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.

My main opponents are Red Blok (3 players) and it is Manon and Dotch Yoga all the time. The Vandal simply cannot stand up to UNA, Red Blok and Therian *** vehicles because it's only doing half the damage.

I know about UNA as the Cobra variant with the mortar is the only one to take. Otherwise I cannot kill Kollsus suits because I don't have any Fire Toads or troopers with las guns, only rocket launchers.

But this is all off topic.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:My main opponents are Red Blok (3 players) and it is Manon and Dotch Yoga all the time. The Vandal simply cannot stand up to UNA, Red Blok and Therian *** vehicles because it's only doing half the damage.

I know about UNA as the Cobra variant with the mortar is the only one to take. Otherwise I cannot kill Kollsus suits because I don't have any Fire Toads or troopers with las guns, only rocket launchers.

But this is all off topic.

cogs can have enough jammers to blow Odin and Manon + Dotch yaga all the way back to hades, you can also proxy the Pillager (or maybe is the Marauder, do not remember) the type 1 with jammer and CAnnon, a unit of 3 cost the same as 1 vandal...

Remember you have range... keep them at range--- i know I play both RB and Cogs and Therians

Dal'yth Dude wrote:Hellfury: My group played AT-43 most of last year. I think you played with one of them as well, but the release schedule for Cogs really changed my mind on the game.

Its quite possible, either Scott or Nick. I do know that Nick and Jason play semi-frequently at their homes though, similar to Scott.

I haven't played since flying back and forth to Montana to playtest Frostbite rules with a buddy there though. Its been quite awhile.

As for the new factions breaking the game at all, I don't think it does. While increased variety should provide more interesting tactics, etc. on the table, a lot of what I see in them offer little in actual innovative and original usage as an army. In a word, extraneous.

As little interest as I have in every faction beyond the original 3 or 4, I do hope that R decides to completely release everything needed to competently complete all of the planned armies before the game is potentially dropped. R owes their consumers that much at least.

Yeah, it is Scott. You're welcome anytime H.

I have no experience with/against Karmans but Cogs are very different to the Red Block infantry hordes I usually have to play against. Their small numbers really hurt if you can't roll average/above average for a turn or two.

Wolfen: Yeah, I've taken two support squads of Jammers and they just get knocked over along with the Hunters. Vehicles with an engie or that can heal damage tends to overcome the jammers. Like I said, it gets boring really quick.

The indirect fire rules are my only real issue with the game. They are WAY too powerful. Knockdown is essentially a Pinning move without any kind of save allowed. In 40K you make a Morale check. In FoW you get auto-pinned if you are hit with artillery, but it doesn't screw you the way AT-43 screws you when an infantry unit gets knocked down below half.

I don't mind a brutal game, but the knockdown rules are cheap. They make it WAY too easy to remove entire infantry units from the game without actually killing any of them.

Hellfury wrote:

As little interest as I have in every faction beyond the original 3 or 4, I do hope that R decides to completely release everything needed to competently complete all of the planned armies before the game is potentially dropped. R owes their consumers that much at least.

I hope so too, but really, "R" has shown exactly what they think of their fanbase and what they think they owe them...

Which is different from GW how?

Cairnius wrote:Which is different from GW how?

In the way that when Rackham made mistakes and upset the players most of them dropped the company and its games. When GW does that most of the players write an angry topic on the web and then go back to buying more Wood Elves.

Why did you resign as a sentinel again? Because I don't have any real sales pressure; we are just required to behave and act appropriately with the information we are given.

AT-43.CO.UK wrote:

Cairnius wrote:Which is different from GW how?

In the way that when Rackham made mistakes and upset the players most of them dropped the company and its games. When GW does that most of the players write an angry topic on the web and then go back to buying more Wood Elves.

Nahhh SPeshhh Maareeens

Shrapnelsmile wrote:Why did you resign as a sentinel again? Because I don't have any real sales pressure; we are just required to behave and act appropriately with the information we are given.

Err...say what?

