Main
Registration
Login
Welcome Guest

RSS
 
[ New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS ]
Page 1 of 212»
Archive - read only
Forum » Archives » AT-43 - Club, News & Gossip » New campaign
New campaign
CheDate: Monday, 06-Feb-2012, 9:57 PM | Message # 1
Lieutenant general
Group: Member
Messages: 509
Reputation: 58
Status: Offline
On a lighter note, why can't we make up our own campaign and make sure we don't make the same mistakes? tongue Or am I naive idealist wink

Wargamers like to paint their privates!!
 
gerrywithaGDate: Monday, 06-Feb-2012, 10:11 PM | Message # 2
Major general
Group: Confirmed
Messages: 251
Reputation: 19
Status: Offline
That would be nice but I can just imagine the problems we'd have with maps being made up by someone, whereas using the FB campaign at least we have a basis to work from.

Certainly in the future I think it'd be a smashing idea though

Cheers

Gerry

And I am watching YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
 
BalrogDate: Monday, 06-Feb-2012, 11:19 PM | Message # 3
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Quote (Che)
naive idealist wink

... ahhh, Che ... always!

I did have half a mind to work on a campaign myself with all the current tools floating about, based loosely on an old 40k campaign (The Fall of Medusa V) with the FB campaign guidelines including a few new ones, which I was going to use to introduce my Tau army into the AT-43 arena, but everything's play-testing ... my Tau, new sectors with different objectives & dangers, army sizes, etc ... a recipe for disastor I think!

But, it is something I would ask players at the club to scrutinize to get sectors sorted before starting an actual campaign. It was a dream I had ... maybe summer, just maybe .... Walts
 
zellakDate: Tuesday, 07-Feb-2012, 4:29 PM | Message # 4
Generalissimo
Group: Member
Messages: 1526
Reputation: 65
Status: Offline
Quote (Balrog)
I did have half a mind to work on a campaign myself


Nice idea, i would like to try my hand at creating a scenario.

If we start a new campaign, it will give you long enough to write the Medusa V one for when the new one finishes.

And playtest the Tau.
Message edited by zellak - Tuesday, 07-Feb-2012, 4:32 PM

DEMON : " When next we meet, i shall tear you limb from limb...there will be no escape. "

Hero: " You bring balloon animals and i'll hire a clown..... we can make it a regular party. "
 
BalrogDate: Tuesday, 07-Feb-2012, 5:15 PM | Message # 5
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Yeah, that was my idea with the old FB Campaign as well.

I keep going back to doing work on the new house, so everything else goes on the back burner. I do dribs & drabs on the campaign and pencil in ideas, but never sit down and make a few weeks of finishing the one thing! But, the new FB will give me some extra time to get a new campaign sorted.

Any ideas from fellow clubbers are always appreciated! ... Walts
 
CheDate: Tuesday, 07-Feb-2012, 10:31 PM | Message # 6
Lieutenant general
Group: Member
Messages: 509
Reputation: 58
Status: Offline
Message deleted
Message edited by Che - Tuesday, 07-Feb-2012, 10:39 PM

Wargamers like to paint their privates!!
 
zellakDate: Wednesday, 08-Feb-2012, 8:38 PM | Message # 7
Generalissimo
Group: Member
Messages: 1526
Reputation: 65
Status: Offline
"Armies taken from the army books / authorised sources only
Umpire in place from the very start
Umpire determines how the scenario is interpreted
No Gentleman's agreements ingame( It affects the strategic side of the game too much)
ALL army lists checked prior to the campaign starting ."

Quote Da Umpire.

From the "finishing the campaign" thread. (hope you dont mind Gerry ?)

I would like to say , these all look a good place to start from.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It has emerged that people are not happy about troops that are in-house.

So it must be the Wyvern Golgoth that people are not keen on ?

And also the update from Rackham on the Arachn , after the Oni box set came out.

Fixing the Arachn ; imho they are a knee jerk reaction to two things.

1) the original rules had a base 8 miniatures, but people were complaining that there were 6 in the box, so you had to buy 2 boxes and then had 4 spare.

So the new rules had 6 to a standard unit and 12 for a full strength unit.

Also, Rackham added the group sacrifice ability, imho , to make them better than zombies as from a tech point of view Therians are the top dog. fluff.

And........... as a counter to the ONI HBT which is fearsome for its points cost.

My proposed fix ; make the group sacrifice ability a special Therian Routine , which can only be used when Arachn attack a Type 3 AFV. (1 LP)

This would specialise the Arachn, and so make them less devastating against normal AFV.

Still good, but only against a particular threat.

DEMON : " When next we meet, i shall tear you limb from limb...there will be no escape. "

Hero: " You bring balloon animals and i'll hire a clown..... we can make it a regular party. "
 
gerrywithaGDate: Wednesday, 08-Feb-2012, 9:02 PM | Message # 8
Major general
Group: Confirmed
Messages: 251
Reputation: 19
Status: Offline
Quote (zellak)
So it must be the Wyvern Golgoth that people are not keen on ?


