Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

AI isn't really a board game, it's a smaller scale wargame that needs a wider array of products.

Even then, the needed products for a starter isn't that large:

Two sets of aircraft
Dice
Rules and Rosters
Manoeuvre cards
Maybe a few counters for ground targets.

That's it.. They don't really need terrain as it's aerial combat, but they did some nice scenario pieces at one point for airfields and the like. They have all that. Retool in plastic, new design box and book, job done. Hardly any development work needed.

Also, if they did want go try to cash in on X-Wings success then void craft would be a no brainer expansion should the initial release do well. Fury interceptors, Starhawk Bombers, Doomfire Bombers, etc etc.

 zedmeister wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

AI isn't really a board game, it's a smaller scale wargame that needs a wider array of products.

Even then, the needed products for a starter isn't that large:

Two sets of aircraft
Dice
Rules and Rosters
Manoeuvre cards
Maybe a few counters for ground targets.

That's it.. They don't really need terrain as it's aerial combat, but they did some nice scenario pieces at one point for airfields and the like. They have all that. Retool in plastic, new design box and book, job done. Hardly any development work needed.

Also, if they did want go try to cash in on X-Wings success then void craft would be a no brainer expansion should the initial release do well. Fury interceptors, Starhawk Bombers, Doomfire Bombers, etc etc.

Yeah but what I was saying is if they want it to be a standalone product rather than a starter for a more involved game (which requires more investment) then it'll probably be more like Sulphur River rather than AI.

 Peregrine wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:
Other than the ease of production by piggybacking on existing design work, why would this be more popular the second time around, as opposed to BFG or Necromunda?

Maybe the re-launch will fail and it won't be significantly more popular, but the lack of earlier popularity is an argument in its favor. GW doesn't make much money by publishing BFG 2.0 and giving all the former BFG players a new rulebook to use with their vast stockpiles of old models. They make money by selling to new customers who are buying entire armies for the new game. AI has enough of a core of former players to do some of GW's marketing work for them, but there aren't that many models available and the ones that are sell for ridiculously high prices. The vast majority of potential AI players will be buying new stuff from GW.

What gave you the impression that I believe BFG will just be BFG 2.0 that allows the older players to use the same models? I firmly believe all of these new SG offerings will either be incompatible with old rules or they'll alter scales/game mechanics significantly. There will be no free rides to the good old games of yesteryear: pay up or GTFO!

I just questioned starting with a lukewarm offering rather than something people have been clamoring for to really make a huge splash. And yes, before the pedants chime-in with "b-but Betrayal at Calth was SG's first game and it made a huge splash". That was before we knew BaC was made by this new studio, so there was no hype to be generated by the connection of the two.

I assume the AI reboot will be an Xwing clone. Then they will be disappointed when they figure out 40k doesn't have the same brand draw as Star Wars
.
As for the post above mine, well, the few blood bowl models we have seen would argue otherwise - they seem to be compatible with older models. So far, at least.

Why are folk being so cynical about this new stuff? I mean, I can get normal GW Customer Apprehension Disorder, we all get that, but we're talking about, essentially, "Forge World but with plastic production access and permission to use specialist game assets". Given at least some of the folk in this new division were responsible for EF and BaC, two reasonably good games one of which was filled with starter box-value levels of plastic, why are folk assuming they're just going to shat out a series of overpriced shoddy board games and ignore them?

A lot of the guys in charge of this semi-autonomous group are some of the few left at GW who seem to share some of the "old guard" attitudes and tastes, people who were passionate about the SGs. I'm not saying everyone should be vacantly hyped, but as it stands there's no reason to assume that the new versions are going to be designed to actively feth over players with existing SG collections.

As for the practicalities of doing SGs as we knew them, it's not particularly difficult. If they want to go all-plastic, they can follow the current premium miniature boardgame trend; core box with everything you need to play a 2 or 4 player game, then preset "expansion" boxes. It won't allow as diverse a range as the older method did, but it hardly means their only choice is to put out a 1v1 box and then ignore it. Even if they do find their access to plastic production limited to producing the core sets; so? The new group can go the other way as well and tap into FW's resin production capacity. That won't result in as good a value proposition for the customer, but it would allow them to put out a self-contained core box and then add to it over time with new factions and new models for the ones in the core set.

