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.

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

I never accused you of that, if you read my post above I commended you that you stood back from trolling Cairnius and took a less negative standpoint of advising Sentinels to ignore him.

My only criticisms of you are that you say he sghould be ignored, then proceed to not ignore him in a long post.

Also it is very clear that you have grown to hate him, and that poisons you to anything he says. I think I get on with both of you and have tried to act as go between and asked you to be civil to each other.

LunaHound wrote:
You dont understand Orlanth , Sentinels arnt here to bully him . Im sure they would love to ignore him , but as i said before , they cant.

But they can. some members have very strong opinions about certain aspects of the hobby and are not reluctant to share them. Best examples I can come up with are GW prcing policy and Codex Chaos Space Marines. Let us deal with the latter. The codex has some supporters and admittedly you can make a very potent CSM army from it, but others think it a travesty, think it stole all the fun from their army. These comments raise time and again on numerous threads. however do the CSM players hound those who hate the codex, no they dont. The attitude towards Cairnius is what unique, not his point of view.

Frankly the Sentinels got away with it as long as they did because this section of the forums is of limited interest to most. If they turned up to troll him as often as this on a more mainstam forum the majority here would have seen the problem earlier. after all repeated threads criticising bad rules decisions are commonplace here.

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

Comparing Cairnius to a maggot is the next worse thing to when you encouraged Cairnius to emulate another poster in the previous thread; who blamed the poor design of some At-43 miniatures on the 'French sucking' and had his post deleted for racism.

Actually Luna no offense taken, we had a good laugh over that one.

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

Ok, should I look forward to some choice nice words about him from you then.

Ironically I have some alternate ideas for fixing the ills of AT-43 that widely differ from Cairnius', but not had the time in one place to write them up, yet. So your plan will get interesting when you are encouraging everyone to support Cairnius' work, and I am posting critique after critique and alternatives. I think he is big enough to take a few well intentioned logical knockdowns, but it should be entertaining to see you protect him from the big bad Orlanth and his heretically different ideas.

Cairnius wrote:To quote you from the English AT-43 forums:

"AT-43 is a game that is meant to be played with objectives in mind, especially based around a mission format. It can be played "free flow" like other games, but was not originally designed to do so."

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

Yep, I wrote that. I will stand behind my statement that the game was intended to be played with missions/scenarios and that IT CAN be played "free flow", but was not originally designed to do so. I still don't see how this implies that I in any way believe it is a board game (as I do not). Many other valid points have been made in this thread prior to my returning to it and so I don't believe my "voice" needs to be "heard" on this issue.

As a side note, Rackham has said time and time again (on their own forums) that if rules don't exist for what you want to do, then make them yourself (pl.). You seem like a fairly intelligent individual, Cairnius. Why not create a rule set and use it? Is it because gamers have been brainwashed for years to believe there is only one way to play a tabletop war game? You had plenty of great ideas on the AT-43 forums, why not apply them now? (Serious questions from an inquisitive mind.)

With that "said"...

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

Blokhead wrote:

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

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

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

@ Orlanth

I don't have any hangups to bring with me. I don't hold grudges. You don't know me, don't "troll" me now, ok? I am a Rackham Sentinel, and I haven't denied it. I do get some "privileged" access to Rackham materials because I need to read through final product prior to giving it my "OK". So, I get to see early pictures of models (even as early as the CAD drawings), completely laid out Army Books prior to release, etc. Do you have some kind of problem with this? I am trying not to read into what you are writing, and I know that raw text doesn't convey emotion very well, so please don't take my question as trying to start a fight. It is an honest and true question.

Why are you continuing to claim I have brought baggage to Dakka? Try reading through all of my posts prior to determining this, and you will see that I have no "baggage". As for some of the other Sentinels, well, I can't speak for them.

@ everyone else:

I was out of town on business with no access to the forums (security lock down by my company). I posted this just prior to heading out the door, and didn't have a chance to get a real reply in. The snores are for my feeling that Cairnius is beating a dead horse...well beyond recognition. And, I answered his post with an honest and reasonable response (see above).

I see many of Cairnius posts as pure complaints for a game which he suppossedly gave up, but on occasion seems to not have given up. I hold no grudges with him, and as far as I can tell, have not been trolling him. I find it reprehensible that I am being stereotyped...Don't count all of us Sentinels as trolls. As I have mentioned before (on these forums) Cairnius and I didn't always see eye-to-eye on topics, but we both agreed that the game does need some help (as many Sentinels have pointed out). And as I have mentioned before (on these forums), Cairnius DID have GOOD ideas for the game, but his presentation style rubbed some (including me) the wrong way. Did I ever attack his character? Not that I can recall. Did we get into "heated" discussion, damn straight. Does that mean I have "baggage" or an axe to grind? Nope.

And I can't let this slide...he called me out in another thread for bringing information from the official AT-43 forums over here, and just turned around and did it to me. Now, I really have no qualms with this, but lets call a spade a spade. To put it in Cairnius own words (see http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/244686.page#786627):

Cairnius wrote:@ Blokhead -

I can't honestly say that I am embarrassed that you posted up that dialogue from another forum, though I think it's considered bad form to do so online...but it was a fair exchange and at least we remained polite

Notice, he even indicated that we were polite to each other. Disagreeing ideas doesn't require flame wars. Not all of us are uncivil internet barbarians. So, call it what you will, but I am not "trolling" Cairnius (at least I don't think I am).

Orlanth wrote:
Comparing Cairnius to a maggot is the next worse thing to when you encouraged Cairnius to emulate another poster in the previous thread; who blamed the poor design of some At-43 miniatures on the 'French sucking' and had his post deleted for racism.

Actually Luna no offense taken, we had a good laugh over that one.

A maggot medically speaking is used to eat dead tissue . In a sense its keeping the wound clean.
Not sure if anyone understood that analogy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggot_therapy

I also want you to reply this (it was meant for you )

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

And because of ^ the sentinels cant leave Cairnius to be , because Cairnius is seriously scaring new players off.
Im not too sure why you cant atleast see this...

Duncan_Idaho wrote:@Orlanth
The problem is only with Cairnius and it emerges from the fact that he over and over repeats the same stuff and every time gets the same answer. He does not want to hear it though everyone proves him wrong using the rules at hand.

What you actually mean there in honesty is that lots of Sentinels declare him wrong and the discussion over. In fact a lot of his critiques have not been answered, and he calls upon your prior posts to defend his statements. Sir, a mass opinion is not a weight of opinion.

Now Cairnius can be more than a little repetetive, but to his credit its a polite repetetive.

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

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

Welcome to Dakka. If you had the hang ups on critique of 40K the same as you do on critique of At-43 you wouldnt last long here. This is what you dont understand. On Dakka we criticise games companies, their marketing policies, the quality of their product, the quality of their rulesets, their release schedules, their managers commentaries and opress releases. If we dont like it, we critique it. Now we are not all raving haterz, we like the games for tghe most part but are not afraid to sopeak our minds when something is wrong.
Really I made this point on several threads but it boils down to this. On Dakka feel free to speak your mind politely.

Now Cairnius politely critiques Rackham. In fact he is a whole lot less offensive than many peole are towwrds bad decisions from Games Workshop. Because on Dakka we think for ourselves, you have to accept that poeple will have persistent opposing opinions. Cairnius is hardly a big excepton.

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

I would love to do that. Have you read the dreck he spoon feeds the White Dwarf readership? Actually it is Jervis who is the fool, time and again. Sweet irony how you use this as an example. I am more than happy to diss Jervis' competence as a games designer, and am known for it. not quite as much as HBMC but getting there. Together or seperately we can make Cairnius seem like a Rackham fanboi by comparison.
Do I or HBMC get railed for our opinions? I cant speak for HBMC but in my case I cant remember ever having to defend my opinion, and I wouldnt troll anyone who tried.

