Models in cover is a very awkward rule, especially as if 4 are in cover and 4 are in the open, ALL get cover…hmmmmm

Moving over walls is very restrictive.

The use and combination of Drills, especially Take Cover is very powerful. Models get a save even if hit by the most powerful weapon, even though the weapon can “auto wound”.

Jump pack troops don’t get much of a movement bonus.

No points values on cards. I know the official Rackham arguement, I just don’t like it.

Don’t get me wrong, I am liking the game. Playing again tonight!

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

However, the six scenarios in the AT-43 Rulebook are your so-called “generics.”

To my mind generic scenarios do not have terrain specced out to the extent that the AT-43 scenarios do. Deployment, special rules and similar things are okay but when you start putting terrain diagrams together it becomes less generic to me.

That is just my issue though

I think that the core of the game is indeed the Leadership pool, the alternating activation sequence and the drills. These really do change the game from turn to turn and its an interesting illustration of how you can take some very simple mechanics and still make a game with a lot of strategic potential.

And the lack of units at the moment is indeed an issue. The game is definitely going to change once the Wing Troopers, Assault Golems and other units come out.

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.

The table size for a lot of scenarios appears to be 2′ x 4′. We’ve been playing games on 4′ x 4′ tables though. We’re going to try gaming on the 2′ x 4′ tables and use the drop zones and reserve deployment zones.

A 4′ x 4′ table really does mean that you need blocking terrain for the walkers so they actually survive for more than a turn

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.

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.

The rules are fairly simple and the main strategic choices in the game come from choosing your activation order and how you play and respond to the Drills that each unit can get. Drill allow you to place units on Overwatch, get cover, split fire etc. The cost Leadership Points to do and there are other uses for LPs in the game such as passing or moving your cards in their activation order.

The terrain rules are, to my mind, a bit of a mess and the game really needs some pre-game discussion about the effect of terrain on the board as the rulebook glosses over terrain effects.

The game really does need a lot of terrain and there needs to be blocking terrain large enough for walkers to scoot behind so they don’t get blown away too quickly. The game also doesn’t have a standard set of generic scenarios so deployment and reserves can sometimes be factors in the game where they might not be if these things were defined better. The game also doesn’t appear to have a standard table size and the suggested sizes in the scenarios are small for 2000pt games.

It appears that the Rackham folks play a much different style of game than 40K gamers might be used to so they built a game that uses a smaller table and delayed dployment where most gamers might be expecting something like 40K.

As long as you can either come up with house rules for terrain or agree with your opponent how terrain operates then you are fine. Its a fun game and that probably the most important factor.

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?

Dont get me wrong i’m glad you are having fun and all, but perhaps a couple more comments from both sides would have been useful…

I’ve no problem with pre-painted as long as mechanics are good. the main issue with AT-43 is that it marks the departure for a leading company in the industry to go a different direction, i hope they do well, and I hope games like hybrid get this treatment to make them more accesible and expansible.