook included in the starter, I agree that it was poorly translated.

The universal table of resolution is fine if you consider the statistics that each unit is given (and the overall game mechanics). What exactly do you NOT like about the UToR?

I am just curious. Thanks for reading!

Wolfen, I think Orlanth means that Rackham went with striders rather than tanks, and that on a miniature table, how tall a unit is doesn't really matter, but how much space they take up on the gaming table does. ie Tanks are flat and take up alot of the gaming table, striders are narrow, but tall, and don't really affect the gaming space as much, so they can be truer to scale. I agree with that statement. However, even GW's striders, ie Imperial Walkers and Space Marine Dreadnaughts, seem too small.

The type 2 and type 3 vehicles for the Oni will be WHEELED vehicles that look like armored cars, so it will be interesting to see how well they do the scaling for them!

Myrnir wrote:

The type 2 and type 3 vehicles for the Oni will be WHEELED vehicles that look like armored cars, so it will be interesting to see how well they do the scaling for them!

Got it and I agree... never understood how come 10 Marines fit inside a Rhino....

im looking forward to some APC ...but i didnt know you knew something about ONI...please tell me more

Oops, probably said too much Suffice it to say, the At-43 universe will not just have striders! Hint: go watch Aliens and take a close look at the Armored combat vehicle the space marines use

Myrnir wrote:Oops, probably said too much Suffice it to say, the At-43 universe will not just have striders! Hint: go watch Aliens and take a close look at the Armored combat vehicle the space marines use

Ok got it.... but HOW do you know that... besides the few artwork about APC that are somewhre on the web?

Sentinels DO get some perks! Btw, you should be one!

Myrnir wrote:Sentinels DO get some perks! Btw, you should be one!

Nop...Im not... Im just a player in the middle of austria trying to play the game

On Topic: Interesting look, if a bit dark on this work PC. I'm not a fan of the recessed coloring used on Therians and now on these ONI.

On painting quality of shipping products: You can always repaint the model from scratch, touch it up with a little effort, or play as-is.

Personally, I don't play with unpainted minis. I see plenty of unpainted armies being played in stores and I've seen several armies painted much worse than Captain Newton.

Sometimes I like to paint minis, sometimes I just want to play. AT-43 allows me to play immediately. Maybe you like that, maybe you don't, but at least there's a choice.

If you don't like or play AT-43, why come into threads about the game and just pee all over the place? You don't see me going into the WFB forums and saying how much I hate the game and it doesn't meet my criteria for a good game.

I'm hoping perhaps that we can leapfrog off this and have a nice conversation rather than sniping each other. Deal?

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

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

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

This is actually not true. It's one of the biggest misnomers about AT-43 that I like to take on, again in the interests of honesty.

AT-43 is roughly equal to 40K in expense, not cheaper than, on a unit-by-unit basis. I'm not sure where the idea that AT-43 is cheaper comes from. Comparative expense is difficult to calculate because it relies extremely-heavily on individual choice, i.e. what list you choose to run. If I was starting from scratch, my current 1,500-point Space Marine list would cost me about $465.75 to put together at MSRP.

If I look at a 2,000-point UNA build, it would cost me $390 to run. So, on the surface one could say that AT-43 is cheaper - but I've
chosen to run a list with Sternguard that either requires some expensive original models or bitz for converstion. I could easily get rid of the Drop Pod from my list...I could certainly get a 1500-point list down to $400 if I tried.

Also, with the Marine purchases I wind up with a TON of bitz that are going to make future additions to the army actually cheaper.

Usually the argument goes that when you add on paint and hobby supplies to 40K purchases that that's where the "higher" cost of 40K comes into play, but I think this is a misnomer as well. If you actually factor in the amount of paint, or glue, that goes into a particular army, then you can't consider the total cost of the glue bottles, or paint pots, but have to correct for how much you actually used as those supplies will go a long way, and get stretched over many models, if you do it right.

