Hi Pancreas,
how's things and stuff? How's Sydney?
It's easy to assume that once someone grabbed the rights, things would go back to Target days, with a studio with a large pool of people to handle photography, design, writing, sculpting, painting, terrain - whatever, with the financial backing of large company.
On one hand, I am at ease with the slow release for rules. Having played the 3 incarnations of the game, I can say that this is easily the most playable and balanced. What I think has caused issues raised in the erratta is writing that's a little vague. Once you understand what the rule is saying, it's fine. Compared with other, apparently simpler rulesets, there seem to be less room for abuse and ambiguity.
The supplements that were coming at out at the end of Target days were subpar, (Mars in particular) and not looking to improve (The Mercury book sounded appalling). While I too would like to see more, I'd rather wait for quaility that have a rubbish publication every quarter.
It can be easy to gloss over the past - 2nd Ed, Warzone was not that hot. Bland armies, wonky points values, close combat units being worthless! Assault marines were cost the same points as wolfbanes or blessed legionares !?!
I'll wholeheartedly agree with the level of design, since I'm a designer too. I don't mind the website (certainly an improvement over the previous one), the logo and header look sharp. But the book could use a massive rework, if nothing else just to clean up the typesetting, establish a more cohesive style and remove 72 dpi pics. The paper also seems a little grey, which may not help.
There are ways to increase interest and promote the game, which don't rely new releases, it may be worth a new thread or a few emails to to push around a few ideas.
So it may be slowly, slowly, but I have faith this will increase momentum and presentation. It at least gives me time to save up to get that Mishima army I've got my eye on.
If you're ever over in the West, drop on by!
Cheers,
(Kadaver) JoshW