Duncan and all other Sentinels please learn this lesson.

Critique on Dakka is welcome, its welcome today, its welcome tomorrow and its welcome next year. Posts tend also to be cyclic, topics cylce quickly especuially certain topics such as poor decisions by game companies. If Cairnius wants to extend the range of targets he can do so.
in the meanwtime if he has something to say you dont agree with about At-43 Get over it.
If he has more to say next week. Get over it.
If he has more to say next year. Get over it.
Get the point. There is no excuse to troll him for not agreeing with your opinions on Rackham or AT-43. He critiques politely and wont troll you unless sorely pressed. Get over it.

What do we need to do to explain to you that contrary opinions are welcome? When will you just accept the truth. ON Daklka we speak our minds so long as we do so politely and within forum rules. Cairnius is on Dakka speaking his mind, politely and worthin forum rules.

Get. Over. It.

Orlanth wrote:Duncan and all other Sentinels please learn this lesson.

Critique on Dakka is welcome, its welcome today, its welcome tomorrow and its welcome next year. Posts tend also to be cyclic, topics cylce quickly especuially certain topics such as poor decisions by game companies. If Cairnius wants to extend the range of targets he can do so.
in the meanwtime if he has something to say you dont agree with about At-43 Get over it.
If he has more to say next week. Get over it.
If he has more to say next year. Get over it.
Get the point. There is no excuse to troll him for not agreeing with your opinions on Rackham or AT-43. He critiques politely and wont troll you unless sorely pressed. Get over it.

What do we need to do to explain to you that contrary opinions are welcome? When will you just accept the truth. ON Daklka we speak our minds so long as we do so politely and within forum rules. Cairnius is on Dakka speaking his mind, politely and worthin forum rules.

Get. Over. It.

Apparently you don't frequent the Confrontation forums. You want to see fans of a game rip the game manufacturer to shreds ON ITS OWN FORUM, then head on over there. You don't go to the AT-43 forums either, or you would notice the critiquing and outrage at decisions Rackham has made. Dare I say you sound like a forum snob?

As for the part of your post I quoted above, I LOL'd at it. Do you have a God complex? Did you bother reading my earlier post? Stop stereotyping all Sentinels as the same. We are different, individual, and have minds of our own. Read my post above and tell me that I am not "over it". Wow, just wow. Is this what I can expect from Dakka forum members? I get trolled by Orlanth, now I am being stereotyped by him, and apparently he owns the forum because his imperative speech above is indicative of it.

These kind of characters are the exact reason I left 40K, and he is showing a good reason why I have decided not to go back to it.

I guess I need to stop coming here as I am obviously being stereotyped and abused with no recourse. Well, so be it.

Orlanth , AT-43 is still at its infancy stage , it cannot stand the type of criticism presented that way. Its literally at its make or break point.

I asked the sentinels to ignore such "critic posts" because its simple . You wont acknowledge the damage , so be it.

I think its funny , how you would actually claim Cairnius is polite , it doesnt take profanity to make something rude. And some people are just very good at doing it.

To Duncan , Haywire , Blokhead , just stop responding to this thread for now. Give Cairnius time to work on his project. There is no need anymore to drag other issue in as it is ( whats done is done , anything else will make it worse )

Take the loss as it is , he'll keep going aslong as he is allowed to , and he will . You can yell at him because he is a jerk , but do you honestly see it working with any positive effect?
No. he strive on such conflicts . What sentinels should do , is figure out how to make AT-43 better , starting from the main forum. Host events , hold contests , make it active and thrive.
If today by god's will or a miracle , one of us is able to shut him up , there will always be 100s like him to take his place . How do you suppose to deal with that?
So lets look at it from another way , and strengthen AT-43 from within. A pebble can cause a slash in a small cup , but its not noticeable in the sea.

Orlanth wrote:
[i]- Do you have any idea how often GW trawls through Dakka above all the other sites to look for info. especially on You Make Da Call. The rewrite on the Eldar codex were sourced from Dakka posts, we dont know this for a fact but the eventual changes were carbon copy what was proposed here a year to eighteen months before. I remember myself making the post that was in fact identical to how the Prism Cannon was reworded as how it should operate. you dont get this level of feedback from a fan site like Warseer, not to the same level.

As i said earlier ( this is to reply to the one you just replied ) AT-43 is new , it doesnt have the fan base GW does . How far do you think a new game can go
if 70% of the existing thread has to do with Cairnius bashing it to death? It will NOT have a good end. Dont try to compare GW and AT-43 please , GW has a 3 decade lead
and is able to monopolize most of the wargame player with its long history.

This thread is now thoroughly derailed, I only wrote one line on topic so far, but this time I have no apology. What we are discussing now is probably more important that the orginal topic, no offense to the OP intended, because we MUST have this out, its the very right to have that orginal topic at stake. One way or another people must learn to to tolerate critics here on Dakka, this includes Cairnius if he behaves himself, and agreeing with Sentinels is not a prerequisite for being considered well behaved.

LunaHound wrote:

A maggot medically speaking is used to eat dead tissue . In a sense its keeping the wound clean.
Not sure if anyone understood that analogy......

Yep got that. Just playing with you. I want to keep this light hearted with you as i see your point of view closer than you might realise.

LunaHound wrote:
I also want you to reply this (it was meant for you )

Certainly.

You believe Cairnius is trying to fix things , i will believe that i really do.

- Yes I do think that on some level.

But there are ways to do things differently , present things differently

- Yes, Cairnius can be his own worst enemy, after the Sentinels and you and a couple of dozen other forum members.

the way Cairnius is doing things you cant deny it'll scare the new players away. ( agree?)

- Maybe at first yes. but in the long term actually no. What will scare away At-43 players long term is a stale environment where we all follow the doctrines laid down for us and think as we are told. A good example of that is looking at the At-43 website. You get good Rackham rumours because of where you are. You get more AT-43 fan art fan fiction and alternate paintjobs and modelling threads. Simply because of where the site is.
But even now Dakka is catching up on giving decent info to At-43 players because we dont get the Ministry of Truth answer. we get the Dakka free thinking, this is what works this is what sucks answer. Cairnius is a part of that by providing a counterpoint of opinion that balances the party line. Ultimately you can ask for rumours and do a new paintjob thread on the Rackham forums, but you cant behave as Dakka does and say openly that this rule doesnt work and that rule doesnt. Well you can but you can only go so far.

And because of ^ the sentinels cant leave Cairnius to be , because Cairnius is seriously scaring new players off.
Im not too sure why you cant atleast see this...

- If you want to scare new players off allow the stiffling of critique to continue. for a start no discussion means no virulent AT-43 threads. Unless you me or Cairnius starts a post up nothing get posted and this whole game is forgotten. The next worst thing is if the only posts you see are blatant adverts for Rackham, Dakka is not a kiddie forum, we know a sales pitch when we see one, and we have seen a few on this sub-board. Some threads were in essence 'come and buy AT-43 , ask me how'. Frankly I cannot find anything more offputing than that, its a bit like the cold caller when you are in the bath. Feth that, I am going elsewhere.

