Page 2 of 2
Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:22 pm
by rbodleyscott
vingthorr wrote:yes, but I would think it would be such a hodge-podge of time periods
In fact it will be in meaty chunks - currently it looks like covering 3 main geographical/time zones, with a reasonable number of lists for each. Two of these will slot into existing themes, while the other will make a theme of its own, that will include armies from several other books.
But the eventual line-up has not yet been decided, so it would be futile to go into further detail at present.
Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:48 pm
by Scrumpy
rbodleyscott wrote:vingthorr wrote:yes, but I would think it would be such a hodge-podge of time periods
In fact it will be in meaty chunks - currently it looks like covering 3 main geographical/time zones, with a reasonable number of lists for each. Two of these will slot into existing themes, while the other will make a theme of its own, that will include armies from several other books.
But the eventual line-up has not yet been decided, so it would be futile to go into further detail at present.
Since when has anything futile stopped a wargamer ??
Some of our best moves are praying for impossible odds to come off.
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:55 am
by vingthorr
rbodleyscott wrote:vingthorr wrote:yes, but I would think it would be such a hodge-podge of time periods
In fact it will be in meaty chunks - currently it looks like covering 3 main geographical/time zones, with a reasonable number of lists for each. Two of these will slot into existing themes, while the other will make a theme of its own, that will include armies from several other books.
that sounds better, I wouldn't buy a book for a list, but I'd buy one for a "meaty chunk"!
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:09 pm
by azrael86
vingthorr wrote:
that sounds better, I wouldn't buy a book for a list, but I'd buy one for a "meaty chunk"!
Sounds like you'd be better off with pet food.
If 1500 is the end, then does this mean that the aztecs and Incas will have won?
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:40 pm
by grahambriggs
azrael86 wrote:vingthorr wrote:
that sounds better, I wouldn't buy a book for a list, but I'd buy one for a "meaty chunk"!
Sounds like you'd be better off with pet food.
If 1500 is the end, then does this mean that the aztecs and Incas will have won?
They will both be in Blood and Gold
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:28 pm
by vingthorr
grahambriggs wrote:azrael86 wrote:vingthorr wrote:
that sounds better, I wouldn't buy a book for a list, but I'd buy one for a "meaty chunk"!
Sounds like you'd be better off with pet food.
If 1500 is the end, then does this mean that the aztecs and Incas will have won?
They will both be in Blood and Gold
"won", meaning, didn't end up getting conquered
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:46 pm
by Redpossum
vingthorr wrote:grahambriggs wrote:azrael86 wrote:
Sounds like you'd be better off with pet food.
If 1500 is the end, then does this mean that the aztecs and Incas will have won?
They will both be in Blood and Gold
"won", meaning, didn't end up getting conquered
One could argue that the Aztecs (or their direct heirs) have conquered (or re-conquered) California within the last 20 years
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:01 pm
by rbodleyscott
possum wrote:vingthorr wrote:grahambriggs wrote:
They will both be in Blood and Gold
"won", meaning, didn't end up getting conquered
One could argue that the Aztecs (or their direct heirs) have conquered (or re-conquered) California within the last 20 years
Ah, but are they mostly descendants of the Aztecs, or rather Tlaxcalans etc.?
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:02 pm
by vingthorr
possum wrote:vingthorr wrote:grahambriggs wrote:
They will both be in Blood and Gold
"won", meaning, didn't end up getting conquered
One could argue that the Aztecs (or their direct heirs) have conquered (or re-conquered) California within the last 20 years
alot of people joke, but it's more real than many think, see these links
http://www.voluntad.org.mx/
http://www.mexica-movement.org/
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:51 pm
by Scrumpy
Immirgants have always been a problem in the USA. Ask any native American.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:15 pm
by vingthorr
Scrumpy wrote:Immirgants have always been a problem in the USA. Ask any native American.
go back far enough and everyone everywhere is an immigrant, there are no natives native to anywhere
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:34 pm
by azrael86
rbodleyscott wrote:possum wrote:vingthorr wrote:
"won", meaning, didn't end up getting conquered
One could argue that the Aztecs (or their direct heirs) have conquered (or re-conquered) California within the last 20 years
Ah, but are they mostly descendants of the Aztecs, or rather Tlaxcalans etc.?
Or, at least in part, of the Spanish ?