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

This is, again, a matter of personal preference, but I would have to beg to differ on this, as well. I don't think the attachment boxes are a fair comparison to option sprues; and comparing a swiveling torso to the level of posing options that a proper model gives you isn't weighted very fair, either. I'm not sure that being able to change the orientation of the torso really makes AT-43 models quite as dynamic as the way you can suggest motion and physics with a 40K model by how you put it together.

A technically-static 40K model can actually come off as much more dynamic than an AT-43 model that does have some movable parts.

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

Yes, I agree that the painting standards differ a lot from army to army, and have gotten better over time.

I really have to say that the AFV's, however, are nowhere near as good as a properly-painted GW model even to basic standards. A highlighted, detailed Space Marine Land Raider will be light-years above and beyond any AT-43 Type *** combat strider or vehicle.

When people start to get into Forge World bitz and Chapter-specific customizations, it's not even fair to try comparing the GW model to the AT-43 minis.

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

I do like to engage people's arguments on the ground they set out if I can, but this one is difficult for me. I can't really speak to painting commissions because I've never paid anyone to paint anything I own, and never would out of pride.

I also think it's an unfair way to look at things. I assume that someone playing 40K actually does what the hobby teaches them to do, i.e. build their own models and paint. The comparison of the 40K player who pays someone else to paint his models doesn't have a comparative in AT-43, other than maybe an AT-43 player who never purchases his or her own stuff and has someone else do it for them? In which case I have to think that said person really doesn't know the value of anything as they didn't have to work for it...

IMHO, the fact that a hobbyist has to trim mold lines, apply highlights and detailing, that's the admission that the AT-43 minis aren't very good. The serious hobbyists look at AT-43 minis as potential, and a starting point, but never a finished product. They have to put work into making them look good, because they don't look good coming out of the box.

People usually say they "Look good for pre-paints," but I don't get this, either. I've seen Battlefield Evolution pre-paints and Mutant Chronicle pre-paints, and they both looked better than AT-43 minis to me. The B.E. pre-paints had better detailing IMHO and the Mutant Chronicle minis were much more vibrant and colorful, and didn't look as messy as AT-43 stuff often does.

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

I caught a lot of flak for calling my original review of AT-43 "objective," and perhaps some of it was due - but by the same token, I think your comparison here is also not truly objective. I think you are putting many things in a positive light, whereas I am harshly critical of just about everything such that I may put AT-43 into a negative light.

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

This, I think, is perhaps the biggest misnomer about the new Army Boxes.

That Red Blok army in the Army Box sucks, no offense. It's not competitive. I have a very deep U.N.A. minis collection - I will put together a list that will crush that Red Blok army in two or three turns, tops.

Anyone starting Red Blok is going to have to very quickly add to that Army Box army in order to be able to stand toe-to-toe with anyone who has a deep minis collection, and that's when Red Blok gets expensive. In the end, the Army Boxes are standard loss-leaders just like the 40K starter kits - you're not going to be able to survive with just them. You're going to need a lot more stuff.

I don't begrudge Rackham this, as it's standard industry practice.

Cairnius wrote:
Usually the argument goes that when you add on paint and hobby supplies to 40K purchases that that's where the "higher" cost of 40K comes into play, but I think this is a misnomer as well. If you actually factor in the amount of paint, or glue, that goes into a particular army, then you can't consider the total cost of the glue bottles, or paint pots, but have to correct for how much you actually used as those supplies will go a long way, and get stretched over many models, if you do it right.

if you do it right tyou need to also add for example:

Light thats use to paint per hour
Man hours
food and xtras during painting and or modelling...
The inmaterialc ost of keeping wife or partner happy while you spend time with the soldiers not her/family
the possibility of using glasses ibn the future
the tools you need...chairs tables and so on... lets talk about depreciation of the place you paint instead of renewing it

Ther are many COSTS that maybe added... in the end AT43 provides miniatures ready for playing and others; GW or PP or Corvus Belli, you need to INVEST TIME and MONEY to be ready to play

How much is irrelevant as in the end they will be higher than AT-43

There is an immaterial cost that did not mention before that its the PLEASURE while modelling and painting, and thats where the target market of prepainted versus the "hobby" is different, as AT-43 is marketed for people without interest, time or money to paint or model

The point is that AT-43 is billed as being cheaper than 40K, and I don't think this is so. I think this is something that fans say to try and attract 40K players to the game, or to make it seem like a preferable alternative to 40K. It's salesmanship, but it's not factual. They're about the same cost.