Alpharius wrote:

Hellfury wrote:

As little interest as I have in every faction beyond the original 3 or 4, I do hope that R decides to completely release everything needed to competently complete all of the planned armies before the game is potentially dropped. R owes their consumers that much at least.

I hope so too, but really, "R" has shown exactly what they think of their fanbase and what they think they owe them...

Cairnius wrote:Which is different from GW how?

I dont thin either statement is fair from my experience. I have had quite a bit of contact with Jean Bey personally. Something that the Ivory towers at GW are not likely to do, either because of the "pan-fo" factor or because they literally live in an ivory tower of ignorance.
Bey was always amicable and was even generous enough to make the operation damocles book after I constantly pestered him due to their magazine going out of print. He even sent me a bunch of free jink when I expressed interest in certain portions of R's products.

Not to mention their attentive remarks to feedback concerning playtesting operation frostbite rules. Of which gaming companies do not normally allow an open beta for, especially in the case of GW.

As much criticism as Rackham deserves for many things, I do not beleive this is a case where they deserve such vitriol.

In terms of rules mechanics, AT-43 mops the floor with 40k (as does most TTW rules nowadays). 40k will win out on production values and the hobby aspect which I think makes or breaks most "gamers" anyway.

With the exception of the Cog Vandal, Indirect Fire/Grounding isn't dominant like it used to be before certain erratas were established. Copperhead used to be king back in the early days of the game. It's still formidable but not as game breaking as some will claim.

And I'm happy as hell that R went beyond the initial 3 factions. If all I had to choose from was two polarized human and one android/human army, I would've taken my dice elsewhere no matter how good the rules. Now we have that plus a dirty neutral human corp, psuedo-xenos from the same family of primates (which I shamelessly admit drew me into the game), and a true xenos. And they all play very differently on the tabletop. Any discussions on dilution, look at 40k.

As for R's communication: It does suck. Horribly. However, keep in mind that due to corporate restructuring there could be legal restrictions on the kind of information that can be released publicly. But that doesn't excuse everything.

Hellfury wrote:

Alpharius wrote:

Hellfury wrote:

As little interest as I have in every faction beyond the original 3 or 4, I do hope that R decides to completely release everything needed to competently complete all of the planned armies before the game is potentially dropped. R owes their consumers that much at least.

I hope so too, but really, "R" has shown exactly what they think of their fanbase and what they think they owe them...

Cairnius wrote:Which is different from GW how?

I dont thin either statement is fair from my experience. I have had quite a bit of contact with Jean Bey personally. Something that the Ivory towers at GW are not likely to do, either because of the "pan-fo" factor or because they literally live in an ivory tower of ignorance.
Bey was always amicable and was even generous enough to make the operation damocles book after I constantly pestered him due to their magazine going out of print. He even sent me a bunch of free jink when I expressed interest in certain portions of R's products.

Not to mention their attentive remarks to feedback concerning playtesting operation frostbite rules. Of which gaming companies do not normally allow an open beta for, especially in the case of GW.

As much criticism as Rackham deserves for many things, I do not beleive this is a case where they deserve such vitriol.

All good points, but the 'bait and switch' R did when they were transitioning from C3 to (allegedly) C4 and Rag'narok to (allegedly) Rag'narok 2 is what really did the most damage back then.

Well, that and the whole pre-painted miniatures thing.

That history, coupled with the recent "toy company" expectations? It doesn't look good...

The Sentinel question was for me...I resigned because to really be a Sentinel you have to be a fanboy. The more I learned about Rackham and how they handle things like rules questions (Cypher Creation rule re-write - I will never, ever believe anyone who says that the rule is currently being used the way Rackham originally intended it to be used, they just bowed in the face of player whining) and product distribution (Steel Trooper Attachment boxes, anyone? Most basic unit in the entire UNA army in a pre-paints game and you have to convert to field them properly?) I couldn't attach myself to the company anymore as an unpaid spokesperson. I'd rather be free and able to have the sorts of conversations I've had than swallow my tongue and listen to a lot of b.s. We in the gaming community savage Games Workshop when they deserve it, so Rackham should get precisely the same, equal treatment if they want to be in the same industry.