Do you have any idea how often GW trawls through Dakka above all the other sites to look for info. especially on You Make Da Call. The rewrite on the Eldar codex were sourced from Dakka posts, we dont know this for a fact but the eventual changes were carbon copy what was proposed here a year to eighteen months before. I remember myself making the post that was in fact identical to how the Prism Cannon was reworded as how it should operate. you dont get this level of feedback from a fan site like Warseer, not to the same level.
Half an hour of Dakka with the grognards will give a designer more insight on how to fix a broken rules component or army list than myriad sessions with loyal in house forum attendees who for the most part cannot think outside the box. the latter might be a more agreeable experience I must admit.
The relevance is that Dakka is not primarily for young players, this is the free thinking forum and while minors are welcome they should bring the grown up clothes. the Dakka member thinks for hismelf and is not put off by critque, especially if the discussion has an upside such as counterpoints from you or others who support Rackham.

LunaHound wrote:Orlanth , AT-43 is still at its infancy stage , it cannot stand the type of criticism presented that way. Its literally at its make or break point.

There is a pojit there, but also we need to think outside the box and offer critique. On a thread a month and a half ago Cairnius and I discussed Rackhams marketing plan, parts we agreed with, such as the loss leader. Others we did not, in particular the refusal to fix the system before the full run of races, apparently eight, is released. Frankly Rackham needs to listen to critics admit it seriously dropped the ball on many rules issues, in particular blast weapons cover rules and terrain rules, or in that case the lack therof, and needs to extend the unit organisation and play area scale to encourage larger armies and larger collections. This is in fact afar better priority than Getting ONI out on schedule.
Bottom line many of Rackhams core rules suck. they need fixing. Cairnius says this often. I agree with him though admittedly with a different tone.

LunaHound wrote:
I think its funny , how you would actually claim Cairnius is polite , it doesnt take profanity to make something rude. And some people are just very good at doing it.

True Luna, sometimes you are spot on and I cannot refute that comment, and he has been more than a bit rude to you, and I hope you dont mind me saying, the reverse is also true, yes.
I can see why the Sentinels are up tight especially as Cairnius is made unwelcome elsewhere. Which is where the Getting Over It comes into play. Besides how he treats you and how he treats them is different. Many Sentinels are already pissed off when Cairnius presses the open New Topic button and starts typing. The content is ancillary to that.

Blokhead wrote:
Dare I say you sound like a forum snob?

You may say that. But this is a crescendo long bulding, on many many posts where Cairnius has been hounded I have quietly asked Sentinels to behave, I wont post you any links you can see evidence of this on nearly all the At-43 threads of the last two months or so.
This is not a sudden rage against Sentinels but a progression of attacks which I have tried to step in to stop. Frankly I am disgusted that it had to come to this.

Blokhead wrote:
As for the part of your post I quoted above, I LOL'd at it. Do you have a God complex? Did you bother reading my earlier post?

Funnily enough I didnt, my post predated it but was sitting on my reply window during a three hour phone call that came in. I pressed Submit some hours after I pressed Reply. i still havent read your post, but this one looked more urgent.


.......<<reading up>>.......

Well my comments were directed at the Sentinels here, so you took it on board and to your credit you distanced yourself from those who are more overtly trolling Cairnius. Which is a good thing ans one of them has just been banned for it, which should give you some indicator.

I stand by my words and a lot of Sentinels have some 'getting over it' to do. If you are not one of them so much the better for you.

Blokhead wrote:
Stop stereotyping all Sentinels as the same. We are different, individual, and have minds of our own. ]

Good to hear it. it is not acceptable for Sentinels, or anyone else, to repeatedly jump targeted individuals and tell then that he is not welcome on these forums; because let me tell you straight, they dont speak for Dakka and they dont speak for me.

Have you realised that you are one of the primary speakers for Rackham in the Sentinel community and yet have joined in on a petty 'assault' on a critic and more to the point made no attempt to stop the harassment even though posters prior to you had gone way too far with ad hominem attacks. You cannot have missed what bilesuck wrote, but joined in. Since you were exposed you also made no apology afterwards but have come right back at me for exposing you.

Sorry, you do more damage to Rackhams credibility than Cairnius ever could here. In your position you should know better, you claim to speak for and with top persons in Rackham, its all over the At-43 forums about your special connections. Might someone come to the conclusion that your treatment of former Sentinels is endorsed by others, perhaps Jean Bey himself. When a spokesperson misbehaves this way it opens up awkward questions, very unfair questions yes, but questions nonetheless. Fortunetely you are just a volunteer and Cairnius is just an ordinary joe you will leave alone from now on, yes.

Blokhead wrote:
Read my post above and tell me that I am not "over it". Wow, just wow. .

Searching for word sorry, or equivalent.......
Not found.




I should be disappointed you came back at me rather than have the balls to admit you did wrong. Perhaps if that state persists you have more in common with these other Sentinels than you like to claim.

Blokhead wrote:Is this what I can expect from Dakka forum members? I get trolled by Orlanth, now I am being stereotyped by him, and apparently he owns the forum because his imperative speech above is indicative of it.

Nope. you are welcome to come and post as often as Yakface will allow and so long as you keep to the rules. No more or less than myself....or Cairnius by the way.

Hey Cairnius, Is it to late to give a view/thought on the boardgame Question? Id like to share a thought with you on this but maybe I could pm it? Thoughts?

oh dear. Orlanth is back, and he is on topic.

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

Esemntially you are half right. properly when played on a tabletop ranges are suppose to be multiplied by 3 and applied as inches. however many players keep the same 'mapscale' but plasy on open terain.

Then you get hybrid games where Heroscape terrain is used, proper gaming boards in so much as the full terrain is there, but set into hexgrids. Many games companies now recommend hex or squre grids for tabletop wargaming, is a miniatures game on a 6'x4' hexmap a boardgame? I leave that to your interpretation.

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

Yes essentially true, but does that make the game a boardgame. IMHO no.

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

A clear example where At-43 is not always a boardgame, which more or less answers your question, and goes back to the concept that it is a hybrid game intended for tileset or gaming table play. Done correctly this should be an advantage for Rackham. They should have the scenarios and tilesets so players can have a play surface and scenario that is easy set up and balanced or at least intended to be balanced.

Cairnius wrote:
Therefore, without tiles, posters, and official terrain, we can't play the product of AT-43 anymore.

No this is where the community steps in and rescues the game. You seem to be leading this part of the charge.

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

Really you are barking up the wrong tree, the boardgame to tabletop wargame definition is just symantics, games are now pushing boundaries or blurring them. At-43 is a good and bad example. a good example because its a hybrid and a bad example for the same reason.

What we really should be looking at is the closed box mentality of At-43. Tilesets are a good idea, it allows some scenarios and whole campianns such as Frostbite to be asembled sold and packaged and ready for players, just add walls and crates. the only direct critique here is that it doesnt tell you how many terrain items up front are needed all told to play Frostbite properly. I cant speak for Damocles, I havent seen it.


Now what you should be asking is this:

Does the emphasis of the boardgame element of the At-43 game hamper play and sales?

To me this is a resounding yes. The lack of expanded terrain rules hurts players because we cannot easily be free of the tiles and stock terrain. Also the poor avaialbility of some some items such as bunkers retards the value of the instant set up terrain scenarios. Ultimately you cannot play Forstbite properly without one or is is two bunkers. I have a fat chance of getting one, even at full retail. thee are cut outs provided, but that is an even more tacky solution than tiles to begin with.

Also very importantly the lack of expanded terrain support cripples Rackhams sales because it sets low mental thresholds to game size. If you have two playmats and both tilsets and a few crates and low blocks you have all you need to play. Hence the cant see outside the box comments. I meant them, too many players are liited to the scenario sizes Rackham proposes. 2000ap games means 3000AP collections bseing 'large'. This is an assinine business model. Games should also be encouraged for large gaming boards in addition to tileset scenarios. Rackham needs to encourage players to think 6k plus for an army or collection. Bigger games mean bigger sales, its that simple really.