The only thing AT-43 saves you is time and effort. We agree on this point.

I've argued before that GW should sell pre-painted stuff because I find modeling and painting to be a pain in the patookus a lot of the time. People wanted to hang me for making the suggestion. LOL

If you're going to sell pre-paints at the same cost as GW, I think the paint jobs need to be higher-quality...I actually argue that Rackham's whole pricing scheme is way frelled-up, and they need to lower their price points across the board. More people would look at the game as a serious option if it truly WAS hundreds of dollars cheaper than 40K. If you could pick up an AT-43 army with lots of options for $200 even, you'd see a lot more players.

Just look at the recent firesales...it's how they got me and countless others to try the game for the first time. Success speaks for itself.
You make up for lower prices in volume if you also market properly, which is something else Rackham doesn't do well.

I'll be honest with you - it's the potential of AT-43 that keeps me interested, much more so than the actuality of the game as it stands right now. It COULD go somewhere big, if Rackham wises up.

Cairnius wrote:The point is that AT-43 is billed as being cheaper than 40K, and I don't think this is so. I think this is something that fans say to try and attract 40K players to the game, or to make it seem like a preferable alternative to 40K. It's salesmanship, but it's not factual. They're about the same cost.

The only thing AT-43 saves you is time and effort. We agree on this point.

I've argued before that GW should sell pre-painted stuff because I find modeling and painting to be a pain in the patookus a lot of the time. People wanted to hang me for making the suggestion. LOL

If you're going to sell pre-paints at the same cost as GW, I think the paint jobs need to be higher-quality...I actually argue that Rackham's whole pricing scheme is way frelled-up, and they need to lower their price points across the board. More people would look at the game as a serious option if it truly WAS hundreds of dollars cheaper than 40K. If you could pick up an AT-43 army with lots of options for $200 even, you'd see a lot more players.

Just look at the recent firesales...it's how they got me and countless others to try the game for the first time. Success speaks for itself.
You make up for lower prices in volume if you also market properly, which is something else Rackham doesn't do well.

I'll be honest with you - it's the potential of AT-43 that keeps me interested, much more so than the actuality of the game as it stands right now. It COULD go somewhere big, if Rackham wises up.

Who is billing it...FANS!.... thats not an official statement is an opinion.....i never heard/read an statement of RE saying it IS cheaper... the prices are there... they marketing it as ready to play.... which could/may be translated to lower costs (whatever those are) of painting and/or modeling if you want.... for me the advantage is the time and effort.... as I can play WHILE I re-paint my forces as the pleasure it gaves me is indisputable.... not UNTIL i paint all i need

But back to topic

Apples to apples, oranges to oranges

GW dont sell pre-paints RE does.... apples versus Oranges.... thus your argument that "if your are going to sell prepaints at the same price as GW qality should be better" is not applicable as they are differnt products focused on different markets PERIOD...

If you want to talk about quality of prepaints compare RE to other pp minis
if not compare GW to PP or Corvus belli

Yeah, I know it's fans billing it...which is why I like to provide the counterpoint for people looking into the game. I kind of like AT-43, I have some major issues with things like the lack of pick-up play support and the price points, so I'm not a "fan," but that doesn't make me a "detractor," either.

For the record, my irked reactions to salesmanship are across the board, not just limited to this sort of thing.

