RE: [Epic] New Eldar Minis & WD

From: Miller, Chris <CMiller_at_...>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:53:11 -0600

> Anyway, along with the fate cards they have plenty of pics
>of the new Eldar & 'nid minis. The Tyranid ones are nice - of course
>the vast majority of them are the same as the old SM/TL minis with
>some variant arms/heads/whatnot added. The Eldar figs, on the other
>hand.... bleh.

-----> Go Man Go! At least it ain't just me anymore...
>
> I, for one, thought it was a shame that GW felt the need
>to radically redesign the Falcon & Wave Serpent, but on the other
>hand, the new models looked really good. However, the sculptors went
>WAY overboard with the whole 'winged' motif. Every single vehicle
>looks like the falcon, slightly modified, and that just doesn't work
>for some of them. Especially the Engines of Vaul. The old Tempest,
>Doom Weaver, and Prism Cannon models would have looked perfectly fine
>in the new Eldar line with the addition of a little detail. In fact,
>they would have looked better than their replacements. Oh well.
------> AmenAmenAmen - those superheavies look way too goofy, almost
improvised add-ons to an existing hull.
>
> BUT none of that compares with the supreme lack of imagination
>evident in the Eldar flyers. Why did they change the Nightwing? I
>was hardly in love with the old model, but at least it looked
>interesting and eldar-ish. More importantly, why did they make all
>3 flyers look almost exactly the same? (size differences aside) I
>was hoping for a lot more with the Pheonix and Vampire. Oh well again.
>Of all the old armies, the eldar probably had the best looking range
>of vehicles (the falcon was ugly, but that was it). Now half the range
>looks great and the other half just looks stupid.
----------> thought one of the big flyers (Vampire?) looked good but the
rest
were pretty plain. Aren't these supposed to be grown, not built?
Wouldn't
they be a little more rounded or curved, rather than the angular stuff
we're
seeing now?
>
> As for White Dwarf, is anyone actually buying this every month
>regardless of whether or not it has new rules pertaining to the games/
>armies you play? If so, why? I stopped when the ad count started to
>get ridiculously high and the majority of the articles turned into
>pure padding. This is the first WD I've bought in a while, and it's
>only gotten worse. For pete's sake, they used full 2-page spreads
>just for some of the article titles. Yeesh.

--------> I prettty much buy it every month still, though I'm not
subscribed.
I play a lot of armies in 40K, FB, and Epic. I'm not real happy with the
way it's going, though. Compared to the early to mid 100's when there
 was new/additional stuff every issue, it's slowed down a lot. This new,
heavy-graphic approach isn't all that thrilling, and mainly seems to
take
up more space. The card inserts were cool and handy early on, but now
it's degenerated into card buildings etc. which are of limited use
anyway.
I think part of the problem is that the main games aren't expanding the
way they used to, so it's mostly stuff about the newest game, i.e.
GorkaMorka which I have no interest in, and Necromunda for a while
before that. As the content shifts to games I don't play, I get less
interested in picking it up.

Chris Miller
Received on Fri Nov 14 1997 - 18:53:11 UTC