Finally rackham miniatures are very good for prepaints, I for one am impressed. We have heard that youi are less so but that was another discussion. assuming a player likes the miniatures how much of a disappointment will rackham risk if they dont support full terrain rules. Sure the existing terrain is also good quality (in my opinion), but there isnt enough and he tilesets alone dont have the same magic as a tabletop of good terrain features.

I spend a few days of vacation time repainting some At-43 minies, and look at all the fun that I missed! Quite the little hot bed of discussion here I see. Well, I certainly hope that not all Sentinels are lumped into the same group. I've had discussions with Cairnius on the AT-43 forums, at Warseer, and here at Dakka, and to the best of my knowledge, they have not been inflammatory or derisive (sp?). He certainly is well within his rights to criticise any game system all he likes. I'd like to think he's interested in making AT-43 a better game, because I would like to as well!

I'm not quite sure why the boardgame analogy is necessary, but I will at least attempt to add my two cents worth... The ultimate boardgame in my opinion was Advanced Squad Leader from the late 1980's. It had a multi-hundred page rulebook issued in a 3 ring binder so they could amend rules and you could then remove pages and insert new updated ones. It was a hex based system played with boards and counters representing squad level combat in WWII. Each counter represented 8 - 12 men or one tank/vehicle. LOS was center of hex to center of hex, movement was hex to hex, and combat was a counter with a number value firing as a "unit" with a specified range, based on training. Hexes were abstracted as roughly 40 meters, and turns were 2 minute intervals of action, but historically there may have been lulls between turns ie a 10 turn game was 20 minutes of action, but may have represented an entire afternoon's firefight.

AT-43 is also a squad level game, albeit set in the realm of science fiction and a mythical future. The units are also squads of 4 - 12 men, but each miniature has its own weapons and rolls to hit and damage separately. Los is measured by tape measure and unit to unit. Movement is also by tape measured distance. Terrain is represented as a cover save, and can block LOS.

To me, AT-43 fundamentally remains a tabletop game of miniatures. Each miniature is part of a squad, but plays its own role in combat, movement and morale. Movement is in any direction with no restrictions based on squares or hexes, and terrain is not based on a hex or square, but are naturally drawn elements on their mapsheets, or 3-D terrain objects. Now I personally prefer to use all 3-D terrain, but the maps that Rackham publishes add a nice historical element and uniform gameplay. This does not in the least make AT-43 a boardgame in my opinion.

And Orlanth, I certainly hope you don't think this forum is some sort of witch hunt by the Rackham Sentinels against Cairnius? I'd like to think I've stayed on topic and responded with civility. Criticism of any game system has its merits, but I would like to think that we all have the right to respond to criticism and voice our own opinions?

Minor edit: Orlanth posted while I was writing this: I agree that Rackham should encourage people to play 3K - 5k games, and make larger collections in the 6k+ range. My personal favorite size platoon is 3500 pts, and I will say that in recent discussions on the AT-43 forums, people seem to be leaning towards 3k-4k games as their standard size armies for games.

Also agree about the rules rewrite. I would prefer a rules rewrite now, but from a fiscal stand point, I don't see how Rackham could do it. New rulebook would take at least a year with all their resourses, so you can either put out new armies now and generate revenue, or spend a year with no cashflow and write the rulebook. It has also been pointed out that they have 8 armies total planned for AT-43, with 4 released, and 2 more due out before years end, with the last two armies slated for next year and THEN after they see how all 8 armies interact, they'd like to do the full rewrite on the rules.

Myrnir wrote:
I'm not quite sure why the boardgame analogy is necessary, but I will at least attempt to add my two cents worth... The ultimate boardgame in my opinion was Advanced Squad Leader from the late 1980's. It had a multi-hundred page rulebook issued in a 3 ring binder so they could amend rules and you could then remove pages and insert new updated ones. It was a hex based system played with boards and counters representing squad level combat in WWII. Each counter represented 8 - 12 men or one tank/vehicle. LOS was center of hex to center of hex, movement was hex to hex, and combat was a counter with a number value firing as a "unit" with a specified range, based on training. Hexes were abstracted as roughly 40 meters, and turns were 2 minute intervals of action, but historically there may have been lulls between turns ie a 10 turn game was 20 minutes of action, but may have represented an entire afternoon's firefight.

Yes indeed ASL (which is still popular) is without a doubt the best war game of all time

Two posts, one off-topic, one on, because like Orlanth I think some things need addressing.


@ Luna

You and I can discuss this privately more, and your PM was a nice start to the two of us actually communicating, so thank you for it…but I really don’t think it ought to be my concern if anyone is “scared away” from AT-43 by anything I say, because I’m not paid by Rackham to advertise for the game.

It is NOT belitting to AT-43 to suggest it MAY be a boardgame, or that *I* may consider it a boardgame. To be blunt, who the hell am I? I’m some schmuck on Dakka Dakka having a conversation he finds interesting. If I am some trend-setter with huge influence would someone let me in on it? I can probably find a way to turn that into a moneymaker and quit working and start a family earlier than I’ve planned as I can be a stay at home Dad…

I’m not trying to be a “hero,” and it was precisely a comment like this leveled at me on the Sentinel forums that made me lose a lot of respect for many of the people over there. The drama inherent in that caliber of discourse is something I left behind 20 years ago in high school.

Luna, most of what you listed as my having “told you” is simply not true, and I wish you would realize that. I’m not your enemy. I don’t feed on conflict – that’s different from enjoying spirited conversation. One is destructive, the other is ultimately constructive.

You need to have faith, if you love AT-43, that it can weather the sorts of critical discussions I raise around it. It’s pointless to hope that nothing critical, negative if you MUST see it that way, will be said about AT-43 online, and if you honestly need to attain those conditions in order to see AT-43 a success, then doesn’t that really tell you something about the game’s quality such that maybe it doesn’t deserve to succeed?

I don’t think these conversations will hurt AT-43. I think they may help it, in the long run.




@ Duncan,

If I’m asking questions, and getting “the same answers,” and I’m rejecting them, then wouldn’t the potential courses of action be to 1) Ignore the questions, or 2) Concoct some different answers until I find one that makes sense to me such that I accept it?

Is it incumbent upon any intelligent human being to accept the first answer given without further question or follow-up? Do you really want to live in that world?

There are not rules to quote at me to deal with a majority of the issues I raise. I’ve read all the rulebooks. I am extremely conversant in AT-43 at this point.

You got aggressive with me because you were pissed off that I quit the Sentinel program and used the knowledge I had gained therein to support some of my critical propositions. The good thing about being a human being is that we can go back, look at our actions, reconsider their validity, and change. Anytime you’re ready, you can decide to stop being angry with me and just accept that I enjoy critical discussion of ALL games, but right now AT-43 has my attention…and you can just stop being angry about it. It’s not worth it.

And yes, I would level a criticism at Jervis Johnson in a cold second, to his face, if I thought that it was valid – but I wouldn’t do so personally at him. I’d criticize a rule he wrote, or a philosophy he expressed, if I thought it was doing harm to Warhammer 40,000. For as long as I purchase 40K product, I’m a consumer who is entitled to speak his mind. I pay for the privilege…just like I feel that spending $1,000 on AT-43 entitles me to talk about the game as long as I bloody please…

There is, intrinsically, no difference between a thousand AT-43 players telling me that the way I want to play AT-43 is wrong, and me telling a thousand AT-43 players that the way THEY play AT-43 is wrong…there’s a logical fallacy called “Appeal to Common Practice.” It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.

