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.

HorrorFan wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:I don't see the prices changing, at least not according to what Jean Bey(the owner of Rackham) is hinted at about R's rebirth in November.

The price will change if you can't buy it from a LGS anymore and have to purchase it overseas. It's called international shipping.

R's never had that problem, but whatever. Especially since the stuff now comes from China now and arrives in America BEFORE going to France.

Are you really saying the product ships three quarters a way around the world instead of going from China to France (roughly 1/3 the distance.)?

Maybe one lot goes to America and another lot goes to Europe.

HorrorFan wrote:Are you really saying the product ships three quarters a way around the world instead of going from China to France (roughly 1/3 the distance.)?

They ship one lot to America, one to France. The US gets their first.

Jean Bey has also alluded to something happening in America with Rackham. Speculation from the boards is about an American R office, which JB doesn't prove or disprove, just says things along the lines of "You never know ".

Eldramesha wrote:

Humans are not descended from Gorillas. We share a common basal ancestor 7 or so million year ago.

Lets not bring mothers into this...

My reasoning for 40K vs. At43:

building models and using them with a set of rules=Hobby
Buying collectible prepainted models with rules= playing with toys

Nurgleboy77 wrote:My reasoning for 40K vs. At43:

building models and using them with a set of rules=Hobby
Buying collectible prepainted models with rules= playing with toys

No, you are just more obsessive and defensive about your toys.

I was once at a Clan War tourney playing against this elitist geek (an oxymoron if there ever was one) making fun of the kids on the next table playing Pokemon. After the second snide comment, I turned to him an said in voice loud enough for all the kids to hear, "Dude, those are kids having fun playing a card game, we are grown men pushing army men around a table -- army men that we spend days painting! They should be laughing at US!"

And the kids all broke up laughing. And I kicked that dude's butt in the game.

Later on, I went over and talked to the guy and told him that one or two of those kids may have come over and gotten interested in the hobby had he shown a bit of maturity.

Yeah, we're all "playing with toys", some of ours are just quicker to play with right out of the box.

If you don't believe us that you're "playing with toys" too, ask someone who doesn't play wargames what it your hobby looks like next time you're playing. People not in the hobby really tend to put things in perspective.

The fluff seems decent and the figs are pretty good. AT-43 doesn't have as good a catch phrase as 40K, and let's be frank. 40K has had 20 some odd years to build fluff. Give AT-43 a break if it seems a little light so far.
One gripe I do have it, the picture of a Cog in the UNA book is pretty cool, but the figs seem to fall pretty short. I'm not sure what to make of ONI. Their TAC suits looks kind of sucky, but their base troops are pretty cool looking.

clevername wrote:After the second snide comment, I turned to him an said in voice loud enough for all the kids to hear, "Dude, those are kids having fun playing a card game, we are grown men pushing army men around a table -- army men that we spend days painting! They should be laughing at US!"

And the kids all broke up laughing. And I kicked that dude's butt in the game.

Later on, I went over and talked to the guy and told him that one or two of those kids may have come over and gotten interested in the hobby had he shown a bit of maturity.

Beware Geek Rage!

The Odd WILL get even!


You got self rightious & loud with the guy, kicked his butt with your toys (bravo) and later re-approached him in order to lecture him a bit more ......And you question his maturity level?

I'll bet my army men would have kicked your army men's butts! My game of choice is also better than yours!

I hope I don't recceive undue amounts of hate for thread necromancy, but I wanted to add a question to this debate. I have played At-43 before with a infantry heavy red blok army. My army of choice in 40k is infantry heavy IG. Now I know that if i bring an IG army to a tournament with a really cool paint scheme that is (cadian, catachan, tallarn, vost, etc...) but still looks good people will be very happy to play gainst me. If I bring a converted and painted Red blok army to play AT-43 how will they react?

Bodichi wrote:I hope I don't recceive undue amounts of hate for thread necromancy, but I wanted to add a question to this debate. I have played At-43 before with a infantry heavy red blok army. My army of choice in 40k is infantry heavy IG. Now I know that if i bring an IG army to a tournament with a really cool paint scheme that is (cadian, catachan, tallarn, vost, etc...) but still looks good people will be very happy to play gainst me. If I bring a converted and painted Red blok army to play AT-43 how will they react?

