|
AT-43 Frostbite Campaign - Face-2-Face Meeting?
| |
| Balrog | Date: Thursday, 03-Nov-2011, 12:05:57 | Message # 1 |
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
|
Hi Guys ... As there is no timetable for face-2-face meetings in the AT-43 Frostbite Campaign to discuss things, I'd like to make the recommendation that we have one during the upcoming Sundays before any other battles are played in the campaign to cover a few items which have cropped up which need decisions and clarification on. Mainly the inHouse Rules need to be finalised, the approval of new abilities introduced to the game and any other items players might want to get off their chests.
As always, leave your comments below for items we can discuss on the day and any ideas players might have to improve the game. I would assume that a group voting system (majority wins) will be in place for all points brought up? ... Walts
AT-43 Meeting: Proposed Agenda ... Link
|
|
Message edited by Balrog - Friday, 11-Nov-2011, 01:50:04
|
|
| |
| |
| zellak | Date: Thursday, 10-Nov-2011, 18:33:26 | Message # 21 |
Generalissimo
Group: Member
Messages: 1596
Reputation:
65
Status: Offline
|
|
In AT-43 terminology a fighter is a soldier or an AFV.
|
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. "
|
|
| |
| |
| Balrog | Date: Thursday, 10-Nov-2011, 18:40:09 | Message # 22 |
|
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
|
Quote (zellak) Quote (Balrog) ... "other than that, the forums are open as usual"
Yes, but not to discuss rules, that was decided at the club.
OBVIOUSLY, I wasn't at that meeting, otherwise I would have trashed such a stupid idea!
Have u guys even read what I wrote in this thread???? Go and have a read at what "forum" means ... an OPEN platform for everyone to discuss what they want, BUT, as far as I understand things NOW, all rules will be decided in FACE-2-FACE meetings.
The forums are a place to discuss what anyone wants till their red in the face, but decisions are to be done tableside?!?! ... or have I missed any other meetings????
The forums are not up to us to decide what goes on in them, they belong to the club, not the AT-43 players!  Walts
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
| zellak | Date: Thursday, 10-Nov-2011, 20:18:28 | Message # 23 |
|
Generalissimo
Group: Member
Messages: 1596
Reputation:
65
Status: Offline
|
Quote (Balrog) OBVIOUSLY, I wasn't at that meeting, otherwise I would have trashed such a stupid idea!
Actually you were.
Along with me (Therian/ONI), Che ( RB)and Pavlov (Karman).
Only the UNA were not represented....but GwaG later did agree online (see page 1) that all rules should be discussed face to face.
Quote (Balrog) The forums are not up to us to decide what goes on in them, they belong to the club, not the AT-43 players! Walts
This is the AT-43 Forum.
The AT-43 players have decided that arguing rules on the forum is counter to what they would like to see on their forum.
Perhaps this should have gone to a vote ?
Add it to the Agenda !
BTW....i would think one vote per side is the way to go ?
|
|
Message edited by zellak - Thursday, 10-Nov-2011, 21:20:40
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. "
|
|
| |
| |
| Balrog | Date: Thursday, 10-Nov-2011, 22:22:21 | Message # 24 |
|
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
|
Soz z ... seems my memory of the said meeting is completely different to yours? I do remember we agreed that face-2-face meetings would NOW decide all new rules, new abilities, clarification of rules, etc, but that was it. I guess I must have had my deaf ear on to your discussions on the forums being defunk! OR did u guys chat about the forum postings when I was in the loo! ... u guys!!!
If players don't want to DISCUSS items on the forums, that's their loss and their opinion. Like I've said before, I don't intend to spend every Sunday going over AT-43 issues, be it 5 minutes or 5 hours, so DISCUSSING openly in the forums gets the ball rolling with any issues which crop up and helps ALL players prepare, with a quick solution and vote when sitting down. If they don't want to give their opinion until the next face-2-face that's fine, or even bring up an issue not listed on the forums, that's also fine, but taking away the right for others to DISCUSS AT-43 issues online is pants!