Again; no hype necessary, some of you will know exactly how cynical I generally am about GW, but from what we've heard so far I'm willing to dial that back from active cynicism to cautious optimism. If it turns out what we've heard is wrong, or if they end up squandering the opportunity they have here, that'll be a shame, but as it stands assuming that will be the case isn't supportable IMO.

To me AI is more of a "safe bet" play because it's not that old and they were recently selling stuff for it. They know there's still a crowd for it. I'm not sure how big the crowd is, but it doesn't rely too heavily on the nostalgia factor.

It won't take too much to re-release a large portion of the stuff either.

I see the "bigger" stuff coming down the road at key moments in their sales cycles. Something like Bloodbowl or EPIC would best serve them around an even or year end.

If the SGS is smart about it, they'll rework the rules to be compatible with any future version of Epic. Alternatively, they incorporate some basic form of AI rules into Epic down the line.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Why are folk being so cynical about this new stuff? I mean, I can get normal GW Customer Apprehension Disorder, we all get that, but we're talking about, essentially, "Forge World but with plastic production access and permission to use specialist game assets". Given at least some of the folk in this new division were responsible for EF and BaC, two reasonably good games one of which was filled with starter box-value levels of plastic, why are folk assuming they're just going to shat out a series of overpriced shoddy board games and ignore them?

If I am cynical., it's because 20 years of experience with GW, with the last 10-12 especially, has made me this way. I watched the rise and fall of Specialist Games, and am worried about seeing hiatory repeat itself.

GW hasn't done a boardgame " starter" that they haven't immediately and completely lost interest in expanding since, what.....Battlefleet Gothic? I am still very doubtful the Heresy box set will ever see an additional release.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Why are folk being so cynical about this new stuff? I mean, I can get normal GW Customer Apprehension Disorder, we all get that, but we're talking about, essentially, "Forge World but with plastic production access and permission to use specialist game assets". Given at least some of the folk in this new division were responsible for EF and BaC, two reasonably good games one of which was filled with starter box-value levels of plastic, why are folk assuming they're just going to shat out a series of overpriced shoddy board games and ignore them?

If I am cynical., it's because 20 years of experience with GW, with the last 10-12 especially, has made me this way. I watched the rise and fall of Specialist Games, and am worried about seeing hiatory repeat itself.

GW hasn't done a boardgame " starter" that they haven't immediately and completely lost interest in expanding since, what.....Battlefleet Gothic? I am still very doubtful the Heresy box set will ever see an additional release.

Again though; has FW done anything to deserve such cynicism? Because the new SGS is ostensibly being granted similar levels of autonomy to FW, and is being run by the guy who previously ran FW. Now sure, GW-proper could decide in 6, 12, 18 months time to just dissolve the new team, but given the givens that requires the assumption that said team will fail to make money, which I very much doubt will be the case.

GW didn't kill the old SGs out of spite, they killed them because they weren't making enough money. Now, they weren't making enough money IMO because GW at the time were idiots who couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag, but it wasn't arbitrary. This new CEO seems willing to experiment, and it seems from the outside as if the FW guys are being rewarded for making a success of the Heresy with the chance to make a success of the SGs - providing they do(and I think they will), there won't be any reason to drop them again.

As for the Heresy plastics; isn't one of the folk that said we'd see those kits broken out on their own eventually Sad Panda, who's yet to be wrong?

 AegisGrimm wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Why are folk being so cynical about this new stuff? I mean, I can get normal GW Customer Apprehension Disorder, we all get that, but we're talking about, essentially, "Forge World but with plastic production access and permission to use specialist game assets". Given at least some of the folk in this new division were responsible for EF and BaC, two reasonably good games one of which was filled with starter box-value levels of plastic, why are folk assuming they're just going to shat out a series of overpriced shoddy board games and ignore them?

If I am cynical., it's because 20 years of experience with GW, with the last 10-12 especially, has made me this way. I watched the rise and fall of Specialist Games, and am worried about seeing hiatory repeat itself.

GW hasn't done a boardgame " starter" that they haven't immediately and completely lost interest in expanding since, what.....Battlefleet Gothic? I am still very doubtful the Heresy box set will ever see an additional release.

See, for me, also staring at 20 or so years with GW games, I could care less about the 'boxed game' or 'boardgame' or whatever rules GW pushes out for the SGs. I just want the models. The models.

