Page 8 of 14

[ 199 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 14  Next

Eldar Scorpion Preview
Gandalf the Grey	Post subject: Eldar Scorpion Preview Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2003 5:23 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 4:23 pm Posts: 789 Location: Tampa, Florida	Okay, here's a rant: I mentioned a short time ago my gaming group can't continue to consistantly play like we used to do to real world issues, which is fine because I have been really social lately. Thank god Football season has started and Hockey is starting soon! Summer is such a drag. Anyway, with all these changes coming up, I have decided to pack up some of my games for awhile except for the ones I really like to fiddle with, like Man O' War. ?I have also been wondering about the future of gaming since I have been disappointed with EpicA and then I read what Jervis has posted in the Playtesting forum: My long term (and rather grandiose, it has to be said) plans for Epic are to create a *family* of games that use a common set of Epic miniatures. These three games are: Epic: Grand Tactical Combat in the 41st Millenia. Okay, good. ?At least we aren't giving up on one of my favorite scale of games. . . Adeptus Titanicus: Titan vs Titan battles.

Why??? Make AT and Epic compatible! ?Who has ever like playing exclusively with War Engines??? Am I really alone in this?


Air War: Squadron level aerial combat in the 41st millenia.

Okay, I could almost do dogfights between individual fighters, but between squadrons? I read up on Jervis's reasoning with squadrons vs aces, and I agree with him. ?But I look at Crimson Skies and if I wanted to play an arial combat game, that would probably be the game I'd play. ?It really doesn't appeal to me though. ?The only thing I like aircraft or are swooping in and dropping some bombs on an epic board.

I produced Epic first mainly due to necessity - there are lots of players with Epic armies out there, and I wanted to cater for them first of all. AT and AW will follow later as and when we get the time to make them.

I love aerial combat games, and have been playing them in one form or another for almost 30 years now, so the thought of being aable to do my own game on the subject has a lot of appeal, and that means I want to write it myself. I'm hoping to get some test rules up next year if I can, but don't hold your breath. Why squadron level? Well one of the things I've learny reading about aerial combat in real-life is that while Hollywood may fixate on aces and one-on-one combats, the reality was that it was the best trained *squadrons* of aircraft that usually won. The 'lone wold' ace was something that was really only seen early in WW1, and by 1917 all of the early lone wolves were either dead or had learned that they needed to act as a part of a team. The art of aerial combat at the tactical level then is not how well you can fly your plane, but how well you and the rest of your comrades can act as a team to defeat the enemy. So far no aerial combat game has really captured this, but it's what I'd like my game to reflect, if at all possible.

I have zero interest in this. ?Interesting reading, no doubt, but I can't see myself buying this.

With regard AT, I think that Gav's rules really only need an update and some more development work to get them to a finished state. As with AW I hope to get an updated version of the rules up in the vault some time next year. Once the rules are up we can start to test and develop them as we have the Epic rules and amy lists.

I wouldn't mind Gav's rules for ATII if there were rules for Infantry and Vehicles. ?I highly doubt you'd find a Shadowsword running around by itself unsupported anyway. ?I always thought ATII was interesting, but since it didn't fit into Epic40k, we didn't bother with it. ?If AT3's future was based on AT2, then I would have said what the hell was the point of doing EpicA.

Anyway, I guess the point is that I am more excited about 40k 4th edition then I am for anything going on for Epic now. ?Plus wth the mini release problems (which I know are not Jervis's fault) it just adds to it. ?I also checked out the pit fighter game and my god that looks lame. ?

I can't understand why GW doesn't try harder to give players what they want as opposed to trying to force them to like the games they think players should like because they do.

There are a lot of things to do in this world, and I guess I am remembering that. ?I get more excitement from playing Xbox than I do playing most GW games now. ?If GW, or Fanatic, brought back Man O' War as it was originally released, Warhammer Quest, etc etc it would really have my attention again. ?Instead, they have really have lost me again for awhile. ?I have definatley tapped out on what I want to spend on their products, and it isn't just because what is going on in my life, but because they are failing to capture my interest and imagination.

You know, I wonder what it would do if GW spent some time and thought about what made Man O' War such a FUN game to play, and maybe allowed that to trickle into their other games.