Comments on: Getting Started with AT–43 part 2

By: Proclivity

Proclivity — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:10:18 +0000

In reading the article, and something that GW does do well, is present a visual representation…they have the force chart, and in that they connect each picture to that…and in all honesty, what got me into GW was the visuals of GW along with the articles (which gave me the nerdism I love in the history…)

so that was what I desperately wanted in reading the articles…pictures of what a centcom force looks like, and the boxes I would have to buy to have this force…and honestly, the history of each army could be presented better…

these two articles really made me lost interest, and I think, with my exposure to different games, I’m able to pick up the general format, and that I didn’t really get this feeling at all…perhaps they’ll have strategy later…

By: oldsalt

oldsalt — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:47:50 +0000

shwtd
I think, mathieu and evernevermore beat me to it.
Yes the articles content is for noobs but isn’t a very exciting read even for them.
Worse it contains a number of unexplained terms and ideas. (which could have been explained)
IMHO articles like this should aspire to be interesting for all levels of players and game familarity as it’s primary purpose is generating interest in the game.
Likewise it should attempt to be compelling as a narrative, even if only as a journalistic one.

I like AT-43… but I think FFG needs to do better with this sort of support.

By: evernevermore (John)

evernevermore (John) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:14:53 +0000

Actually shtd White Dwarf is exactly what got me hooked on mins - a buddy at college had an ultramarine and tyranid army built for 2nd and some white dwarfs. Between the two and some of the rulebooks for 2nd I borrowed I was swallowed up in the universe

By: mathieu

mathieu — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:30:55 +0000

I sincerely hope this is not intended for very new customers. I fail to see any explanation of all the acronyms used in that article (AFV? R.P.? A.P.? L.P.? and that’s only going through the first half of the page…). That makes it completely cryptic to anybody who is not at least a little familiar with the rulebook. Which includes me, I can honestly say I did not understand most of the explanation for the choice of particular models, as these explanations rely on these meaningless acronyms.

By: shwtd

shwtd — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:03:32 +0000

I have to disagree with you here.
As dumb as it can appear, this sort of article is not made for us, or even our little brother who always have seen us playing.
It’s made for the mass of non gamers, who are here, on the FFG website because they used to check for updates on their favorite boardgame (who said Cthulhu ??? ;-))
It is made for the total newbies who don’t even get what an army list is.

GW stuff, as sexy as it appears is not made for non gamers. It is made for guys used to hear about it, even remotely.
WD is not for the newby. You don’t discover GW stuff by buying your first WD in your favorite book shop. It’s the opposite. As you know about the hobby and get interested by it, you’ll buy your 64 pages of happiness and advertisement each month.

GW stuff is always directed to the hardcore fanboy.
FFG stuff is mainly pointed to the softcore customer who just discovered the product. Hence the fact that the rules of their games are always online.

Now, for the rest of us, at least for me, it certainly is dumb and boring to read. But I’m not the main target here.

By: Zac

Zac — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:26:21 +0000

As annoying as the content in WD is now at least GW have mastered the art of writing intro articles for new gamers.

By: oldsalt

oldsalt — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:14:58 +0000

Pretty bad,
gives detail where none is needed and skips the interesting stuff.
I have to say even the GW “you should buy this for your army” articles are better.
–
Really FFG writers should look to the PP NQ articles on tactics and army building…
i.e.
1. Start with explaining the concept of the army your making (answer why this army, theme, and selection)
2. Explain basic battle plan. (rush right at them… hold back and shoot etc..)
3. Compulsory units and the plan with them.
4. Supporting units, how to use them and and plan with them in army. (illustrations help)
5. Wrap up with more detailed version of 2. “I’ll hold the flanks with my…” and with Photo of full army.

By: evernevermore (John)

evernevermore (John) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:18:44 +0000

As I have never played AT-43 I am less then impressed with these articles, even GW does better intro ones. Not enough explaination or details. He’s just sitting there saying oh I take these guys with this attachment… I can get that from an armylist just as easily

By: scottywan82

scottywan82 — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:13:07 +0000

While I almost appreciate their attempt to have Getting Started article, the fact that he makes units without addressing the issues with attachment boxes is a bit insulting. Carl doesn’t bother to point out the FLOOD of extra figues you would have in order to have two Wing Trooper Units with two medics each, or two Star Trooper Squads with Two medics each.

It’s something they really need to address, and this really fails to do so. I mean, their target audience is 8-12 like GW, it’s adults. So why not spell it out?