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.

Yes, there is a major redesign which starts with the army boxes.

Boxes have already become smaller over the last year, but not to that much.

They have no choice EU packaging laws are coming into affect, but they should never have boxed this way to begin with. Yes they are supposed to have a high shefl profile but retailers dont like stock that takes up excessive amounts of shelf space, and internet retailers dont like shipping costs as many have to compete by offering free shipping.
Also plastic windowed boxes with stiffening layers of thick cardboard etc, this all mounts up in costs.

Bottom line, the current style of packaging was a brainfart to begin with.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:Sorry, you are not that easily off the hook.

You're assuming I was ever on a "hook" to begin with!

Don't feel sad...I did what anyone who wants to write a story does. I went and got the information from every source I could. At least you're getting some P.R. from it all over the internet, and if my published review inspires a bunch of people to look at AT-43 for themselves you could wind up getting more players than you might have otherwise without the impetus for people to look.

It was a decidedly-mocking review of the Space Gorillas which got ME to look into AT-43 in the first place...

In terms of objective, I neither bashed nor lauded. I simply described things as they actually are. You will find no such information elsewhere because the only people talking about AT-43 online tend to be fans, and therefore are a thousand times more biased as you might like to think I am being.

And the people who actually bash don’t even attempt to say why, they just bash Rackham because it’s easy to do so…I’m certainly not in that category either, not by a long shot.

Orlanth wrote:Corporate loyalty is one thing, but from what I hear Sentinels are unpaid volunteers, to go from supporting to 'bad mouthing' a company in two days sounds a bit much; agreed - and it makes me wonder if there isnt a personal issue behind Cairnius' words.

A fair question, Orlanth.

Take this for what it is worth: no, there’s nothing personal here, any more than there is anything personal when I write a review for a film, or a book, or a video game. The fun is in the review.

Someone on Warseer asked if I was angry that I had spent $1,000 on AT-43 and was disappointed, I think is how he asked, but I’ll tell you what I told him: $1,000 may not be to me what it is to someone else. I’m a tabletop wargamer, used to spending obscene amounts of money on games like this as a matter of course. I made peace with the possible repercussions of these purchases (not being able to find anyone to play the game with, mostly) the day I made said purchases.

Sentinels are, in effect, enthusiastic players of AT-43, nothing more. Some of them produce content, some of them do demos at games, others never reported really doing anything. It's more a way for people who are really into the game to exchange ideas and keep track of what's going on to report the info to other AT-43 gamers.

I entirely immersed myself in AT-43 for a few months with EXTREME enthusiasm so I could learn as much as I possibly could at as rapid a pace as I could, so I was, effectively, a Sentinel when I asked to join, and I informed them as to my giving up the post the moment I decided I no longer fit the bill.

I just wish the moderators on the forum had conveyed that information to the Sentinels sooner so they understood what was going on out here.

If it sounds like an objective review is “bad mouthing,” so be it. I don’t think respectfully expressing an opinion of what you see around you, and what you’ve experienced, is “bad mouthing.” I would have omitted the props I did give AT-43, and will continue to do so where warranted, or pointed people in the direction of some of the gaming aids which they otherwise might never have found on their own and which could markedly improve their AT-43 experience, in my review if I just wanted to bad mouth the company.

If a fan thinks their game is solid, they have absolutely nothing to fear from someone expressing an opinion to the contrary. The AT-43 fans are probably well-advised not to overreact to one person’s opinion.


@ Martin:

Most anyone wanting to write a good article is a slick devil. *grin*

I honestly did try to be objective in my review. I’ve posted follow-ups which didn’t really belong in said review to say that I don’t hate AT-43, and may continue to play it – but those are inappropriate observations to make in an attempt to objectively provide information to an audience who otherwise have no access to that information.

I may have actually done you a favor, perhaps, by inspiring some impassioned debates on the subject and showing your potential customers that you supporters ARE out there. I personally think you all are way too quiet about your enthusiasm for the game. If you were on forums like this more often talking about the game, strategies, battle reports, etc., you could fill the P.R. gap which Rackham Enterainment continues to not address adequately IMHO.

In terms of changes to the game, IMHO the Army Boxes are a very important step, but the next step HAS to be the rules, Martin. Unless you have wireless internet access at your FLGS when you’re trying to learn AT-43, or else you have a seasoned veteran of the game with you to inform you as to recent rulings on the website, you’re either learning the game wrong, not playing it right, or just can’t figure things out at one point or another.

The AT-43 rules, like I said, are horrible in execution but NOT in theory. I don’t think you can wait until 2012 to clear up the rules, nor should you. If they’re only basic rules we’re talking about, new armies being released aren’t going to require changes to said basic rules as they’ll be bound by the same basic rules as all the armies which came before, and which will come after – especially if you have no intention of changing those rules before all the armies are released, right?

Don't feel sad...I did what anyone who wants to write a story does.

As a journalist (besides being a professional translator) I can tell you that there is a fine line between investigative and plain sensational journalism. You definitely crossed it with distributing false information about the financial situation of Rackham.

As I said in another thread - if you have evidence to suggest that Rackham was not in financial trouble not too long ago, and that they really don't need this Army Box initiative to be successful and that AT-43 as a game will be in fine shape if it does not achieve the desired result, then by all means provide said information. There is more than enough evidence to back my argument. Provide evidence to the contrary if you can, by all means. Rackham will thank you for it.

One could also point to the utter conflagration that was the Confrontation switchover to illustrate that Rackham seems to have a bad habit of not understanding the wargaming crowd. If you wish to deny that this took place, feel free...but again, there is plenty of evidence to back my statement.

If you cannot...probably best not to overreact to one person's opinion. General rule of thumb: the more you respond strongly to an argument which you consider false, the more you validate the argument. Else why would you bother responding if the argument was false rather than producing a counterpoint?

"I respect your opinion but strongly disagree, because [information]."

That's your best bet to respond to an opinion with which you strongly disagree. Lambasting the expression of said opinion at best says that you don't have anything to refute the argument, and at worst validates the potential validity of the argument that you're not refuting.