I’m not telling you that the way you play AT-43 is wrong, however. That’s a gross mischaracterization of pretty much everything I’ve ever said about AT-43. I’ve said that I don’t want to play it the way you and others do, which is either using prescribed terrain setups and Scenarios OR a free-play system which is not laid down in concrete rulesets but subject to house rules which vary from player to player. I want to play AT-43 on my own tables and with regular 28mm terrain using a formalized system which provides for balanced play at all AP levels consistently.

Is that such a bad thing? Wouldn’t you not only personally use such a system but promote its use if it was plopped down in front of you?



@ Blokhead –

What kills me the most about all of this senseless rending of garments is there are people like you that I’ve never had an issue with personally, who always treated me fairly, and even when they’ve disagreed with me they’ve done so out of respect…and that’s usually the kind of person I become friends with, but the animosity levels are way, way out of control.

I *am* creating my own rule set for personal use, but if I’m railing against the necessity for house rules and a lack of formalized principles for free flow play then this doesn’t address the issue of not having *official* rules for free flow play.

I seriously can’t wait to release this Mission Generator, even if the Alpha draft sucks and is full of holes, because God willing, people will see where I am going with this and choose to productively pitch in. I think I am elucidating most of the key questions and concepts which need to be decisively addressed in order to establish formal “free play” for AT-43 and I think the problem is eminently addressable, if people chip in to test and assist.

I tried to do this as a Sentinel, BH, but was basically told that the game was fine the way it was and it didn’t need official pick-up play rules. Maybe it was you who told me, I don’t remember, that I needed to present something polished before bringing it to the community as a project…but how does one do that without testers, designers, basically a crew of people working on it first from the ground up?

Have you ever asked yourself why the pick-up play systems that were presented to the Sentinels when I asked for the information were so different from one another? There wasn’t even a general agreement on design principles. They were all over the place, which to me really made the point that the work needed to be done…but when I tried to start picking apart the various systems to garner what might be good and what might not be good out of each one, I was met with nothing but hostility and derision. Clearly that was not the environment in which to conduct the work…but a place like Dakka Dakka IS.

I really wish you wouldn’t dismiss my critical observations as “pure complaints.” I present them with so much more intelligence than that. I work hard at it. It’s also not fair to say I am beating a dead horse…as recently as a week or so ago someone named “Necronis” over on the AT-43 forums, a new user, was raising PRECISELY the same sort of terrain and free-flow play issues that I raise, and every so often someone else chimes in with the same opinion. This is not a dead issue, it is very much alive and very much in need of addressing.

Yes, my “debate style” if you will is direct. I don’t screw around. If I think someone’s argument is weak I will tear it down logical brick by logical brick until they either come up with some better way to defend their position at which point I will cede the point, or I expect them to eventually realize that they cannot defend their position adequately and cede the point themselves. Then we move on past that issue and go onto the next one, because that prior point is settled law. There’s no point discussing it any further.

If only people were capable of grasping the value of my debate style, there would have been so much less bellyaching, complaining, ad hom attacking, and other nonsense which since day one has detracted from my aims and goals which, in the end, CAN ONLY HELP THE GAME OF AT-43.

The day that someone, not necessarily me, comes up with free-flow rules for AT-43 by which the game can be played on 28mm tables using ANY terrain people want to use, and the day that someone comes up with a table of standard missions someone can roll on which use those varied table setups and which are balanced for all the AT-43 armies at all their various AP sizes, that is the day that AT-43 HUGELY broadens its audience.

You get the value of this, right? And you understand that part of the process in creating these rules and missions is to pretty ruthlessly tear apart the game as it stands to find out why it was built the way it was built so that we can reconstruct the same principles in a totally different environment? It’s an exercise in reverse engineering.

I quoted one line from something you posted over on the AT-43 forums…you posted an entire conversation. They’re not the same thing…BUT, I didn’t take issue with you doing it, for the record and to be fair. I said that I thought it was considered bad form to do so online, and that was in reaction to your expressing doubts as to the validity of doing so. I personally have NO issue with someone taking content from a conversation on Dakka Dakka and posting it over on Warseer if the information is valid, or adds to a conversation elsewhere. Just like I have no issue with a journalist quoting an article from a newspaper when they’re discussing something on television.


@ Orlanth

I do not consider Blokhead a troll. Nor do I consider him a Rackham stormtrooper sent here to silence me. He did join up on Dakka Dakka just to refute some of my points, but I don’t think that there is anything automatically wrong with a Rackham Sentinel coming into a discussion about a game he loves to speak up for it. It’s only when they come over here en masse and are rude like Bilesuck was (and he’s notorious on the AT-43 forums for calling himself an a-hole AND being proud of it) that it’s an issue, IMHO.

Blokhead would have been excellent as a sole representative of the Sentinel organization here in these conversations as he’s polite and respectful. I enjoy my conversations with him. I always have.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now, on topic:


@ Myr

The reason I posed this question, Myr, at the risk of sounding completely ridiculous, is because I had it. The question arose in my mind, and I wanted to hear what others have to say. I've argued that AT-43 is a hybrid. My current feeling is that it is more of a boardgame, and here's why.

In the process of designing my Mission Generator, I have to deal with myriad issues of balance. That's my chief concern. Because the goal of the system is to allow players to create pick-up play scenarios like the 40K missions system, or the Flames of War missions system, I have to look at the structure of the terrain rules, and what the rules for terrain placement should be. I have to look at the the rules for placement of Access Zones both Permanent and Neutral, and Drop Points. I have to look at rules for Objective placements. I have to look at Assault to Reinforcement ratios.

What occurred to me was, "If AT-43 is a tabletop wargame, then why does it seem so difficult to both account for the game mechanics of AT-43, in order to keep the game true to its design, AND to adapt it to the sort of mission systems we have in 40K and FoW?"

Blokhead provides the answer - because AT-43 is not designed to function that way. So, that then led to the question of how AT-43 WAS designed to function, and that's with prescribed terrain setups as part of very well-defined Scenarios, and that then got me thinking about boardgames and how they prescribe both playing space and game conditions.


@ Duncan


What 40K does is give you broad categories of terrain, which can then be laid down upon ANY terrain piece you produce. AT-43 only covers very specific types of terrain in its ruleset. There is no such chapter talking about how 3D terrain can influence the game – there is a two-page section in the main rulebook about interacting only with the terrain Rackham produces. There are rules for the markings to be found on the 2D gaming tiles.

If you are seeing rules by which I can govern the use of any terrain piece I create at my gaming club in AT-43, provide the page numbers. I will, of course, throw every example of terrain pieces that don't adhere to those guidelines at you that I can until you've either proven to me that the rules as written cover everything I need them to cover, and ensconse that into the Mission Generator, or until you cede the point that the official, as-published rules are not up to the task.


@ Luna

You said “[Map tiles and posters] are implemented as an easy solution to deal with not having to need pre existing made terrain . For something made as a convenience to (game literally can be played right out of the starter set)

Show me the article written by the Rackham designer which says that. Nothing else is acceptable proof of this statement. I’ve asked for this sort of official statement numerous times, and it’s never been shown to me.

AT-43 is designed around its gaming tiles and the official terrain types. They are not optional, they are integrated game design concepts.


@ Haywire

If you only buy the rule book, your army book, and your miniatures, you cannot play AT-43. At the very least, you also need official AT-43 terrain to play the Standard
Missions either because they require it for the table setups, or because the rulebook only gives you rules for that official terrain for use in the two free-form Standard Missions.

It’s all there in black and white. The fact that you and I and others may choose to eschew the official terrain and make up our own rules for terrain does not speak to what the product is. We have just stepped outside the product’s bounds.

