Sounds like a fair argument. I am not opposed to prepainted minis, but I know for myself, when I pick up AT-43 I will be repainting the minis. This is not because I think they did a bad job, or that I am an awesome painter (I most certainly am not). I want to paint them for two reasons. One, I like to know that my force is personalized, not looking like everyone else with the same faction.

But most importantly because I think just opening the box and playing will feel too much like a board game or a collectible mini game. I am not opposed to either, and if others enjoy them thats wonderful. But for me, the modeling and painting required for most games adds to the maturity of them. I know my hobby is childish on some level, but I really feel like a kid when I play a simple collectible mini game. I wish I could enjoy them more. I do purchase many for their minis, which I repaint and re-base for my wargames.

Would you mind telling us how the rules play out? Not in terms of a review or a whole new editorial. But more like, what is it like to open a bunch of prepaints, set them up, and game? Is it a different feeling to be able to buy a new unit off the shelf, open it, and turn around and game with it that very moment?

I was looking for a more editorial view of the game, this is a little too vanilla for me…

I can’t be argumentative all the time :-)

I think that in this case I am really too much in the “pro” camp to be looking at the negative aspects of the game.

I also have a ton of SWM Vlone and Droid troops that I use in mass scale games as well.

I can’t be argumentative all the time :-)

That said, it is a bit of a “soft” commentary. There are negative comments that I do have but they are almost all related to how the game is being sold and not the game itself.

Zac,

In your comment above, you mentioned terrain rules, “generic” scenarios, and “delayed deployments.”

When you compare AT-43 with 40K, that’s exactly how you would describe AT-43. Obviously, 40K players need a frame of reference, so what better way than to compare its mechanics to 40K?

However, the six scenarios in the AT-43 Rulebook are your so-called “generics.” Like any other tabletop miniatures game, you can modify these scenarios to suit your gaming group. These scenarios play just fine for pick-up games or tournaments. What you don’t get is a scenario that allows you to set up your army like 40K or Warmachine and then kill each other.

As for deployment and terrain, these two differ dramatically from 40K, so much so players having lots of experience with that game will have a tough time getting their minds around the rules in AT-43. On the one hand, it’s just a different way to do things. On the other, with alternating activation, you’ve got to hit the ground running right from the get go. There’s no messing around with setup, especially if the scenario requires you to split your army up into assault and reinforcement elements.

Which units do I place in the assault element? Will they be able to hold an objective long enough to allow reinforcements to land? How do I prevent or delay my opponent from doing the same thing?

Each round, players roll to see who begins the round. It changes every round. This is another game mechanic that was strange for those I demoed the game to.

Leadership pool: this is a game mechanic seen in many historical wargames. Basically, your entire army probably can’t do everything you want it to do each round. As you lose units–or worse, officers–your leadership pool shrinks. Leadership points are required to perform Combat Drills, activate units that don’t have officers/NCOs, perform army-specific actions (Therian Routines, etc.).

Before the game, discuss the terrain with your opponent, any rules you’re not clear on, and make sure the scenario objectives are clear. Once the first Authority test occurs, you’re in it. It’s a game that appears simple (little rulebook, prepainted miniatures, etc.), but it’s got some good depth to it as well as balance.

With the release of close combat units you’re going to see another facet of the game hitherto misunderstood. Most observers feel AT-43 is all about terrain and shooting. I tell you what, play some games, use shooty and melee units, play some more. You’ll see.

I was highly skeptical about this game coming from Confrontation. I’m converted. That I don’t have to paint a thing is a plus, not the primary draw of the game. It’s the rules that got me hooked.

Heh, glad to see my comment sparked some of what I needed.

For me the rule differences with 40k that made me get into the game were the alternating activations, the vehicle rules, and the integrated “range penalties” in shooting (there actually isn’t a penalty per say, the range is just the difficulty level of the shot you are making). I think people probably have the gist of alternating activations (i.e. your whole army does not get to go at once, just unit by unit), but the vehicle rules have vehicles being treated much like infantry in terms of wounding them (i.e. they don’t have a separate armour mechanic like 40k). Once you do wound them, you roll a location and it gets damage (weapon, propulsion or frame). If you do more damage to a weapon or propulsion than it can take, it caries over to the frame. If frame is destroyed the vehicle is destroyed. Its so much less random than the 40k system, where I swear my Land Raider Crusader would go down to a glancing hit from a missile launcher on turn 1 every game, but my land speeders would live forever!

What made me love the game more when I played were the leadership aspects. How the commander is just that, someone who commands the troops. If he gets killed it hurts a lot because you just plain cannot get your troops to be as efficient - not just because you lost your best melee fighter who could cut through marine armour like it was butter.

One of our guys pointed out that while “pinning” and “outflanking” aren’t actual rules in the game, they are simulated by the basic mechanics. You get “pinned” when the enemy has one or more squads on overwatch with your unit in LOS. Basically if you move they can shoot at you. When you are on the move, you cannot get the maximum benefit of cover (because you have to wiat until the end of the activation to execute the “take cover” drill which gives you a huge save). So chances are you have to just stay put!

Out flanking can be done by getting past or close enough to the terrain element that is giving the unit cover. If you do that, they lose their cover and go down much quicker.

Zac mentioned some of the growing pains we are having, and I have a feeling that is because most of us played 40k for years. We are used to template or area terrain, and it seems that this is not what Rackham has intended. They wrote the terrain rules considering obstacles (linear or otherwise). Its not a bad thing, we just had some issues as to what we did with our large inventory of existing city terrain. (Rackham is also nice enough to supply you with a decent amount of terrain with different models, so you could readily play on your kitchen table with the Initiation set poster map and the terrain elements you will undoubtedly start to acquire).

Hope this helps some of you decide! Time to go paint my Warmachine while planning my next AT-43 army list!

-Tim

Very reasonable perspective. I liked Jeremy’s comment that the figures can always be repainted.