I feel it may be the fact that it had the flier ability, as well as the fact that the Therians already have a transport capability albeit somewhat smaller and that it's maybe something that needed to be playtested more to find the right balance for it
Quote (zellak)
Fixing the Arachn ; imho they are a knee jerk reaction to two things.

1) the original rules had a base 8 miniatures, but people were complaining that there were 6 in the box, so you had to buy 2 boxes and then had 4 spare.

So the new rules had 6 to a standard unit and 12 for a full strength unit.

Also, Rackham added the group sacrifice ability, imho , to make them better than zombies as from a tech point of view Therians are the top dog. fluff.

And........... as a counter to the ONI HBT which is fearsome for its points cost.

My proposed fix ; make the group sacrifice ability a special Therian Routine , which can only be used when Arachn attack a Type 3 AFV. (1 LP)

This would specialise the Arachn, and so make them less devastating against normal AFV.

Still good, but only against a particular threat.


I would expect there to be a change in the unit costing in that case. I personally have no issue with it as I see that as an official release by Rackham and that's why I included it in my other posting .

Cheers

Gerry

And I am watching YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
 
BalrogDate: Thursday, 09-Feb-2012, 0:24 AM | Message # 9
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Hi Guys ... Some personal opinions on the two new tweaks for the Therians ...

The Wyvern ... The ethos of the Therians is their ability to communicate through the "EMI grid" and pass on routines to their many forces via the ground! The ability to have a flying AFV would have been a MAJOR "Opps!" if the designers missed this out, so for me, they've left it out deliberately because the Therians are land bugs!

The Storm Arachn ... I personally don't want to see the "Group Sacrifice" in any form. Having "spoken" with many players across the globe, they all have differing opinions, but some are more interesting than offers. One being that as the SA's where boxed as six the designers went back to the drawing board and created the new unit size along with the GS ability WITHOUT any play-testing based on the AT-43 VERSION 2 ruleset! They then realised their mistake after play-testing on the current version of the rules and went back to the draft PDF and removed the GS ability COMPLETELY. Now, as Rackham was going under, this initial PDF was leaked from the company with all it's faults, causing many headaches for opposing factions, which is why I believe it to be 100% cack!

If we want to allow six in a unit, fair enough, as lesser numbers in a unit make it weaker, but the current FB ruleset says 8 to 12 and that's what should be used as was play-tested by Rackham when the FB Campaign was conceived!

I've said it once, I've said it 100 times ... play the rules as they are. Cases where CLARITY are needed, then we can write some inHouse Rules, but I believe the more tweaks we add in the more problems we cause for ourselves in the long run as players look to blame any little thing for their defeats.

Walts
 
gerrywithaGDate: Thursday, 09-Feb-2012, 0:42 AM | Message # 10
Major general
Group: Confirmed
Messages: 251
Reputation: 19
Status: Offline
Quote (Balrog)
The Storm Arachn ... I personally don't want to see the "Group Sacrifice" in any form. Having "spoken" with many players across the globe, they all have differing opinions, but some are more interesting than offers. One being that as the SA's where boxed as six the designers went back to the drawing board and created the new unit size along with the GS ability WITHOUT any play-testing based on the AT-43 VERSION 2 ruleset! They then realised their mistake after play-testing on the current version of the rules and went back to the draft PDF and removed the GS ability COMPLETELY. Now, as Rackham was going under, this initial PDF was leaked from the company with all it's faults, causing many headaches for opposing factions, which is why I believe it to be 100% cack!


Quote (Balrog)
I've said it once, I've said it 100 times ... play the rules as they are. Cases where CLARITY are needed, then we can write some inHouse Rules, but I believe the more tweaks we add in the more problems we cause for ourselves in the long run as players look to blame any little thing for their defeats.


Walts, Unfortunately the first paragraph is contradicted by the second one. We either play the SA's as they are written on the pdf, or we don't use them at all. As you quite rightly said " Having spoken to other people about it" it's pretty much pay your money and throw your dice and see what happens even if we believe it to be " 100% cack" Rackham no longer exists and although there are no doubt a number of people on other forums who may have or may have not playtested or helped with playtesting for Rackham , their opinions are just that " Opinions" and we need to decide how we will interpret any quirks or bring clarity to a rule.

Cheers

Gerry

And I am watching YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
 
BalrogDate: Thursday, 09-Feb-2012, 1:09 AM | Message # 11
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Hi Gerry ... I do like to confuse people, don't I!? blink huh blink

In an ideal world, I would ALWAYS like to keep the rules as they are ... 100%. The SA are written into the physical FB Rulebook as 8 to 12 in a unit with only the relay ability. BUT, I can also appreciate that players will want to tweaks rules to improve on the general gameplay. Giving benefits to specific units is def a 100% No-No in my book. But, if players wanted to add in tweaks which add to the overall game, then I would be happy to agree on this. All things must learn and grow, as we have from our FB Campaign. Give us a couple of years on AT-43 and we'll have our own AT-47! wink

Soz for the confusion ... I'm sure I've confused u even more! wacko ... Walts
 
gerrywithaGDate: Thursday, 09-Feb-2012, 1:15 AM | Message # 12
Major general
Group: Confirmed
Messages: 251
Reputation: 19
Status: Offline
Quote (Balrog)
Soz for the confusion ... I'm sure I've confused u even more!