To wit:

Page 84 says that customized terrain elements can be used to provide cover…okay…but what use is this to me as a gamer? Pretty much all I can gleam from that single sentence is that I can use customized terrain elements to represent the types of terrain that the rulebook covers, but not everything is going to match up perfectly to low walls, high walls, containers, bunkers, nanogenerators, Karman crystals, and 2D map elements.

What do I do when I encounter customized terrain elements for whom these rules really don’t make any sense? I make up the rules myself...so, again, the product doesn't provide me the information I require, hence why as a product, I find myself thinking of AT-43 as a boardgame right now. The potential play space covered by the ruleset is highly prescribed, much more so than any tabletop wargame I've ever been exposed to.

What you actually mean there in honesty is that lots of Sentinels declare him wrong and the discussion over. In fact a lot of his critiques have not been answered, and he calls upon your prior posts to defend his statements. Sir, a mass opinion is not a weight of opinion.

Now Cairnius can be more than a little repetetive, but to his credit its a polite repetetive.

His questions have been answered over and over again and even on this forum we try to answers his newer ones. I still see no point to answer questions over and over again that have been answered on the Sentinel subforum, Warseer, the general Rackham forum and some other forums, also I myself answered him via PM some of them

Welcome to Dakka. If you had the hang ups on critique of 40K the same as you do on critique of At-43 you wouldnt last long here. This is what you dont understand. On Dakka we criticise games companies, their marketing policies, the quality of their product, the quality of their rulesets, their release schedules, their managers commentaries and opress releases. If we dont like it, we critique it. Now we are not all raving haterz, we like the games for tghe most part but are not afraid to sopeak our minds when something is wrong.
Really I made this point on several threads but it boils down to this. On Dakka feel free to speak your mind politely.

Now Cairnius politely critiques Rackham. In fact he is a whole lot less offensive than many peole are towwrds bad decisions from Games Workshop. Because on Dakka we think for ourselves, you have to accept that poeple will have persistent opposing opinions. Cairnius is hardly a big excepton.

Sorry, but I am a long time Dakkaite and know my way around here, also I have been playing GW games from back in the 80s, so don´t tell me story of the dead horse. But it is one thing to be critical and another to steadily grind an axe, people have been banned from Dakka for grinding an axe and I support this decision by the admins fully well. Cairnius knows very good how to overstep the thin white line without getting punished. Credit to him, but that does not make him a person that is without fault and he knowingly causes some of heated debates. You can be polite and still insult people, you know?

Nice that you avoided my comment about the huge majority of AT players being of different opinion than Cairnius.

I would love to do that. Have you read the dreck he spoon feeds the White Dwarf readership? Actually it is Jervis who is the fool, time and again. Sweet irony how you use this as an example. I am more than happy to diss Jervis' competence as a games designer, and am known for it. not quite as much as HBMC but getting there. Together or seperately we can make Cairnius seem like a Rackham fanboi by comparison.
Do I or HBMC get railed for our opinions? I cant speak for HBMC but in my case I cant remember ever having to defend my opinion, and I wouldnt troll anyone who tried.

Duncan and all other Sentinels please learn this lesson.

Critique on Dakka is welcome, its welcome today, its welcome tomorrow and its welcome next year. Posts tend also to be cyclic, topics cylce quickly especuially certain topics such as poor decisions by game companies. If Cairnius wants to extend the range of targets he can do so.
in the meanwtime if he has something to say you dont agree with about At-43 Get over it.
If he has more to say next week. Get over it.
If he has more to say next year. Get over it.
Get the point. There is no excuse to troll him for not agreeing with your opinions on Rackham or AT-43. He critiques politely and wont troll you unless sorely pressed. Get over it.

What do we need to do to explain to you that contrary opinions are welcome? When will you just accept the truth. ON Daklka we speak our minds so long as we do so politely and within forum rules. Cairnius is on Dakka speaking his mind, politely and worthin forum rules.

Get. Over. It.

Well, I know Jervis design work and he is good at it and I am able to differentiate between his design work and what he has to write as a company guy. Something many people are not capable of as it seams. Only when some of the designers left GW some people realized what was missing.

I have no problem with disagreeing with Cairnius. What I can´t accept is him spoonfeeding new gamers information that he fully well knows not to be true. If someone is a liar I will call him a liar and provide evidence. Cairnius ist not lying all the time, but still he puts his doses of it in neraly every thread.

Being critical does not justify distributing lies.

Got. It?

@Ivan: Yes indeed, I spent many a college weekend playing ASL with my roommate. A great game system, and I STILL own the complete set of modules, boards, and counters for all armies!

Back to the main argument. I can see your point about balancing issues Cairnius. In my mind I have the ideas for a more advanced terrain system, but it would add a great deal of complexity that most people don't want, so I prefer to leave the rules alone for the most part on these forums, but my houserules will be more detailed. However, how you place terrain and balance the game doesn't fundamentally change its design as miniatures based play. It still has the rules set and units of a table top game. You may well be correct that the designers dealt with play balance issues by making predetermined maps, but to me that makes the game system more "historical" with an actual chronology of events (Damocles and Frostbite), and actual maps to play them out. In fact, this system is part of what attracted me to AT-43 in the first place. You would like the system to be more abstract for pick up games that suit your style, but I don't think whether a game has "historical" pre-determined maps or an abstract random terrain generator defines it as a boardgame or not. I think you are just labeling AT-43 as a boardgame to define its terrain system, because you lack a better descriptive term for it, but there are much broader definitions of table top gaming and boardgames.

I assume this whole discussion is for you to better visualize the game in order to design your more abstracted form of play for pick-up games? Maybe you should assign point values to all terrain types, and include the purchase of terrain for each side as part of the army building? Just brainstorming here....

Duncan_Idaho wrote:His questions have been answered over and over again and even on this forum we try to answers his newer ones. I still see no point to answer questions over and over again that have been answered on the Sentinel subforum, Warseer, the general Rackham forum and some other forums, also I myself answered him via PM some of them

You've given me your opinions of things, Duncan. I disagree with them. I reject them as solutions to my problems - but that doesn't mean I didn't listen to them and digest them as fully as I can before coming to that conclusion. Maybe it seems that way because I respond very quickly, but these aren't the most complicated issues I deal with on a regular basis, they're pretty simple comparatively, and I think extremely quickly on my feet.

Therefore, while I don't think I do ask the same questions over and over again, if I did it makes sense because I don't get answers that make sense to me. They don't satisfy me...so I keep asking, which is what I should do as an intelligent person seeking definitive answers, or who wants to ascertain whether they exist at all.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:But it is one thing to be critical and another to steadily grind an axe, people have been banned from Dakka for grinding an axe and I support this decision by the admins fully well. Cairnius knows very good how to overstep the thin white line without getting punished. Credit to him, but that does not make him a person that is without fault and he knowingly causes some of heated debates. You can be polite and still insult people, you know?

Honestly, Duncan, you insult me consistently and take no efforts to conceal it. Where do you have the moral authority to call me on MY behavior?

Duncan_Idaho wrote:Nice that you avoided my comment about the huge majority of AT players being of different opinion than Cairnius.

And now Orlanth doesn't need to. I quoted the logical fallacy to you already.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:I have no problem with disagreeing with Cairnius. What I can´t accept is him spoonfeeding new gamers information that he fully well knows not to be true. If someone is a liar I will call him a liar and provide evidence. Cairnius ist not lying all the time, but still he puts his doses of it in neraly every thread.

Being critical does not justify distributing lies.

Duncan, you often make statements about what the AT-43 rules provide in terms of structure, and when I ask you to reference page numbers you ignore me. What do you think that says? Are you too lazy to defend your positions? In that case, why bother debating? Or do you not have the evidence to support your arguments but aren't mature enough to cede points and retract statements?