I think the vitriol, Hellfury, was specifically in reference to the Confrontation fiasco. I think Rackham does deserve every ounce of that from fans of the old metals game who got screwed. That's just not cool what Rackham did. At least be honest and say you're changing over to a new game and take the sales hit rather than lead people on to keep sales going.

Saint, you and I have talked about this in person but hey I never get to speak to you on forums...I don't think AT-43 mops the floor with 40K when it comes to rules at all. Lack of a proper pick-up play system, unsubstantial terrain support, horrible rules syntax, the way they handle rules questions which often results in contradicting themselves and just confusing the hell out of players...

If you look at the basic rulesets of 40K 5th and AT-43 1st, 40K is a much more playable game "right out of the book" without having to do online research. I can't tell you how many times during my first games of AT-43 you would tell me "No, the rule isn't actually what's in the book, it got corrected in a F.A.Q." I never, ever had that experience with 40K when I started playing in 4th ed.

That AT-43 is in its first edition is irrelevant - if we're having an honest conversation about rules quality from the perspective of playability, 40K wins hands down.

If you want to talk about rules quality in terms of basic conception, I think AT-43 has a lot on 40K. Alternating unit activation is better IMHO. The reserve rules are better IMHO. Leadership points are a mechanic I'm lukewarm on, but I don't hate it. The Assault/Reinforcement mechanic with the importance of RP is frakking brilliant. Not starting units on the table far more often than not is fantastic for me as I hate deployment and starting a game with a static situation. I prefer everything fluid and in motion fron the get-go.

There's no shame in loving space monkeys by the way, Saint. I look forward to turning some of yours into zombies in the near future...

Cairnius wrote:Some information has come to my attention which I have been debating what to do with.

Well known AT-43 and Rackham troll Cairnus is once again at work.

Why does Martin say that Paolo is supposed to start working on the Krygs when he left Rackham Entertainment already?

Don't tell Paolo he left then as he posted on the AT-43 forum himself. Sorry to defuse your rant but at least try to stay current with the game you appear to hate so much

Things have been quieter of late, but not everyone has got the message yet apparently. If you are going to necro a thread on this page try the one that explains quite firmly with support by the Mods that ad hominem attacks on critics of Rackham are not to be tolerated.

On Dakka we speak our minds, we are gamer grognards, and we grumble about game companies, starting with GW but not necessarily ending there. If the Sentinels and other Rackham fanbois dont like that THEY CAN GO ELSEWHERE.

If you disgree post something positive about Rackham, not negative about critics of Rackham. I am not going to let this one go until people learn.

Seeing as how Jean Bey just left Rackham, it looks like Cairnius the Bastard was partially right. Again.

You do realize that if RE was more forthcoming in their information it wouldn't take someone like me to get Paolo Parente to let out that he was working on the Krygs...perhaps RE would have been well-served to have released some concept sketches or teaser information on the Krygs since Oni came out. They really need to get some solid marketing teams on their payroll.

In the meantime, they have me. I'm still taking credit for this forum getting named for AT-43 after all the crap I stirred up and tripled the AT-43 traffic over here...so there's a certain irony to any AT-43 fanboys bitching about me while taking advantage of the opportunity I carved for them on Dakka Dakka.

P.S. Mods, let me have my illusions. It makes me smile. *grin*

Cairnius wrote:I'm still taking credit for this forum getting named for AT-43 after all the crap I stirred up and tripled the AT-43 traffic over here...so there's a certain irony to any AT-43 fanboys bitching about me while taking advantage of the opportunity I carved for them on Dakka Dakka.

I credit Lunahound for giving AT-43 a presence here. You help by starting debate, Luna and I at the time did not know enough about the game to kickstart tactics threads, or army list threads or company policy threads. The best she, or I could do was post release rumours and ask advice on basic game purchase orders.

If you go back, people were discussing AT-43 on here long before you, I, or Luna, Orlanth, so none of us get credit for giving AT-43 a presence here. It already had one.