Nothing to apologise for. It was as clear as mud!!!! biggrin wink biggrin

I think we just need to sort out what we are classing as Official/ Authorised Sources. Once we've done that and everybody is singing off the same hymn sheet then it'll be fine.

Cheers

Gerry

And I am watching YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
 
BalrogDate: Thursday, 09-Feb-2012, 1:34 AM | Message # 13
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Quote (gerrywithaG)
I think we just need to sort out what we are classing as Official/ Authorised Sources. Once we've done that and everybody is singing off the same hymn sheet then it'll be fine. ... Cheers .... Gerry

Hi Gerry ... To be honest, I've had so many opinions come my way on even the basic's of AT-43 I don't know who to trust, and with Rackham being defunk, I don't believe we can ever really classify anything as official. As far as I'm concerned, it's ALL unoffical, but enjoyable to read!

Like I said, we're seasoned players in a lot of different wargames, we can decide what we want in our AT-43 campaigns. The errata's, FAQ's, etc, wherever they come from are there for guidance, from which we can pick and choose (and/or play-test!) what we want to use ... Walts
 
BalrogDate: Thursday, 09-Feb-2012, 8:37 AM | Message # 14
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
... of course it's not only the Therian tweaks that we should be addressing? If we could stick to the rules 100%, then The Karman "Curtain of Flame" ability makes no mention of any close combat or hand2hand defensive bonus, so shouldn't that idea be binned as well? .... Walts
 
pavlovDate: Thursday, 09-Feb-2012, 5:34 PM | Message # 15
Major general
Group: Member
Messages: 289
Reputation: 27
Status: Offline
Hi

The km was fixed on Sunday by the umpire and all present and intrested parties.

There is f&*k all cool about 10+ civil engineers running around every battlefield
 
BalrogDate: Thursday, 09-Feb-2012, 6:11 PM | Message # 16
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Quote (pavlov)
Hi

The km was fixed on Sunday by the umpire and all present and intrested parties.

@Pav - What was Da' Umpires decision? No-one's mentioned it ... Walts
 
zellakDate: Thursday, 09-Feb-2012, 6:21 PM | Message # 17
Generalissimo
Group: Member
Messages: 1526
Reputation: 65
Status: Offline
There is no template. cool

Units even partially hidden by the KM (and the KM of course) cannot be seen( by enemies in its front arc) when the KM uses CoF.

Da Umpire has ruled if you cannot see an enemy then you cannot attack him.

So no close assault on those hidden units if you are in the KM forward arc.

Its okay if you are in the rear arc.

Thats how i remember it. wacko

DEMON : " When next we meet, i shall tear you limb from limb...there will be no escape. "

Hero: " You bring balloon animals and i'll hire a clown..... we can make it a regular party. "
 
BalrogDate: Thursday, 09-Feb-2012, 6:51 PM | Message # 18
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
That sounds a little confusing???

The Rear guns fire the CoF, so a line is drawn from the enemy unit to pass through the REAR part of the model, indicating a blocked LoS. Here's my pretty picture showing how I saw things ...




So the REAR of the AFV cannot be engaged because there's no LoS ... that's OK, just needed clarifying! But, using my picture as a guide, I believe the front of the AFV is exposed to an assault should the ONi units wish to do so? Does that make sense?? ... Walts
 
zellakDate: Thursday, 09-Feb-2012, 7:25 PM | Message # 19
Generalissimo
Group: Member
Messages: 1526
Reputation: 65
Status: Offline
Yep , you are right.

Forgot that, the flamers are at the back, i got it the wrong way round.

The rear of the vehicle is the the front arc in this case, and the front of the vehicle, where the big gun is, is the rear arc. wacko
When the curtain of flames is fired. My Bad.

DEMON : " When next we meet, i shall tear you limb from limb...there will be no escape. "

Hero: " You bring balloon animals and i'll hire a clown..... we can make it a regular party. "
 
gerrywithaGDate: Thursday, 09-Feb-2012, 10:23 PM | Message # 20
Major general
Group: Confirmed
Messages: 251
Reputation: 19
Status: Offline
Quote (Balrog)
So the REAR of the AFV cannot be engaged because there's no LoS ... that's OK, just needed clarifying! But, using my picture as a guide, I believe the front of the AFV is exposed to an assault should the ONi units wish to do so? Does that make sense?? ... Walts


Apologies Gents. I forgot I Hadn't posted my decision.

Walts, The ONI units can't assault the KM as they have no line of sight to it because it is hidden. They would have to start their movement in the front arc of the KM to be able to assault it. Also the KM can move , shoot and then set up it's COF in whatever direction that it wants.

Hope that clarifies things

Da'Umpire

And I am watching YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Forum » Archives » AT-43 - Club, News & Gossip » New campaign
Page 1 of 212»
Search:

Copyright MyCorp © 2017