I agree with you both! AT was great fun but I remember looking longingly at the box art and the pics which showed some miniature Space Marines and thinking "wouldn't this game be great if they added vehicles and troops". The idea of being able to field massive armies always appealed to me a lot more than the wee diddy skirmishes of WH40K. The very idea of it really appealed to the evil dictator in me.
ForgottenLore wrote:
I'm kinda the opposite. I don't much like titans and would rather see them taken down a peg or two.
It's fair enough if you don't like Titans, the game will work just as well without them being used. So far as seeing them being brought down a peg or two, how often do you see Titans survive battles? Many of us feel that the high mortality rate among the Titan ranks reflects the fact that they are underpowered rather than overpowered.
I fully respect where you are coming from as there are some units in Epic that I couldn't care less about, but I'd politely ask that you reflect on the cost of buying Titans for an army. As things stood, Praetorians were much better than Titans for the points, so the way I see it, Primarch and Dwarf Supreme's respective (and very fine) projects have been about making Titans worth the high cost.
ForgottenLore wrote:
On the other hand, other than the fact that titans are giant walkers and praetorians are giant vehicles I'm not all that clear what the real difference is between the two. It seems to be just a semantic difference to make "titans" seem special.
For many of us they are the original and best icons of the game, and their inclusion is something that (once) completely seperated Epic from its Wendy-scale counterpart. Taking sentiment out of it, they really are just another unit you take to get the job done - but I'd reiterate the point that while we have referred to making Titans seem special again, they were underpowered for their value.
Anyway, that's just my opinion on the matter!
