Well, I guess I'm one of those sad people who prefer metal models every time.
Despite what some folks keep telling me, I find the detail of metal models better (not least because of the mould verticals/undercuts that are simply not possible to do with plastic) and also find metal easier to file/clean. I've tried lots of techniques for cleaning plastic mouldlines, and whether I scrape or file or both, they always end up being more work for me than cleaning metal. I pin and putty *everything* too, so plastic or metal makes no difference to me in that regard.
I also like that I can strip metal models repeatedly with just about anything, safe in the knowledge that whetever they were painted with I can get it off with no harm to the metal.
The move to plastic models doesn't therefore thrill me at all, and whilst they will no doubt initially be cheaper, I wonder how long that will last (see: GW).
Page 5... Well it was always supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, and although I still wince when I read it, I always assumed that it was because I'm English.
Rules-wise, the game is very well designed. The core mechanics are clever and allow for a lot of tactics even without any unit special rules.
Where the WM/H rules have been getting silly is in giving the same ability different names, or giving the same-named ability different wording (and therefore different rules) to several units. There has also been a big increase (relatively) recently in the number of models that can perform out-of-turn activations, and the headache that this causes when two units with this ability enage each other is nightmareish. Add to that a number of units/abilities that allow dead models to be brought back or reused or to keep fighting after they have been killed, and it gets very complicated even without any other rule snags.
A lot of this led PP to write a 'timing' list, where different effects that trigger from the death of a model or the initiation of an attack are put in priority order. This is great in a way, but it has never been written into any rulebook or FAQ that I know of. It is also hard for new players getting onto the game to realise that there are 'stages' to a model's death which can (de)activate abilites or effects before the model is taken off the table.
The new edition of the rules comes after many player calls to bring all the rules togther and tidy up all the issues that simply have no resolution. Frankly, I agree, but I'm worried that all-too-often there is also a temptaion to 'fix' other things. PP missed the chance really with Remix to do more than fix one or two of the most blatently unbalanced units and tidy up rules that weren't very well explained, and I'm worried that the axe may swing too far the other way now.
Next, from their forums and mags especially, I do get the impression that tournament play is a big part of the game. Why this emphasis should be so I never really fully understood, but a lot of factors which can 'balance' forces (like scenarios or alternate victory conditions) are not in the main books and are released as tournament packs instead.
As a result, I think that a lot of focus is given to winning rather than playing games, and so spam-lists or 'net-lists see a lot of use despite the ecouragement from PP to play more balanced lists and not be embarrassed to field the models you want to. And this is a shame, because adespite some units/models being somewhat underwhelming (for example by overlapping another unit that has the same function but is more efficient/costs fewer points or by having a severe negative drawback), virtually everything in the game is quite usable. The main tournaments usually have timed turns as well, and that means that models with fiddly rules or which don't have a huge/obvious effect on their first charge/use etc tend to be sidelined due to lack of time to get all your models activated and finished.
This focus on tournament play is not only quite dominant, but also skews perceptions about what is 'good' since tournament play results don't usually match 'home' play results unless you use the same conditions (and I don't think most people do). Furthermore, I get the distinct impression that the tournament players are a very vocal group and receive a disproportionate amount of attention from PP.
I have quite a few forces for WM/H (Cygnar, Mercs, Skorne, Circle and Legion armies, plus small forces for the other WM factions), and own all the books. If I don't like 2nd Ed, I'll stick to 1st. However, I am anxious to see and try the new rules (which are due for public testing on 6th April 2009) before I make my mind up.
PP also have a reasonable track record for listening to their player base (
listening; they don't always
act, and that can be a good thing when you consider how whiney most PP forumites are) and for now I trust them to do a decent job of 2nd Ed.
Finally, I'd like to point out that I think PP's stated intention is to keep releasing books with support for multiple factions as they have been so far. It's just that there are now a lot of books and the current factions are all pretty much complete, so it makes sense to 'reset' the format and allow new players the chance to catch up without splashing out ~£100 on books unless they want to. Personally, I like the multi-faction book format, and find that it helps limit the effects of power-creep.
And there you have it: my two bronze coins.
I take it as a sign of maturity and evolution, the recognition of a company that has grown beyond policies and stances that it could hold when it was small and new. At least I hope that is what it is. I'm certainly not a devoted Privateer Press fan, but I honestly believe more companies is always a good sign. Honest reappraisal, if that is what this represents, is even better.
