From: Michael Llaneza <maserati@e...>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:32:16 -0700
Subject: Re: Warhammer Ancients (was re: Got back from GENCON)
> Alan and Carmel Brain wrote: > As opposed to, say Warhammer(tm) Ancients, or Warhammer(tm) Napoleonic... > See http://www.warhammer-historical.com/books.htm Just to amplify the point, the founders of GW were big into historicals; Priestly had a couple sets of historical rules to his credit, the Perry twins did a line of Crimean War minis while also working on WH40K lead. This has just been GW getting back to its roots. And an extensive line of 10mm historicals is a Good Thing, even if you don't use their rules. Maybe it was all part of their master plan: spend a decade or so building the Warhammer brand with sets of kiddie rules and then use it to get everyone into historicals. And making assloads of money. Incidentally, I'm technically in the WH40K:Dawn of War beta (PC game). It's going to be a good RTS game in its own right, and they seem to be taking the best of the 40K setting and leaving out the cheese. The beta is so far multiplayer only, so I'm not participating much (I can't stand traditional RTS multiplayer - it's so just not war) but I expect I'll give them some money for the single-player campaigns eventually.