Talk about taking away free speech! ... let's put that on the agenda ... NOT!!!
We need things written down and published on the club website for all the players to see what's been said face-to-face, and too be honest, a small group of us isn't what I consider gospel. Meetings should involve ALL participating AT-43 members, ether at the table or by proxy so we know everyone's had a say on the day, one way or the other. We all know there's a meeting this Sunday, and if players don't attend or assign a proxy, then it's their loss. We're never going to get a situation where everyone will be at the club, so how are they to know what's on the agenda for the day if not to have it posted and DISCUSSED on the forums?
AND the fact that u've started DISCUSSING "fighters" & crossing crevasses, what's that all about??? You say one thing then do exactly the opposite? I'm well confused.com!!! ... By the way, I agree with z on AFV's being able to jump over crevasse, but I'm not sure if they need the "Rocket Jump" ability to do so ... I'll get back to u on that!  
The forums are open to DISCUSS everything that players who want to participate can. Some may call this "talking", "arguing", "debating", "counter productive", "pointless" or whatever, but as I've said previously, I'm not the sharpest tack in the box, so I know I would drag face-2-face meetings down to a slumber to make sure I gave an informed vote on the day by reading through all the rulebooks, FAQ's and PDF's I have on my laptop. I can just see everyone loving me plodding through the rulebooks and enjoy watching me taking half an hour just to say "Yes" or "No" to a simple issue I have no idea on!
As too one side gets one vote, I would rather see each player get a vote. I'm sure we all have our own opinions on everything, so I would hope players would give an honest vote based on all the facts and not try and manipulate their teammates. As an example to this, I don't see the MedTec team as being a support unit, i.e. they need to roll for morale each round, which would be advantageous to our Red Blok side. I hope other players will take this as an example of gamesmanship and follow suit in all matters that crop up in the forums and during meetings.
I don't believe we should change rules where clarity can be achieved, i.e. try looking elsewhere for ur answers ... there's plenty of forums which talk openly about AT-43 issues and have far more experience than us! ... Walts (soz for my ranting's, I'm on my "free speech" box again!)
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
| zellak | Date: Thursday, 10-Nov-2011, 22:52:43 | Message # 25 |
|
Generalissimo
Group: Member
Messages: 1596
Reputation:
65
Status: Offline
|
Quote (Balrog) AND the fact that u've started DISCUSSING "fighters" & crossing crevasses, what's that all about??? You say one thing then do exactly the opposite? I'm well confused.com!!!
I discussed nothing.....i did not give my opinion either way...i highlighted a rule which is open to interpretation and could be added to the agenda.
I did not AFAIK break the rules.
Yet again, if you are still confused read page 14 Crevasse OP:FB.
Pavlov cut and paste it four posts above.
Quote (Balrog) Talk about taking away free speech! ... let's put that on the agenda ... NOT!!!
Do you have the final say on what can and cannot be on the Agenda of the meeting ?
Quote (Balrog) As an example to this, I don't see the MedTec team as being a support unit, i.e. they need to roll for morale each round, which would be advantageous to our Red Blok side. I hope other players will take this as an example of gamesmanship and follow suit in all matters that crop up in the forums and during meetings.
This is clearly an attempt to persuade people to your way of thinking and breaks the rules on no rules discussion. :(
|
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. "
|
|
| |
| |
| Balrog | Date: Friday, 11-Nov-2011, 00:19:02 | Message # 26 |
|
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
|
Just in case players never read the earlier definition of a forum ...
Definition - fo·rum (fôrm, fr-) n. pl. fo·rums also fo·ra (fôr, fr)
......
...... c. A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.
......
I don't have any say or control on what is up for discussion for the AT-43 Agenda on Sunday .... forum practices have nothing to do with the AT-43 players. I intend to keep posting comments, suggestions, rule query and questions based on the true definition of what forums are ... free speech!
If players want to respond, they can. If they don't want to participate, then they don't need too.
It's called free speech in case I haven't mentioned it before!