I am fully capable of playing Gothic, Mordheim, Necromunda, LoTR, AI, etc using whatever rules I like - whether they're the original rules (whch still work, we still play all of the above using those rules), or new rules that GW pushes out. Frankly, the original SG rules are pretty solid all around and great for our club play. I'd like models so that I can expand my collection/options in these systems, or re-buy models I had, but sold or traded off.

So as far as GW and FW for SG, I want them to act like a model company, that's it.

I would not want them to turn it into x-wing - frankly, the game play in x-wing leaves me cold and bored. After all, x-wing, AI, etc are all based on historicals air combat games like Blue Max (from 20 years ago or so), so its not like they're anything new as far as mechanics go. And AI offers more flexibility with actual range bands, however simplified, than x-wing, which I like (not to mention troop drops, anti-air, etc.

It would be nice if Sadpanda could comment to this. I hope the rumor is true.

I'm a little sad that the first SG is probably the one I care least about - with the second (Titan legions) also being rumoured to be in the pipeline.

Sad for personal reasons of course - objectively I hope these do really well and blow away expectations and help the SGS flourish into something grand and exciting.

I think I'll definitely try Bloodbowl when it comes. It is not a game that has appealed to me before, but approaching it like I would a boardgame (so, super competitively and trying to play "the game" of it) and only needing 10 or so models makes me excited at the prospect!

Anyway, I wish AI success!

 Cruentus wrote:
See, for me, also staring at 20 or so years with GW games, I could care less about the 'boxed game' or 'boardgame' or whatever rules GW pushes out for the SGs. I just want the models. The models.

I am fully capable of playing Gothic, Mordheim, Necromunda, LoTR, AI, etc using whatever rules I like - whether they're the original rules (whch still work, we still play all of the above using those rules), or new rules that GW pushes out. Frankly, the original SG rules are pretty solid all around and great for our club play. I'd like models so that I can expand my collection/options in these systems, or re-buy models I had, but sold or traded off.

So as far as GW and FW for SG, I want them to act like a model company, that's it.

I would not want them to turn it into x-wing - frankly, the game play in x-wing leaves me cold and bored. After all, x-wing, AI, etc are all based on historicals air combat games like Blue Max (from 20 years ago or so), so its not like they're anything new as far as mechanics go. And AI offers more flexibility with actual range bands, however simplified, than x-wing, which I like (not to mention troop drops, anti-air, etc.

This is exactly my position with respect to SGs, too. Primarily, nice box sets of related models. I would take the crappiest, most horrible rules for games in the whole world to have a tiny bit better models, because I can play the models with whatever rules I want, or change them in whatever way suits me, but I can't really improve the models, if I don't like them.

The exception to this is when a board game introduces some fresh, new, idea or concept -- like the way Bloodbowl did. In this case, the theme/concept/ideas are more important to me than the actual mechanics of the rules. Of course, if I can have it all, why not!

 Talys wrote:

 Cruentus wrote:
See, for me, also staring at 20 or so years with GW games, I could care less about the 'boxed game' or 'boardgame' or whatever rules GW pushes out for the SGs. I just want the models. The models.

I am fully capable of playing Gothic, Mordheim, Necromunda, LoTR, AI, etc using whatever rules I like - whether they're the original rules (whch still work, we still play all of the above using those rules), or new rules that GW pushes out. Frankly, the original SG rules are pretty solid all around and great for our club play. I'd like models so that I can expand my collection/options in these systems, or re-buy models I had, but sold or traded off.

So as far as GW and FW for SG, I want them to act like a model company, that's it.

I would not want them to turn it into x-wing - frankly, the game play in x-wing leaves me cold and bored. After all, x-wing, AI, etc are all based on historicals air combat games like Blue Max (from 20 years ago or so), so its not like they're anything new as far as mechanics go. And AI offers more flexibility with actual range bands, however simplified, than x-wing, which I like (not to mention troop drops, anti-air, etc.

This is exactly my position with respect to SGs, too. Primarily, nice box sets of related models. I would take the crappiest, most horrible rules for games in the whole world to have a tiny bit better models, because I can play the models with whatever rules I want, or change them in whatever way suits me, but I can't really improve the models, if I don't like them.