I still think the price point comparisons are valid. Part of what you pay for with GW is the superb quality of the molds. They are really, really nice minis made with a nice, solid plastic. AT-43 minis are alright, but they aren't great. Certainly not worth the same amount of money IMHO. $60 for a Fire Crawler at MSRP, for example, is ridiculous. I can't believe anyone ever pays that price. A Land Raider of twice the size and Lord knows how many times the mold quality is cheaper. That's crazy.

If AT-43 unit boxes went for $15, Combat Striders went for $20, and the big striders went for $30, you'd get a LOT more people playing the game. Those are more reasonable prices.

Cairnius wrote:Yeah, I know it's fans billing it...which is why I like to provide the counterpoint for people looking into the game. I kind of like AT-43, I have some major issues with things like the lack of pick-up play support and the price points, so I'm not a "fan," but that doesn't make me a "detractor," either.

For the record, my irked reactions to salesmanship are across the board, not just limited to this sort of thing.

I still think the price point comparisons are valid. Part of what you pay for with GW is the superb quality of the molds. They are really, really nice minis made with a nice, solid plastic. AT-43 minis are alright, but they aren't great. Certainly not worth the same amount of money IMHO. $60 for a Fire Crawler at MSRP, for example, is ridiculous. I can't believe anyone ever pays that price. A Land Raider of twice the size and Lord knows how many times the mold quality is cheaper. That's crazy.

If AT-43 unit boxes went for $15, Combat Striders went for $20, and the big striders went for $30, you'd get a LOT more people playing the game. Those are more reasonable prices.

Agree at certain point.... in the end...if for you and SOMEONE else is too expensive they will not consume...for some people the release from painting and modeling is a blessing that they are willing to pay....

In any case I can allways support a decrese in price... like everybody else I guess

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

Go to the Rackham Store, as soon as a unit is available on the market they put a pic with the pp-standard up. If the LGS don´r use them (Which they are allowed to do) it´s not Rackham´s fault.

@cairnius
Somehow your way of arguing reminded me of something and now I can put my finger on it: You are like those religious types that want everybody to come over to their point of view and use ever little word in the bible to make the other look like a fool. But by doing this they show that they do not understand the bible in the first place: Man is there to enjoy live. Which is the same goal gamers should have. Discuss with others, but accept their different Povs. And have fun. Unfortunately you seem to be the only one having fun in this subforum. And if this happens something is wrong. If everybody else is driving in the wrong direction, maybe sometimes you are the one driving in the wrong direction.


BTW: I do have a full Elysian and Tau army and they were more expensive than any of my AT-armies (already at 1500 (GW) : 2500 (AT), which is a comparable size) and the gap becomes even wider if we go up. The initial gap is not a huge one, but still it is there.

Cairnius wrote:
This, I think, is perhaps the biggest misnomer about the new Army Boxes.

That Red Blok army in the Army Box sucks, no offense. It's not competitive. I have a very deep U.N.A. minis collection - I will put together a list that will crush that Red Blok army in two or three turns, tops.

Anyone starting Red Blok is going to have to very quickly add to that Army Box army in order to be able to stand toe-to-toe with anyone who has a deep minis collection, and that's when Red Blok gets expensive. In the end, the Army Boxes are standard loss-leaders just like the 40K starter kits - you're not going to be able to survive with just them. You're going to need a lot more stuff.
I don't begrudge Rackham this, as it's standard industry practice.

Well , since you were rather polite and civilized in your last response , i figured i should do the same.

But you see , this is why a few people cant stand the way you think. This last paragraph for example ...

They give you a WHOLE army with nice variety of FIVE units for the price for one GW terminator box set , and you state "oh its not a competitive list" so it sucks.

Its great how it comes with 2 core Krasyn. Its great how they come with Elite Dragnov Kommando , its great how they come with Hetman and even a Dotch Yaga,
I mean , the Price of the box alone is worth 1 Dotch Yaga ( with GW pricing ). Why cant you just take the rest of the 4 UNITS as if its free?