So, should I now accuse you of lying? Calling me a liar is yet another insult, incidentally, and you don't even have the courtesy to provide at least one case of me "lying" to validate your argument.



@ Myr -

I hear a lot about Advanced Squad Leader. I wish someone around me owned it so I could try it sometime...

I'm honestly not finding too much complexity in the construction of my Mission Generator, per se. Yes it is added complexity, but I still think it is pretty lightweight compared to other games I play. It's certainly not as complex as 40K or Flames of War.

It's the variables that kill me, because I don't have testers for these initial mission designs. I'm unsure of Assault/Reinforcement splits, for example. I can only draw so much from existing Scenarios. I've looked at them with the time I have available seeking common denominators and am doing my best.

Right now I've taken the basic types of missions - Deathmatch, King of the Hill, Objective-based, Beachhead, Skirmish, and Escort - and written the mission table around them. d6 rolls the mission just like in most other games.

Balancing those missions, however, in a standard format is another question altogether. I was not entirely without materials to work off of in this regard, but really only the AT-43 Random Mission Cards provided the sorts of guidelines I needed to begin working. Rrwin's system was more about terrain IMHO, and was extremely thin on missions to play. The Con mission set with the six missions and everyone rolled their own individual Objectives just flew in the face of design logic, but I still took what I could from it.


Can I say something ironic here? I actually find something attractive about set positions for certain things, like Objectives, as well. I had a game of Flames of War last night and deciding where to place my Objective, a single action in the game, was just as important as all the hundreds of other little actions I had to take throughout the course of the battle.

Right now I am still just learning, so I'd just assume someone else who is really experienced at Flames of War place the Objective FOR me, and then I can concentrate purely on the tactics and strategy of moving my mans around because I need to master that and really learn my army inside and out before I can really get to know where I want to place that Objective because it needs to be based in large part on what my army can do...as well as what my opponent's army can do, and there's only a single regular opponent of mine whose army I have had adequate time to get to know...


You're right in that I am using terrain as the centerpoint of my argument about AT-43 being a boardgame, and there's no right and wrong in this. You're right in that these definitions are extremely broad and can bleed into each other very readily.

This is why I've tried to place this particular discussion in the context of looking at AT-43 as a product. Whatever AT-43 may be, I think that if it were marketed as a boardgame it would do better financially. Once you call it a boardgame, most if not all of the problems people have with the game, including myself, vanish.

Then you just need to lower the price points, but Rackham needs to do that anyway.

I'm sorry to say this...but I don't really see the point to this argument.

Who really cares if AT-43 is called a boardgame or a tabletop miniature wargame? The rules allow it to be played both ways.

For instance, Battletech can be considered both, and I don't see any issues there.

Am I wrong in thinking that this is like fighting over nothing?

I hope you all dont mind me throwing some random thoughts in here;

The question was - Is AT-43 actually a boardgame?

I'm not sure I can answer this because AT-43 made the line between boardgames and tabletop gaming blurry this could be good depending on what type of gaming experience you have and maybe bad for the same reason.

The bad - the veteran gamer may find this game lacking trying to get more out of it than is presented forcing At-43 into a 40k hole may leave you wanting , its a new game fan base is small finding players takes effort and if your local store owner or employees are not playing the game support maybe less than perfect. please remember these are just my thoughts and observations and I look at this differently as a gamer and a retailer and I hope my status as a retailer doesn't put me in a bad light..LOL

The Good- the veteran gamer already into gaming and the hobby side of gaming may like to add another game to his options being a FOW player myself and looking for a cool sci fi game that didn't include painting and modeling was very important to me and others I game with.

Removing the intimidating part of tabletop gaming by providing painted figures and (heres the big one) incorporating terrain elements into the product line and a playing surface- that boardgame feel, this is a "gateway game" that is a perfect tool to get folks into table top gaming.. The two biggest things that prevent new gamers from getting into table top games is the painting of the figures and then the thought of making terrain work against recruitment drives. When you see cool models being played on cool terrain and your a magic player and/or a board game player you think to yourself "how can I get to that point and do I have the skills to get their" At-43 by adding boardgame like elements has taken those concerns away from the beginner. And also from veteran players looking to get into another game or maybe just getting back into gaming after being away for some time due to job, school,relocation, or raising a family to name a few.


AT-43 is it a board game? Maybe!
Is it a tabletop war game? Maybe!
Is it 40K.. No!
Will it make 40k players happy doughtful but again MAYBE!
Does it fill the hole as a gateway game that Mageknight and Mechwarrior left when wizkids left the gaming scene -YES
Is it a good gateway game for Magic the gathering and boardgame players -Yes

Conclusion; AT-43 has a unique place on the gaming shelf that has yet to be labeled or defined because it doesnt fit in the boardgame slot or the table top hole...its a triangle and all you have is square and round holes its a crazy anolagy but its all I have.

Cairnius, you've made me think ,you've mad me wonder, and you've made me mad as a hatter.. Thanks and Keep searching for your answers

Respectfully - Gordon

I honestly don't want to force AT-43 into a 40K hole. It's not designed that way...but part of my irritation with AT-43 which lessens over time is that when I did my considerable amounts of research into AT-43 before buying in, it was always presented as "a game like Warhammer 40,000 but with different, better rules." That was the combined jist of the total weight of the commentary out there.

I don't think it is accurate. AT-43 is, IMHO, far too different a product from 40K to warrant a direct comparison, and I think it's a massive disservice to AT-43 to not correct this. I think it effects the economic bottom line more heavily than people might realize. That's just a guess, mind you.

Can I be honest with you, Gordon? I've never been about replacing, in their entirety, the posters and tiles and official terrain. If my friend Saint Maniac from the AT-43 forums wants to come back over to my place and play a game on the tiles, well, I have them, and so I will. I might even have interest in playing the Operation Damocles and Operation Frostbite campaigns if I had opponents for them...

I'm looking at why many people in the tabletop wargaming community react the way they do to AT-43 in terms of interest, I'm looking at all the fans of the game who say they only play on "regular" tables, and all the commentary I've seen about people who want free-form play, and I'm identifying a need to address all of that at once. I think the Mission Generator is a blueprint of the answer. I hope that if I'm allowed to upload the file to NEAT that you all start using it at your monthly AT-43 nights and give me reports for use in making adjustments.

I also agree with you that AT-43 is an excellent gateway product for people unfamiliar with tabletop wargames. As preposterously forward-thinking as this may be, do you know the biggest reason why I am reticent to sell my Therians and leave myself with only the UNA army? In a few years I will have children...and there's a big chance that they will see Daddy's models and want to play these games.

In that case, the idea of having a game that doesn't require me to trot out my gaming table and terrain and to use models I've painstakingly painted, as well as having a simplified ruleset to introduce the concepts of measuring distances, "free movement" as Haywire described, weapons ranges, assaults, unit coherency, is incredibly appealing to me. Then my child can grow into the more complicated games and hopefully enjoy their hobby aspects and start modeling/painting.

Gordon, I'm honestly sorry I've made you so angry throughout all this, considering you're right in my own backyard. At this point, I have some trepidation about heading up to Adler Hobby and being identified as "Cairnius on the forums." In my gaming club, we say that "Me on the forums is not me at the club." I'm one of the friendliest people you'll meet there. Yes I can be sarcastic and sharp-tongued, but in the way it gets a laugh and melts the ice. Sure I argue with people, but I think we wind up better friends afterwards.