Most likely the same as in 40K. It's not like Warmachine where the company(more or less) looks down on conversions. As long as it's relatively easy to tell they're still Red Blok, most players will probably thank you for enjoying the hobby aspect. The main forums have a Workshop sub-forum where people show off their scratchbuilds, re-paints, and conversions(including new units/vehicles) all the time. The main AT-43 page even shows a heavily converted Golgoth that Rackham wrote rules for(arguably legal since R wrote the rules themselves).

You also roll more dice than you have miniatures in 40k as well. Apparently people like rolling dice.

AT43 rules where a bit garbled when I looked at them - but I only looked briefly. Some rather random complications, which I couldn't see what exactly they where trying to replicate.

40k fluff has some actual emotional resonance (for the imperium and chaos only really). AT 43 has none. It's a bit science for science's own sake.

my FLGS had some AT-43 miniatures back then. never really took off. Why? Freakin Gorillas. AT-43 is like a cheap immitation of warhammer 40k and warmachine.

enmitee wrote:AT-43 is like a cheap immitation of warhammer 40k and warmachine.

Only in that all 3 use models of roughly the same scale.

Therian aesthetically it looks gothic in a 40k sense.
red blok has a whole russian theme that khadorans have.
UNA cadians/space marines
Karmans are just plain bad imo.

and biggest gripe is how you have these heroes and never being able to customize them the way you want.

Unable to customize heroes? Like you can customize Eldrad or Lysander or the myriad of special characters that 40k has and is adding more and more of with time.

enmitee wrote:Therian aesthetically it looks gothic in a 40k sense.
red blok has a whole russian theme that khadorans have.
UNA cadians/space marines
Karmans are just plain bad imo.

and biggest gripe is how you have these heroes and never being able to customize them the way you want.

I will say this again: The UNA/Red Blok draw from the same source material as Khador/IG/etc. because the game was originally an alternate timeline Wierd War II game. They have a "whole Russian theme" because originally, they were Russians! As for UNA/Cadians, the Red Blok armor is much more reminiscent of Cadian armor than the UNA armor is.

Oh, and what 40K/Warmachine heroes can you customize?

wspatterson wrote:The fluff seems decent and the figs are pretty good. AT-43 doesn't have as good a catch phrase as 40K, and let's be frank. 40K has had 20 some odd years to build fluff. Give AT-43 a break if it seems a little light so far.
One gripe I do have it, the picture of a Cog in the UNA book is pretty cool, but the figs seem to fall pretty short. I'm not sure what to make of ONI. Their TAC suits looks kind of sucky, but their base troops are pretty cool looking.

GW had good fluff right from the start, or at least within a few years

If I say "fluff" in reference to AT-43, does God still kill a kitten?

I really liked the fluff from AT-43. Well, most of it. Afer reading Dragonlance as a kid, I never looked at the whole "there was a great really big BAD time a little ways back, and things have never been the same"-type schtick the same way again. The whole Trauma bit felt a bit worn, and the space monkeys are out their doing their marketed best to sell some toys. But, on the whole, I enjoyed it.

namegoeshere wrote:

wspatterson wrote:The fluff seems decent and the figs are pretty good. AT-43 doesn't have as good a catch phrase as 40K, and let's be frank. 40K has had 20 some odd years to build fluff. Give AT-43 a break if it seems a little light so far.
One gripe I do have it, the picture of a Cog in the UNA book is pretty cool, but the figs seem to fall pretty short. I'm not sure what to make of ONI. Their TAC suits looks kind of sucky, but their base troops are pretty cool looking.

GW had good fluff right from the start, or at least within a few years

Good fluff IS subjective... im tired of skulls and pointy bits for the chaos things for example...SAME old thing ALWAYS, it cannot be bad if it does not have skulls and pointy bits

Right form the start?
the minotaurs things form the tyranids and squats, the ratlings, the first fluff of Orks when they have a seizure or something like that to go and have sex(later was re-modeled to reproduce by spores)... GW HAD and still HAVE many failures in fluff... they continuosly change MANY things to add new minis for example...Squats were erased, the Tyranids war veterans.... Bjorn was droped etc.. examples are many, and i am sure everybody hasa favorite piece of fluff that cannot believe it or think is bad

Ther is no good or bad, the fluff is ALWAYS in evolution, but staing that ALL is good form the begining is stretching it a bit too much

Within a few years? how many exactly ? 1, 5, 10... ?