*sniffs and looks back at his old, old posts*

Well it was therre in the same way I-Kore/Urban Mammoth turns up every year or so.

Until some of us started noting the fieresales and putting the money down did the threads roll.

If you write down enough things in your post then at some point at least some of it will be true. That does not make you the bees knees of AT-43.

Otherwise:
There will be a box released with some AT-43 models.

And here is one for GW:
There will be a Codex about Space Marines.

Now all I have to do and sit back, wait for my "predictions" to come true and I will be considered Gods Gift to wargaming.

Or perhaps I'm only a little fish in a big pond called the internet rumour mill. I don't mind being a little fish, what I do mind is other little fish taking a leak in the pond and then think the rest of us should hail them for it.

Orlanth wrote:Things have been quieter of late, but not everyone has got the message yet apparently. If you are going to necro a thread on this page try the one that explains quite firmly with support by the Mods that ad hominem attacks on critics of Rackham are not to be tolerated.

On Dakka we speak our minds, we are gamer grognards, and we grumble about game companies, starting with GW but not necessarily ending there. If the Sentinels and other Rackham fanbois dont like that THEY CAN GO ELSEWHERE.

If you disgree post something positive about Rackham, not negative about critics of Rackham. I am not going to let this one go until people learn.

AT-43.CO.UK wrote:If you write down enough things in your post then at some point at least some of it will be true. That does not make you the bees knees of AT-43.

Otherwise:
There will be a box released with some AT-43 models.

And here is one for GW:
There will be a Codex about Space Marines.

Now all I have to do and sit back, wait for my "predictions" to come true and I will be considered Gods Gift to wargaming.

Or perhaps I'm only a little fish in a big pond called the internet rumour mill. I don't mind being a little fish, what I do mind is other little fish taking a leak in the pond and then think the rest of us should hail them for it.

I just thought that you two should meet.

By the way, Cairnius, I'll have to disagree with you on that comment about 40K being more playable right out of the box. There are plenty of elements of fifth edition that still have me suspecting that they fired all of their actual staff and replaced them with monkeys and typewriters. TLOS? Wounds allocation? The crowd at my FLGS doesn't even use whole sections of those rules and we get along just fine, where as AT-43 in my opinion is not perfect, but I didn't sit there with my jaw in my lap and WTF!!!WTF!!!WTF!!! constantly running through my brain before I grasped the rules. No game is perfect, but in my opinion AT-43 is pretty close. I just wish they would gak or get off the pot.

I started playing 40K in 4th Ed. so it's kind of unfair to express any opinion on 5th Ed. "right out of the box," but I can say that I never, not once, had the sorts of rules queries issues with 40K in four years than I had with AT-43 at the beginning many times over.

The order of the main rulebook was all sorts of annoying (shouldn't the terrain section go into, or right after, the movement section, not at the very end?) and the little thing that will always stick with me is the notion of "contact," probably the most important thing to nail down if you want to conduct close combat in AT-43, is defined not within the Combat section where it needs to be but once at the very beginning of the rules and then again at the very end of the rules in the glossary.

When you can't use a rulebook to just flip to the appropriate section and find everything you need right away (like I can with the 40K 5th ed mini rulebook) then the rulebook is of limited value at the table, where one tends to need it most.

In the end, AT-43 is first edition, so they have to be given a pass, in the end, IMHO - but RE really does need to compile some of the Q&A sessions from their forums into a new FAQ or Errata. And they really, really, need to stop changing the game through answers to forum questions. If a rule is changing, get it out there in an official format that anyone can print out and bring with them - not huge fan-FAQs or just going through all the posts in the right place to get all the new rules.

- God's Gift to Wargaming

Cairnius wrote:
- God's Gift to Wargaming

Sorry, I claimed that title two posts before you did.

No, you just mentioned it. I claimed it.

Let's be honest at least - I've never been one to just randomly write gak about RE to see what was true or not. Anything I've ever said about the company has either come off the AT-43 forums, Sentinel or otherwise, from Sentinels personally, or is just so patently obvious to any observant person that there's no debate.