The exception to this is when a board game introduces some fresh, new, idea or concept -- like the way Bloodbowl did. In this case, the theme/concept/ideas are more important to me than the actual mechanics of the rules. Of course, if I can have it all, why not!

I'm the opposite, well, I still want good models but without good rules the whole prospect of specialist games is rather pointless to me. It needs to have good enough rules for me to want to go to my mates and say "hey this looks like fun lets give it a go" and then get enough gameplay to justify spending the time on the models.

The exception might be BAC where everyone just needs to feed their chronic space mareenz addiction, but I'd say something like dread fleet was killed by its rules.

I think a game needs to have good rules to be successful enough for GW bothering to make more models for it.

AI had good rules, it suffered because most people didn't even know it existed and the rules were troublesome to get your hands on. I don't really think the AI rules need much tweaking, they were so simple yet allowed for a lot of depth in gameplay.

I still think the key failure of Dreadfleet (aside from not being Bloodbowl as everyone was expecting) was that it didn't have any where to go. The models had no use outside of the game and there was no prospect of any expansions/add-ons, which meant it was just a very expensive, self assembly board game.

Whether this is actually AI or a new game inspired by AI/X-wing, this is the lesson the new specialist games division needs to learn. Make it a bit open ended, with room for new forces, models etc. Make it in a scale that can tie into other products (e.g. 6mm for Epic) and, it the information embargo has truly been lifted, let us know that you're doing that because there will be more to come!

They could have expanded Dreadfleet more if it was popular to start with.

AI doesn't really have any more room for expansion other than being the same scale as Epic, but for an Epic game you usually want even less aircraft than you want in AI itself. Unless they want to turn Epic in to a flyer heavy game, which I'm not really sure would be of benefit to it.

When the Rumor is really true, soon we will see more Informations appear.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Hopefully they make the Thunderbolt smaller, as it was drastically out of scale.

I don't believe it was, the Thunderbolt is pretty big. The FW Thunderbolt has the same wingspan as a Valkyrie, but is significantly bulkier. FW tend to make their models more realistically scaled, so I'd trust FW's scaling more than the tiny metal Thunderbolts that the main GW made for Epic.

Oh it was, as can easily be proved by using a ruler, a calculator and the "real" dimensions published in Forge World's own books. The Thunderbolt is bigger, but even taking that into account, the scale is still off.

to whoever mentioned Bommerz over da Sulphur River. I've still got that (albeit missing the Ork planes :( ), and it would make quite a fun wee game, or even an expansion for an IA boxed game; simply put it in WD like they did with the rules expansions for Execution Force and Betrayal at Calth, or those wee card-based games involving Imperial Knights or Smaug. Or combine the two; make the Sulphur River campaign (or the larger war that it was part of) the focus of the IA boxed game, and base the scenarios around it.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Hopefully they make the Thunderbolt smaller, as it was drastically out of scale.

I don't believe it was, the Thunderbolt is pretty big. The FW Thunderbolt has the same wingspan as a Valkyrie, but is significantly bulkier. FW tend to make their models more realistically scaled, so I'd trust FW's scaling more than the tiny metal Thunderbolts that the main GW made for Epic.

Oh it was, as can easily be proved by using a ruler, a calculator and the "real" dimensions published in Forge World's own books. The Thunderbolt is bigger, but even taking that into account, the scale is still off.

I just measured one of my AI Thunderbolts, it's 56mm wingspan (including the little nodules on the wing tips). My AI book says a "real" Thunderbolt is 16.06m. 6mm scale is 1/285, so the 6mm scale Thunderbolt should be 16.06*1000/285 = 56.35mm. So FW's AI model for the Thunderbolt is correct to the millimetre.

I've sunken to a new low, rivet counting on an imaginary aircraft

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
They could have expanded Dreadfleet more if it was popular to start with.

Dreadfeelt was a game written from the start to be played with a limited number of capital ships.

IA on the other hand has access a large variety of units that can be purchased in "squads" and SGS can expand the existing roster of fliers for each faction effectively without limits. The Tau alone offer more chance to sell product that the whole Dreadfeelt box did.

As for AI interlocking with Epic, all you need is maybe 30% of your AI collection to be functional in Epic for it to be worth the effort on SGS's part.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I'd really like them to combine the two,

swarms of flyers attacking 'king kong' style titans and each other would be cool

A 40K version of Ogre. That would be awesome.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
They could have expanded Dreadfleet more if it was popular to start with.