I've had the impression that if you saw me in person and learned who I was online you would skewer me. It's an unfortunate result of all this...I've met Haywire in person and he can't stand me now. Human casualties of online debate are always kind of sad for me, but that's the nature of the game, I guess.

Cairnius wrote:I'm looking at why many people in the tabletop wargaming community react the way they do to AT-43 in terms of interest, I'm looking at all the fans of the game who say they only play on "regular" tables, and all the commentary I've seen about people who want free-form play, and I'm identifying a need to address all of that at once. I think the Mission Generator is a blueprint of the answer. I hope that if I'm allowed to upload the file to NEAT that you all start using it at your monthly AT-43 nights and give me reports for use in making adjustments.

I sorry if I seem ignorant but what do you mean by "free form play" (I have visions of folks doing interperative dance w/ their minis ) Please explain.

As far as you curiosity why folks react the way they do in the gaming community my experience has been it is typically one of snobbery. Kind of a MAC vs PC
sort of thing between AT-43 and WH40K. I get this even from store owners! It's damn irritating! Outside of those folks most guys around here don't play AT-43 so I can't give you any insight on anyone but myself and my little group. We too have some problems with the rules but they are outside the scope of what you've been talking about.

I am starting to think that Cairnius is only doing this only to promote his "AT-43 Mission Generator" just like he wanted to do his own "AT-43 Rulebook 1.5"

Thanks Cairnius for a great reply While posting I wish you could see the smile on my face and hear the feelings in my words alot is lost (as you once pointed out) in the written word. Again my post was just some random thoughts and where just that and Im not the best writer and I hope if we ever do get to met we'll be able to shake hands and laugh about all this.

Cheers
Gordon

AT-43 is a boardgame in the same way Advanced Squad Leader is.

AT-43 minis are toys in the same way 40K minis are toys.

There is an ignore user function. Learn it, use it. I'd like an ignore thread function too, but have lived without it so far.

Never giving you any pages? I repeatedly gave them.

But I am outta here. When someone tries to explain to folks who have been working on AT-43 from the beginning on how they are supposed to play the game and and some of them even DESIGNED the game, then something is terribly wrong.

Sorry, when someone even ignores the designers of a game there is no point in discussing any further. He does not want to get an answer other than the one he imagines to be right.

Howdy Yall!

IvanTT wrote:I sorry if I seem ignorant but what do you mean by "free form play" (I have visions of folks doing interperative dance w/ their minis ) Please explain.

As far as you curiosity why folks react the way they do in the gaming community my experience has been it is typically one of snobbery. Kind of a MAC vs PC sort of thing between AT-43 and WH40K. I get this even from store owners! It's damn irritating! Outside of those folks most guys around here don't play AT-43 so I can't give you any insight on anyone but myself and my little group. We too have some problems with the rules but they are outside the scope of what you've been talking about.

You don't seem ignorant.

Free form play as in you set up a table using whatever terrain you want, and then you roll up a mission on a table which you then set up. "Place three Objectives by these guidelines, and then you win by controlling more than your opponent." As opposed to following a diagram to set up the playing space and putting everything where it is supposed to do. "Free" form rather than "set" form, I guess.

I have felt the snobbery as well, and don't like it. Then again, I had problems with people only playing GW games in my club for a long time, but we've finally got some widespread expansion and broadened horizons (in no small part due to my friend and I pioneering Flames of War).


@ Haywire -

It's incidental, but I won't say I'll complain. I'm putting a lot of work into the Mission Generator. I'd like people to read it and use it.
Also, it's worth making the fair notation that on either this project or a Rulebook 1.5 proposed project, I wanted a bunch of people to all work on it together, at which point it ceases to be mine. I don't care about ownership, I care about good results. I ain't getting paid for this, so it's not like I'd be splitting profits...


@ Duncan -

No you didn't. You never said "On Page X are the rules for Area Terrain." "On Page Y are the rules for free-form placement of Objectives for pick-up missions." "On Page Z are the rules for how to determined Access Zone and Drop Point locations for pick-up missions." Because the information doesn't exist.

I sincerely hope that wasn't just a flounce you posted.

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

I think that´s quite a good hint where to look fore and in past threads on other forums I even PMed you the page numbers.

Of course it was a flounce...

For the umpteenth time the beginning of the AT rulebook rules section gives the rules for handling the official 2D and 3D terrain scenery, but nothing else. Therefore, those rules sections do-not-apply to the sort of terrain questions that arise when you use the massive variety of 28mm terrain that wargamers have.

The two-page "Interacting with the Terrain" portion of the rules discusses what, Duncan? Low walls, containers, nanogenerators. I think that's it. High walls and bunkers and crystals weren't out yet.

So, apparently every piece of 28mm terrain on my club's terrain shelves, which are about 15 feet wide, four shelves high, and about 10 feet tall, can all be broken down into low walls, containers, and nanogenerators?

Let's throw Frostbite into the mix...now everything can be broken into these three pieces and also crevasses, ice flows, water, bunkers, Karman crystals and high walls?

Seriously Duncan, we've run this race so many times...if this is what you mean by "People give Cairnius answers that he ignores and asks the questions over and over again," you give me an answer which doesn't actually answer the question and so I ask it again, you would seriously fault me for dismissing a stupid answer to a legitimate question?

/facepalm

Even if you are making custom missions and scenarios, you're still limited by a very small palate of available terrain. Use anything other than that, and you're using house rules, which means you're making crap up as you go along, which means you're not really playing AT-43 anymore as written in the rulebooks. You're taking the ruleset and adapting it to something it was not designed to be, as Blokhead says.

Seriously, go argue with Blokhead on this point. He's even closer to Rackham than you are and he seems to grasp what I'm saying immediately and without too much debate on the matter...

the official 2D and 3D terrain scenery, but nothing else

Nowhere does it say OFFICIAL. You are making this official stamp up along the way. And it does not say anywhere that you HAVE to use the Rackham terrain, only that you CAN use them and that they SUGGEST to use it for starters.

Man, we've had three mods in this two page thread (which may have been a bit longer), and no end of complaints about this sort of thing in the AT-43 threads. I just lost 15 minutes reading this whole thing, and here's how things stand:

1. We have no influence over what is posted on other forums. There are an unspecified number of active Dakka posters in good standing who have been banned from other forums due to different rules, and we do not enforce these bans here on Dakka or consider a poster's behavior elsewhere (except as a possible indicator of future behavior, which means we just watch that poster a little more). The specific example here are complaints that Cairnius has posted this sort of thing many times all over the internet. We have no real concern if this is repeated information; Dakka is its own board and very well may have readers here that haven't seen it before.

2. There seems to be a lot of grudgery (yeah, I made that up) on the whole topic. Dakka Rule #1 is Be Polite. There's even a handy link in my sig to the Dakka Rules. There have been violations of this rule on all sides of the argument (I was going to say "both sides", but there seem to be more). Some of it is passive, especially in the posts where posters have argued about this on other forums or at an earlier time and already have established positions, arguments and counter-arguments. It is still rudeness, and we will not tolerate it here.

3. As almost an addendum to point #2, there's also a desire to make firm declarations about AT-43 that really aren't possible. For example, boardgame vs. tabletop wargame. Why the necessity for a clearly-delineated taxonomy? Why can't it be a hybrid? Cairnius in particular seems to hang on to this point doggedly.

The end result is that there is a lot of animosity, bad blood, pointless bickering and general crappiness making people unhappy in these AT-43 threads. QUIT BRINGING OUTSIDE FEUDS HERE TO DAKKA.

Keep the conversations polite and on-topic. If no consensus can be reached, don't take it personally. The fate of AT-43 is not being decided here on Dakka.

I'm going to lock this thread so that you all can have a re-do on the topic.