I mean thats what it is , a nice starter but complete Army, with units from each type that people generally love . Sure you can tailor an army to just beat the composition of that box set.
But what does that tell others about YOUR character and personality?

You dont see people whinning about AOBR ? or Skull Path? or try to make Terror / fear heavy list just to mess with the goblin army?
Its a VALUE box , with the most popular units from each Unit type . Its great to start your army in , it doesnt Limit you to expand it.

Wolfen wrote:Even the Kollosus semm far much bigger than Termies....

(I just noticed that I caught the bottom of Dakka in that picture.)

@ LunaHound: I'm sorry to say this, but your blinding enthusiasm for AT-43 is sinking these threads as much as Cairnius' bizarre terrier-like need to respond negatively to most AT-43 topics.

Unless this thread gets back to its original topic, it will soon be locked. And of course the Ignore button is there for anyone who has developed an ulcer reading the tedious squabbling in these threads.

My anecdote regarding pre-painted miniatures: not so long ago I was painting some Terminators. Over the course many of weeks I had cleaned them, removed mold-lines, filed away the skulls (weeks, I tells ya!) pinned and glued them, replaced the usual heads with Forgeworld MkIV heads (I'm not a purist), base-coated, washed and painted them. I had just started highlighting them and I thought to myself "Why couldn't you have looked like this from the start, you little plastic b*****ds?" It wasn't a complex paint-job, in fact I only wanted their armour to be grey, but an interesting grey, with a few small accents. I simply do not have the time to enjoy that entire process anymore, I have too many other priorities, but I do want to play wargames. AT-43 fulfils that need more than adequately. I have never played any game with an unpainted army, and now I never have to, as the basecoat for AT-43 models is acceptable to me - I do not feel under pressure to paint them, but I can if I want. I can honestly say that I'm not a fan-boi, but when Rackham starting producing AT-43 it made me very happy indeed - maybe I'm part of a miniscule niche market, but in relative terms I am cash-rich, time poor, and I also think that within the hobby that this is not all that uncommon after a certain point. Miniature wargaming has never been the cheapest hobby to begin with.

@ Warpcaster: I have no experience with the C:AoR miniatures, but I have never had a single AT-43 infantry model break, paint-chip or otherwise, in spite of taking no especial care with their handling. Likewise alll the AFV's have all remained intact, bar my Baal Golgoth's Heavy Particle Accelerator which was unsurprisingly broken considering the bad design and fragility of its connection to to the frame.

However bringing this back on topic...

As per usual I seem to be agreeing with Orlanth. Agree with Dal'yth Dude too.

Even amongst all the bits and pieces I own, I never realised that there was always a space waiting for undead with heavy armour and big guns, but now there is. I like these a lot and can think of many different uses for them.

Here's the long and short of it: I continue to be irked that I couldn't find any of the negative info on AT-43 online that I would have needed to make a truly informed decision about the game. Therefore, I will continue to provide valid counterpoints to the fans for as long as it amuses me, so that others have the information they need to make informed decisions about the game.

Let people decide what they want between the almost uniformly-positive reviews that you and Luna and others provide, and the critical perspective I provide. The more you fight with me, the more you complain about what I'm doing, the more what I say sounds legitimate because intelligent people are going to ask "Why are these AT-43 fans getting so bent out of shape?"

I've already admitted why I get bent out of shape - because I couldn't find the sort of information I provide to people, for instance the fact that the army in the Red Blok Army Box is not truly "battle ready" in the sense of being able to win games against established players. It's a starter kit best paired up against the Cog starter kit, and perhaps only against the Cog starter kit. Perhaps that match is balanced - but against anyone else who's been playing AT-43 for a while, you're a dead man as they construct armies specifically to kill you with their deep mini collections.