Dreadfeelt was a game written from the start to be played with a limited number of capital ships.

IA on the other hand has access a large variety of units that can be purchased in "squads" and SGS can expand the existing roster of fliers for each faction effectively without limits. The Tau alone offer more chance to sell product that the whole Dreadfeelt box did.

I don't know what written limitations DF had but I don't imagine they'd be harder to expand than AI.

AI had a large range of aircraft simply because someone at FW decided to do it. It's not really a practical game to play with more than a dozen or so aircraft (that would be a large game), it was just "unbound" in the sense they didn't place any limitations within the rules themselves, but because you record your moves before each turn and have things you need to keep track on it gets cumbersome with lots of aircraft. The actual roster sheets released by FW had only 8 slots on them, beyond that keeping track of things becomes a chore.

Okay, so you're talking about the scale of the game rules. I'm talking about the scale of potential sales. There's simply much more stuff to make and sell to players in AI compared to Dreadfleet.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I'm the opposite, well, I still want good models but without good rules the whole prospect of specialist games is rather pointless to me. It needs to have good enough rules for me to want to go to my mates and say "hey this looks like fun lets give it a go" and then get enough gameplay to justify spending the time on the models.

The exception might be BAC where everyone just needs to feed their chronic space mareenz addiction, but I'd say something like dread fleet was killed by its rules.

I think a game needs to have good rules to be successful enough for GW bothering to make more models for it.

AI had good rules, it suffered because most people didn't even know it existed and the rules were troublesome to get your hands on. I don't really think the AI rules need much tweaking, they were so simple yet allowed for a lot of depth in gameplay.

Not to make this about the quality of the rules for SGs, but I think that consistently, they've been the best games that GW has put out, in terms of least amount of tweaking needed to play and enjoy the game. They also had the benefit of not having legacy rules issues to contend with (40k, WHFB).

What made games like AI inaccessible was the cost of the planes, and the fact that they were FW only purchases. If GW/FW can re-release as plastics, and in starter sets, that might make it more accessible, particularly if they end up in GW stores and LGSs.

Someone mentioned Titan Legions. I have the old rules, but would love to have access to more and cheaper Epic Scale titans.

I have high hopes for the SG re-releases/updates by the new team.

 Cruentus wrote:
What made games like AI inaccessible was the cost of the planes, and the fact that they were FW only purchases.

Honestly, the planes weren't that expensive, especially considering the fact that you didn't need to buy very many of them to make a complete army. The thing that made AI inaccessible was GW's complete refusal to promote it. It's very hard to justify investing anything in a new game when nobody else plays it and you have to do all the work of recruiting people to play with. And it's even harder when most of those people you might try to recruit have never even heard of the game. If GW fixes this mistake and markets the game properly it could be a much bigger success even if the prices don't change at all.

I loved AI, and have a ton of models.
They stopped supporting it.


I loved BFG, and have a TON of models (you don't want to know).
They stopped supporting it.

I love 40k, have TONS of models (you really don't want to know).

It feels like they have stopped supporting the game*.
* Until GW recognizes that there is an active living GAME for 40k, its hard to get a lot of enthusiasm for it, or any other product by this company.

While I can get very nostalgic for many older games (really enjoyed AI, even had tons of terrain for missions, etc.) I barely have enough time for the gaming I do now.

The idea of AI returning, and being supported is an attractive one - however, fool me once .....

I mean twice....

I mean....

Anyway, you get the idea.

His Master's Voice wrote:Okay, so you're talking about the scale of the game rules. I'm talking about the scale of potential sales. There's simply much more stuff to make and sell to players in AI compared to Dreadfleet.

I guess I'm not really following your logic as to why? Surely the potential to sell stuff just comes down to peoples love of either 6mm sci-fi aircraft or 1/1200 scale fantasy ships?

There's a huge range of potential ships you could have made for Dreadfleet if people were interested in buying them and someone was interested in making them.

Peregrine wrote:

 Cruentus wrote:
What made games like AI inaccessible was the cost of the planes, and the fact that they were FW only purchases.