I haven't broken any rules as there are none in place regarding free speech practices within forums.
I can see that we're going to have to agree to disagree ... or do you disagree with this line as well?
Nice touch with your last comment ... Walts
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
| Balrog | Date: Friday, 11-Nov-2011, 00:25:18 | Message # 27 |
|
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
|
Quote (zellak) Yet again, if you are still confused read page 14 Crevasse OP:FB.
Based on the AT-43 rules, your right ... AFV's (including Striders) can cross crevasses as long as they don't end up in one, with the half movement restriction. Of course, players can discuss the issue further on Sunday ... ... even though the rule is clear! ... Walts
PS: The definition for a "fighter" can be found in the main AT-43 rulebook, P112 ...
Fighter: Any miniature or model, infantry and armored fighting vehicles alike.
|
|
Message edited by Balrog - Friday, 11-Nov-2011, 09:05:40
|
|
| |
| |
| Balrog | Date: Friday, 11-Nov-2011, 01:55:16 | Message # 28 |
|
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
|
Hi Guys ... Here's a proposed agenda for Sunday.
It's a first draft, so please let me know if there's anything you want added to it, or just bring up your points of interest on the day ... Walts
>>> AT-43 Meeting: Proposed Agenda ... Link
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
| zellak | Date: Saturday, 12-Nov-2011, 17:50:15 | Message # 29 |
|
Generalissimo
Group: Member
Messages: 1596
Reputation:
65
Status: Offline
|
There is a house rule in play that does not need to be voted on. But should be added to the list.
Fighters must have a LOS to an objective in order to capture/contest it.
(ie Units cannot capture a container on the other side of a wall.)
|
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. "
|
|
| |
| |
| Balrog | Date: Saturday, 12-Nov-2011, 18:31:06 | Message # 30 |
|
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
|
Quote (zellak) There is a house rule in play that does not need to be voted on. But should be added to the list.
Fighters must have a LOS to an objective in order to capture/contest it.
(ie Units cannot capture a container on the other side of a wall.)
Thanks for that, Z That's one rule I'm sure we'll all agree on! I've added a proposed idea that if it's not in the inHouse Rules (for everyone to see!) then the rule doesn't exist? See updated LINK
I'll have a trawl through the AT-43 forums after my din-dins to see if anything else has been mentioned in the past. Thanks again, Walts.
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
| pavlov | Date: Saturday, 12-Nov-2011, 20:31:49 | Message # 31 |
Major general
Group: Member
Messages: 289
Reputation:
27
Status: Offline
|
Hi
Please add "stacking of Newtons repair bonus" to the rules rammy.
Alan
|
There is f&*k all cool about 10+ civil engineers running around every battlefield
|
|
| |
| |
| gerrywithaG | Date: Saturday, 12-Nov-2011, 23:12:33 | Message # 32 |
Major general
Group: Confirmed
Messages: 251
Reputation:
19
Status: Offline
|
Here's a novel one I'd like added to the agenda.
Play the rules as they are written and not open them up to various interpretations
Cheers
Gerry
|
And I am watching YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
| |
| |
| Balrog | Date: Saturday, 12-Nov-2011, 23:29:13 | Message # 33 |
|
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
|
Quote (gerrywithaG) Here's a novel one I'd like added to the agenda.
Play the rules as they are written and not open them up to various interpretations
Cheers ... Gerry
Agree 100% ... what's the old saying ... "If it ain't broken, don't try and fix it!"
Of course, the problems that we all seem to have reading disorders, which impacts on our own interpretaions of the rules!  
Walts
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
| Balrog | Date: Sunday, 13-Nov-2011, 09:46:53 | Message # 34 |
|
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
|
Hi Guys ... as a final post for the morning (yeah, right!), I'm hoping we can scrape the majority of the inHouse Rules once we have some clarity on the rules to be played as they are ... I can but dream!
I'm all for inHouse Rules where there is no clarity, or if it enhances the enjoyment of the game, other than that there should be no need for them? ... Walts
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