This latest deal was passing on information from a Sentinel, some of which turned out to be true, some of which turned out to be false. Everything he told me about Jean Bey was 100% true, probably because it came straight from the horse's mouth and he was talking about himself. The stuff about Paolo leaving, maybe that was mis-reported information from the Sentinel. Perhaps JB was referring more to the content of private conversations between him and Paolo, per Paolo wanting to leave or planning on doing so once he was finished with his sculpting work. I don't know, I'm not Jean Bey nor am I the Sentinel who had the conversation with him, but that would be my best guess. Either that, or JB was just really frustrated and talking gak. It must be difficult to lose control over your "baby," if JB really does deserve the lion's share of the credit for AT-43.

In the end, I just want to know what's going on with the company because I purchase their products. Paolo came out of the woodwork to say he is working on the Krygs, and they're on the 2010 production schedule, so that's all I care about. I don't care about the employee comings and goings at RE, I care about my minis getting produced along with some new rules/campaign content. As long as that keeps happening, and the product doesn't suck, I don't care who's responsible for making it happen.

Seemed better to add this here than start new thread.

So, here's something that's been circulating around the web for a little bit:

---
Mathieu Thérézien has sent along a translation of the post made by Rackham employee Nicolas Raoult on the French AT-43 forum regarding the company, its goals and its current scheduling and development priorities.

Q - The question that comes to my mind now is “without [Jean Bey], will the new direction have the same motivation to keep going when difficulties will present themselves (insufficient profitability,…)?

A - Jean Bey is gone, but Rackham-E is far from knocked down.

Six years ago, the business manager of Rackham at the time asked me: “what’s the objective of Rackham?” and I replied: “to make pretty miniatures." I had it all wrong, and he immediately told it to me, quoting: “No, the objective of Rackham is to make money”. The conversation lasted 5 seconds and was enough to change my view on things.

Nobody serious would start working on a project that wouldn’t provide him enough to live, especially if that’s the only project they work on. This kind of reasoning is the same for investors. The objective of Rackham is the same as for any other business: make a profit.

The new management of the company, embodied by Nathalie Lamri, is completely realistic about the profitability goals of Rackham-E, but also about the value of its two main universes: AT-43 and Aarklash. For those of you wondering about her, I can assure you that Nathalie Lamri is motivated, and that’s an euphemism. I wish you to meet her some day. That’s worth it

Back on topic, Rackham-E works on several projects while keeping on developing AT-43 and Confrontation. Allow me to elaborate on these two points.

You may have noticed that the most recently released armies (Cogs and ONI) are developed with a better visibility of the range. One maximal size ONI kopeks unit is composed of two unit boxes, and that’s it.

The release schedule and the new editorial model (Army boxes and Unit boxes) were designed depending on the number of employees, the resources, and the objectives of the company. There are less of us than there used to be, but we try to edit products with an optimal game/marketing/production ratio. Putting together a correct schedule according to these three criteria is an interesting challenge, and a very valuable professional experience ^_^.

The release schedule that Martin Terrier gave you was created in a committee with people from management, marketing, sculpting, production in China, and writers. We put our skills together to get “the best possible deal” to quote Paolo Parente. We’ll see if that long thought out edition model reveals profitable. If the customers are there, there’s no reason for it to fail!

Let me insist on one point: all the actors of Rackham-E are aware of the value of the historical universes of the company. In the worst case scenario, the Confrontation game could disappear (note the conditional mood) in its current form, but not Aarklash. And the same thing goes with AT-43.

As I mentioned earlier, we’ve also been wring for several months on new universes, with new games for all kinds of audiences. This new direction began with the change of name and of logo of the company.

The guiding principle of this approach is not to abandon AT-43 and Confrontation, but to give the company new opportunities for development and profitability.

If all goes as we hope and if our work bears fruit, Rackham-E will be less dependent on the market changes. It’ll be more diversified, and therefore stronger and better able to please everyone: bosses, employees, stores and gamers.

