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.

-- 
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade
and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are
hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of
our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are
willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we
intend to win, and the others, too.

http://www.cs.umb.edu/jfklibrary/j091262.htm