Honestly, the planes weren't that expensive, especially considering the fact that you didn't need to buy very many of them to make a complete army. The thing that made AI inaccessible was GW's complete refusal to promote it. It's very hard to justify investing anything in a new game when nobody else plays it and you have to do all the work of recruiting people to play with. And it's even harder when most of those people you might try to recruit have never even heard of the game. If GW fixes this mistake and markets the game properly it could be a much bigger success even if the prices don't change at all.

They were expensive enough, I found the invoice from my first order of AI; 1 blister of Thunderbolts, 1 of Lightnings, 1 of Ork Fightas and 1 of Fighta Bommers and both rulebooks and it came to just under £100 before shipping and £112 after shipping. If you actually collected enough to play some of the scenarios it really added up, I think one scenario was 8 Thunderbolts on one side, so that's like £52 just of Thunderbolts. If you wanted a 150pt squadron for most factions you'd be spending well over £100.

You could have started off with less, but I think even if you'd only got 1 blister from 2 factions + the rules it would come to about ~£60 (I can't remember the cost of only 1 rulebook, I bought them as a bundle). That's not too high compared to other starter sets, but most starter sets come with more than 4 models

The reason AI didn't go far was a mixture of price, the fact you could only get it from FW, lack of promotion and I think not enough interest in 6mm aircraft.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
my first order of AI; 1 blister of Thunderbolts, 1 of Lightnings, 1 of Ork Fightas and 1 of Fighta Bommers and both rulebooks and it came to just under £100 before shipping and £112 after shipping.

That's actually pretty cheap. Remember that those planes are sold in packages of two, so even if you assume the books were free you're paying £12.5 (or $18ish) per plane. If the books were half of that order then it's down to about the same price per model as X-Wing ships. And, unlike most GW games, you don't need very many of them to play. $150 or so gets you both rulebooks and a "standard" game worth of planes for your chosen faction. And that price gets even lower if, as we'd expect, the rules are combined into a single book and you don't need to buy an expansion book to get a few updates.

Any word on Necromunda, Gorkamorka, or Space Hulk?

Inquiring minds want to hope for the best.....

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
my first order of AI; 1 blister of Thunderbolts, 1 of Lightnings, 1 of Ork Fightas and 1 of Fighta Bommers and both rulebooks and it came to just under £100 before shipping and £112 after shipping.

That's actually pretty cheap. Remember that those planes are sold in packages of two, so even if you assume the books were free you're paying £12.5 (or $18ish) per plane. If the books were half of that order then it's down to about the same price per model as X-Wing ships. And, unlike most GW games, you don't need very many of them to play. $150 or so gets you both rulebooks and a "standard" game worth of planes for your chosen faction. And that price gets even lower if, as we'd expect, the rules are combined into a single book and you don't need to buy an expansion book to get a few updates.

Well what I said was I think it's "expensive enough", by which I meant given the circumstances it was expensive enough for someone to want to buy it, put the stuff in their online shopping cart and then go "erm, maybe not".

It was mostly cheaper per ship than X-wing, but obviously weren't prepainted and you didn't get anything fancy in the blister other than the dial base and you typically use more aircraft in a game than X-wing (which is a good thing IMO, I prefer playing with more aircraft).

It's always a mixture of factors. The price becomes an issue because you're buying it blind, which is both a promotion issue and the fact you can only get it from FW (so no chance to flick through the rules before buying) and you probably don't know what to buy (do I just need 2 fighters, maybe 4 fighters, maybe 2 fighters and a bomber, maybe 4 fighters and a bomber, maybe 4 fighters and a bomber and a couple of transports?). Like 40k, there was no real "standard game" defined. The larger scenarios are sort of the 200-300pt range per side, which would probably cost you about £200+. If you weren't playing the scenarios I'd say 150pts is probably a good size, and you're looking at more like £100-150GBP, probably a bit more if it's something like Orks that have cheaper point aircraft but the same $$ price per aircraft. Eldar would have been the cheapest given they had the most expensive aircraft (points wise) but cost the same price per aircraft as any other faction.

Promotion is definitely a big problem though, not denying that. The AI book has a copyright date of 2006, I didn't even know the game existed until about 2011.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grot 6 wrote:
Any word on Necromunda, Gorkamorka, or Space Hulk?

Inquiring minds want to hope for the best.....

At this stage we aren't even all that confident on the AI stuff

I doubt we'll be getting another Space Hulk for a little while, they released that just last year.