Practice what you preach and accept my point of view. You fall into ad hom attacks way too easily, and I'd rather stay on topic. Attack the argument, not the person, if you have to attack anything. These threads don't get derailed until you or Luna start coming at me and not my arguments, to wit your little discourse about comparing me to religious types. WTF does that have to do with AT-43? Or Luna opining on my character and personality when she doesn't know me from Adam? Cases and points.

I forgot to say thanks to Myrnir – armoured cars sound interesting and it also explains the Limo reference on the release list.

@ Cairnius: I assume that the “you” referred to in your post refers to Duncan Idaho; either that or you seem to be conflating his post with mine. As far as I’m concerned you both have a right to voice your opinion.

Also, just so everybody is clear, I was saying that the Ignore function is available for all to use at their own discretion, and not that everybody should use it en masse against any specific person. That would render the point of these boards irrelevent.

I'll now get back to the thing only thing that I'm really interested in; the actual topic which was the original purpose of the thread. I will have to wait and see how I feel about the Army Boxes. For the ONI I will need some pictures of the Army Box contents versus the normal full price Unit Boxes before making my decision. While I do like the paint-scheme of the TacArms, I’m not too fond of the turquoise wash that can be seen in the crevices, so if that is absent from the AB figures it may actually be a benefit. I am assuming that the AB will not contain TacArms, so I will buy them separately and can forsee having to take my brush to them to cover the wash.

I have enough UNA, Red Blok and Therians, so those will be of no use to me. I really dislike the Cogs; they just leave me cold, so they are a definite no. Karmans are a maybe; again it will depend on the pictures I see, but I have managed to resist them this long.

What really irks me: Nearly every thread gets spammed by Cairnius at some point about how imperfect Rackham/AT is. Everybody got an opinion. Fine. But stay on topic and don`t hijack every thread or TGN-newsfeed.

It´s one thing being critical. Open a thread, link it and keep it on top. But keep it in that thread and don`t spam half the internet with "additional rescue attemps for helpless customers"

@Confrontation
A few flags might break loose thanks to transport services (experienced it just today, slamming parcel on the ground without any reason to do it and only the good packaging by Rackham kept it from sustaining more damage.

Strahd wrote:@ Cairnius: I assume that the “you” referred to in your post refers to Duncan Idaho;

Yes. Sorry.

Army Boxes...I will only have use for the U.N.A. and Therian boxes, if I wind up keeping my Therians...but again, if the paint jobs are so substandard, I don't think I can bother with them. I prefer to spend my painting time on 40K and FoW...I'm not really into touching up the pre-paints who purpose was to help me avoid painting anything...

Thing is, the U.N.A. Army Box will probably be the first chance any U.N.A. player gets to purchase some Steel Trooper Attachment minis. It KILLS ME that Rackham STILL hasn't had the professionalism to get these minis back into production. We can't get Steel Trooper Medics, Mechanics, or Laser Gun bearers. I can make my own Medics and Mechanics just by painting helmets and shoulders white with red crosses or grey respectively, but for Laser Gun bearers you have to purchase Wing Trooper boxes at considerable expense and start ripping their Laser Gun bearers off the backpacks...which just sucks.

I find myself thinking we may never see these minis again, which is just slowed. Frell the COGS and the ONI - support the armies that already exist first, THEN move on.


@ Duncan - Lots of people slam Rackham and AT-43. If it's not me, it will be someone else...they voted me to be their representative because I enjoy it more and I'm better at it.

Hi guys,

Could we keep these threads on-topic? It's getting really frustrating for me reading in this forum, because I want to find out more about AT-43... I don't want to hear the off-topic arguments :(

I can't even remember what the topic of this thread is after reading all of the replies?

Please try to stay on topic and rise above, guys... please... :(

This thread is a wreck. Start over, with the following caveats:

1. Cairnius, keep the thread on-topic. You dragged this WAY off topic and were combatative about it. Click Rule #1 in my sig for a read. Be Polite!

2. LunaHound, you were also rude and combatitive. Again, the Rule #1 link in my sig. Be Polite!

Sorry to everyone else who had this thread ruined.