AT-43 is +- 2.5 years.... give it time and we will see... besides new things are coming, novels, new armies, even more platoon formations for each army, new campaigns... it is developing its own fluff as it goes...

Well the original rogue trader had good fluff. Maybe not the exact same fluff we have now but still better than AT-43. Yes skulls and spikes is repetitive - but in fact 40k had less of that at the beggining, and it's only really gotten repetitive recently.

Picking holes in 40k is not the same as saying AT-43 has good fluff. Not even comparable to 40k just good in any way. Dnd, Mtg, not as good as 40k but still good enough. AT-43 is just not good.

The rules don't add much either - and they are slower than 40k which is a big issue.

namegoeshere wrote:Well the original rogue trader had good fluff. Maybe not the exact same fluff we have now but still better than AT-43. Yes skulls and spikes is repetitive - but in fact 40k had less of that at the beggining, and it's only really gotten repetitive recently.

Picking holes in 40k is not the same as saying AT-43 has good fluff. Not even comparable to 40k just good in any way. Dnd, Mtg, not as good as 40k but still good enough. AT-43 is just not good.

The rules don't add much either - and they are slower than 40k which is a big issue.

I Repeat: good OR bad fluff.... IS subjective, and anyway why to change fluff that is good? GW change fluff that was bad. period.

still, it has skulls and pointybits = bad in 40k no questions aboit it

You dont likfe AT-43 fluff? --> Fine , not everyone have to like it... but still, saying that a) GW fluff right from start is GOOD is stretching it too much and b) compare 20 yrs to 2.5 years of working is also TOO much

Now Rules:

if you think the rules for AT-43 are slow it really seems you have played wrong or not played at all

Check this page to know many differences: http://at-43.understairs.nl/rest/at-43for40kplayers.html

First, the is not t time to deploy as in 40k, you deploy in first turn 1 unit at the time an start busting people immediately
Second,You dont have to wait until the enemy, moves-shoots-cc for you to do anything, here you move a unit and the enemy moves anotherone which is far much more tactical and exciting
Third, In 40 k you have: roll to hit + rerolls, roll to wound + rerolls, armor save roll + rerolls, and other "possible" rolls; in AT-43, roll to hit + reroll, roll to damage + reroll (maybe just location of damage to AFV roll but is the same as the vehicle damage table).
Armor is included in the To damage roll and usually especail abilities are allways working and you dont have to re-roll

these variations make it far much more faster than 40k, in deployment and dice rolling. Tactically is more challenging and less... "kill´emall" scenario. even in 5th edition with objectives remains very close to "kill´emall" scenario

Just a rant about 5th ed.... this "cover save" the infantry gives to a unit behin and suddenly being immune to the bullets going trough them... is just plain stupid

I dont want to force you to like it.... but given the arguments well it seems lack of knowledge of At-43

I Repeat: good OR bad fluff.... IS subjective, and anyway why to change fluff that is good? GW change fluff that was bad. period.

No it's not. Remember English classes. There is a difference between what is meaningful and well written, and what isn't.

You dont likfe AT-43 fluff? --> Fine , not everyone have to like it... but still, saying that a) GW fluff right from start is GOOD is stretching it too much and b) compare 20 yrs to 2.5 years of working is also TOO much

The rogue trader book was good. Warhammer fantasy battles book was good. Perhaps there was stuff before that, but that was the start of the warhammer product, AT-43 isn't the first book Rackham put out either.
You can argue anyway you like - but 40k sells games/books/computer games etc on the strength of its fluff (not its rules clearly). Saying they came first and leaving it at that is just not objective.


if you think the rules for AT-43 are slow it really seems you have played wrong or not played at all

I haven't played - but read them online.

First, the is not t time to deploy as in 40k, you deploy in first turn 1 unit at the time an start busting people immediately
Second,You dont have to wait until the enemy, moves-shoots-cc for you to do anything, here you move a unit and the enemy moves anotherone which is far much more tactical and exciting

No it just sounds slower. Yes you don't have to wait so long before you get to do something. But it is just quicker to do several units at once/ in a row. I have played games with alternating unit activation - it is slower.