But hey, that’s the next step… For now we are doing our best, the only thing left to do is to knock on wood.

Today, it’s not Rackham anymore but Rackham Entertainment. Same artists, new bosses, new goals.
----



This article is being met with derision by a lot of people. Why??? This is confidence-inspiring to me. It sounds like Rackham is getting its financial head on straight, which is a bad thing?

Someone explain the negative reactions to me?

Cairnius wrote:“No, the objective of Rackham is to make money”.

I am sure that nobody will deny this.

However, how cutthroat will Rackham be? This is a dangerously loaded quote that can be misconstrued in it's nuances.

There is:
1) making money while keeping your veteran customer base (mostly) happy, while making the entry barrier for new customers high.
2) making money while alienating your veteran customer base in lieu of attracting new customers.
3) making money while miraculously attracting new customers and keeping your veteran customer base (mostly) happy.

Which is it?

I'd love for 3 to happen, but I would settle for 1. 2 is what is causing me to look at other companies besides GW, and would cause me to stop spending my money with RE, as well.

Cairnius wrote:The new management of the company, embodied by Nathalie Lamri, is completely realistic about the profitability goals of Rackham-E, but also about the value of its two main universes: AT-43 and Aarklash.

See. When GW was run by gamers, White Dwarf was worth reading and there were passionate ideas that were realized as Specialist Games. Jean Bey's vision is what brought me to RE in the first place, same with Rick Priestly's for 40K. Is Nathalie Lamri a designer, too? Or is she another Tom Kirby?

Cairnius wrote:If the customers are there, there’s no reason for it to fail!

Nevermind the customers. The products aren't there. I can't even find the Damocles Reversible Tiles from a U.S. retailer! And let's not go into the UNA Steel Troopers Attachment Boxes...

Cairnius wrote:Let me insist on one point: all the actors of Rackham-E are aware of the value of the historical universes of the company. In the worst case scenario, the Confrontation game could disappear (note the conditional mood) in its current form, but not Aarklash. And the same thing goes with AT-43.

I have no idea what this means.

I have no idea what Aarklash is. All I want to know is if AT-43 will continue to receive the full support of RE.

Cairnius wrote:As I mentioned earlier, we’ve also been wring for several months on new universes, with new games for all kinds of audiences. This new direction began with the change of name and of logo of the company.

Wait. Before RE starts writing new universes, could I please get my Reversible Gaming Tiles and ST Attachment Boxes? I'd like you to fully support your existing products before you expand and diversify and head in a new direction, please. And I'm still wondering what happened to my local Sentinel...

Cairnius wrote:If all goes as we hope and if our work bears fruit, Rackham-E will be less dependent on the market changes. It’ll be more diversified, and therefore stronger and better able to please everyone: bosses, employees, stores and gamers.

Again, I'd love to see the vision of their designers, especially what they have up their sleeves. But I'd still like them to make sure I can buy their current products before they start another project.

I'm cautious, because what I've read seems like a lot of hand waving. Okay, Jean Bey's gone, and we got this Nathalie person. But he doesn't explain why we should be happy with her other than the fact that she's enthusiastic. And then, he goes on to talk about how they are going to maintain their universes, but doesn't state if they will continue to support their games. And finally, he describes how they are diversifying their products...but the problem is that I can't even buy the current products they have! Hello, more Bunkers, please.

That's my problem with his letter.

pombe wrote:

Cairnius wrote:“No, the objective of Rackham is to make money”.

I am sure that nobody will deny this.

However, how cutthroat will Rackham be? This is a dangerously loaded quote that can be misconstrued in it's nuances.

There is:
1) making money while keeping your veteran customer base (mostly) happy, while making the entry barrier for new customers high.
2) making money while alienating your veteran customer base in lieu of attracting new customers.
3) making money while miraculously attracting new customers and keeping your veteran customer base (mostly) happy.

Which is it?

Nearly all companies exist to make money, the odd few that dont are rarely true examples of companies. There is nothing wrong in itself in wanting profit, but there are different ways of going about it. I am suprised Cairnius was foolish enough to have his original opinion at all, that Rackham existed for artistic purposes, but to some extent this can be forgiven as while companies exist for profit some means of making a living are more enjoyable than others.