Third, In 40 k you have: roll to hit + rerolls, roll to wound + rerolls, armor save roll + rerolls, and other "possible" rolls; in AT-43, roll to hit + reroll, roll to damage + reroll (maybe just location of damage to AFV roll but is the same as the vehicle damage table).
Armor is included in the To damage roll and usually especail abilities are allways working and you dont have to re-roll

Doesn't compensate for the slow down of alternating unit by unit.

I dont want to force you to like it.... but given the arguments well it seems lack of knowledge of At-43

So? I don't have to see a movie to know it's not good. And even if someone says they like it, it can still be objectively measured as good or bad. I'm sorry but just because you and others (me included) have problems with 40k - it doesn't make AT-43 actually good.

namegoeshere wrote:Doesn't compensate for the slow down of alternating unit by unit.

The fact that I can play a 2k point game of AT-43 in 30-60 minutes vs 2-3 hours average for 2k of 40K speaks to how much you're still wrong about this. Try playing the game before putting your foot in your mouth next time.

namegoeshere wrote:I'm sorry but just because you and others (me included) have problems with 40k - it doesn't make AT-43 actually good.

And I'm sorry, just because you and others don't like AT-43 doesn't make it bad. It really is a good game, at least in my opinion and the opinions of others. And for the record, I have NO problem with 40K, and yet find both games to be good.

And yes, even in written language, some thing well written and meaningful can still be "bad". Case in point, how many Americans view the Quran, and the fact that the Eragon books are still considered "good" books despite not being very well written. Good and bad are in fact subjective, no matter how much you think otherwise.

So why don't we just agree we can't agree on the subject and give it up.

People are drawn to games for different resons. I happen to like Karmans (unlike a few
posters in the thread). From the rules I think I like the reinforcements aspect of the
game, but I have yet to actually play a game.

Normally I don´t call people names, but: Sorry Sir, you sound like a complete troll.

No it's not. Remember English classes. There is a difference between what is meaningful and well written, and what isn't.

Sorry, but what´s written above is just a hollow phrase with no backing it up whatsoever. That´s what we usually call a filler, sound s nice, but only is there to stretch the pages. Please explain why.

The rogue trader book was good. Warhammer fantasy battles book was good. Perhaps there was stuff before that, but that was the start of the warhammer product, AT-43 isn't the first book Rackham put out either.
You can argue anyway you like - but 40k sells games/books/computer games etc on the strength of its fluff (not its rules clearly). Saying they came first and leaving it at that is just not objective.

Sorry, but comparing the output for a game that is close to 20 years on the market with one that is barely 2 years on the market? That´s plain stupid. It took GW quite some time to evolve the game and most of the stuff we today take as granted only showed up with second and third edition. Just think of the Eldars.

I haven't played - but read them online.

One of the dumbest things I ever heard. No game designer who is worth his salt will ever judge a game by just reading the rules. He will PLAY it so he can see the mechanics in action. Man is not a machine that can calculate every possibility and don´t say you are up to a machine like Deep Blue. I do translate rules and also check them for logical mistakes and I do know what it takes to judge rules, but I would never assume that I know rules by heart without ever having played them.

No it just sounds slower. Yes you don't have to wait so long before you get to do something. But it is just quicker to do several units at once/ in a row. I have played games with alternating unit activation - it is slower.

Sorry, but in an comparison with an equal number of miniatures AT-43 will be the faster game. Your argument is proven wrong by nearly every other game that has mechanics similar to the ones used in AT. AT rules are easy to remember once you´ve seen them work in an actual game. There´s a naturalness to the system AT uses that 40K still has not achieved. And because it seems so natural to you the game speeds up the more experience you gather under your belt.

So? I don't have to see a movie to know it's not good. And even if someone says they like it, it can still be objectively measured as good or bad. I'm sorry but just because you and others (me included) have problems with 40k - it doesn't make AT-43 actually good.

Nearly every game designer will shuffle away from anyone who claims to be able to judge a game just by reading the rules. Just ask some of the guys from GW during the next Games Day.

And just for the records:
I do play:

- AT-43 (all factions)
- 40K (Tau, Eylsians and probably some other IG as soon as the new Codex shows up.
- Aeronautica Imperialis (all factions)
- Chronopia
- Battletech
- Crimson Skies
- Victory at Sea
- Wings of War
and quite same strategical board games.

Do you play the original Crimson Skies? Best dog-fighting game EVER.

Calm down

Yes, I do play the original and do have all the planes. I even do own the Airrace-PDF.