Whether motivated purely by profit or by profit and art it behooves Rackham to get their work right. It doesn't integrally cost anything to get the rules right, it can cost to get them wrong. Rackham needs to learn this lesson, though not as much as GW needs to. Release schedules are more tricky because there is a material cost involved, and medium term planning is required; in this Rackham needs to learn from GW and/or Privateer who by and large get it right.
Finally pricing needs to be adressed, while the cashflow is not anything like as idiotic as that of GW, Rackham have a lot to learn. At-43 is selling in the US because it is reasonably priced, its not selling in Europe to the same degree because it is not reasonably priced. 30 euro for a boxset is too much, and is not tempting enough players away from spase mahrines. This and the head inthe sand attitude to rules and balance errors are the two sticking points that prevent Rackham from rocketing. Both are easily and cheaply solvable, but may go against entrenched thinking - a force more danagerous than any fiscal threat.

Orlanth wrote:There is nothing wrong in itself in wanting profit, but there are different ways of going about it. I am suprised Cairnius was foolish enough to have his original opinion at all, that Rackham existed for artistic purposes, but to some extent this can be forgiven as while companies exist for profit some means of making a living are more enjoyable than others.

Very much agreed.

While making a profit is the goal of most companies, one can do it without selling one's soul, so to speak.

Orlanth wrote:It doesn't integrally cost anything to get the rules right, it can cost to get them wrong. Rackham needs to learn this lesson, though not as much as GW needs to.

This needs to be planned carefully, as you need to set a rules system that can be easily bought into by the uninitiated, while getting the veterans to continue to support your product on a heavy basis (as opposed to simply picking up a unit or two whenever an army is updated).

Magic the Gathering gets around this with set retirement, which results in a constant level playing for beginners to join in while getting veterans to continuously buy product. However, fans of miniature wargames will not stand for set retirement. We've seen what happens to Wizkids when all the fans buy in, but then stop once they have everything they need. There is only a set pool of customers that would be interested in this product, and once they've bought in, you have to somehow keep them buying to support the system. And the Battletech products, while lovingly crafted, written, and balanced, are supported primarily by a small hardcore following, since the rules are so well-balanced that they really need no updating...(ie, no new editions, no new codices, no new etc etc.) the only thing left for Catalyst to do is to move the time line along since the game system itself is so well put together.

I have no easy solution here. How does one design a balanced and well-greased rules system:
1) without resulting in an arms race between the various game factions (codex creep) as you release new editions of the game
2) without resulting in an arms race between the customers based on who can spend the most to be more competitive
3) that is easy and affordable to buy into and be immediately competitive
4) that is expandable for those who enjoy the product
5) that is somehow able to continue to generate a steady stream of purchases from those who already have everything
6) that has no set retirement
?

Orlanth wrote:Release schedules are more tricky because there is a material cost involved, and medium term planning is required; in this Rackham needs to learn from GW and/or Privateer who by and large get it right.

This is obviously my main current gripe. I can't support what I cannot buy.

Orlanth wrote:Finally pricing needs to be adressed, while the cashflow is not anything like as idiotic as that of GW, Rackham have a lot to learn. At-43 is selling in the US because it is reasonably priced, its not selling in Europe to the same degree because it is not reasonably priced. 30 euro for a boxset is too much, and is not tempting enough players away from spase mahrines.

The internet has actually made this problem difficult, I think. Depending on the strength of various currencies, customers may actually find it more affordable to buy from other countries online. This can be disastrous to the local FLGS community. To be honest, I am still curious as to how GW survives in Australia. Seriously. I once stopped in the Games Workshop store on Queen Street in Brisbane. I thought maybe I'd buy something GW related as a souvenir of my travels. I saw the prices and walked out before the Red Shirt could even ask me a question. I think it will be very hard to compete in the local market and the internet market at the same time depending on where the FLGS is. Maybe there's something I don't see?