Re: [Epic] Couple Questions

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 14:51:18 +0200 (MET DST)

<snip>

>I guess what it comes down to is that GW feels they have a right to tinker with
>their universe from time to time, and I honestly think that the gaming
mavens at
>the workshop are doing things with the best of intentions.


I believe you when you say that you honestly believe this, but I think that
you are mistaken.

The whole E40K excercise is nothing more than an attempt to extort (I'm
pretty sure that that is the correct term) money from the gaming fraternity.

I don't know how things happened on your side of the pond, but over here GW
Aus sent sales reps around to all GW stores prior to the release of the
highly overpriced E40K figures to collect all of their stock of the not
quite so highly overpriced SM/TL figures.

Given the thoroughness of the job, it looked like a policy decision to me...

Best of intentions? Sure, if you own shares in GW and get a share of the
profits.

I'm even prepared to bet that the five in a row troop stand is so that you
can't just put a single stand in the middle of a square base and have the
figure look vaguely OK...
(It looks a lot sillier to have a single stand in the centre of a E40K base...)


I may be paranoid, but they just might be out to get me too...

Agro


>I can vaugely remember
>reading a piece by Jervis (I think) explaining why they had changed the IG
the way
>they had, and I agreed with a lot of his points. I used to use IG assault
troops a
>fair amount, but I don't have a big problem with their non-inclusion; it
would be
>ridiculous to give them to Epic IG players but not WH IG players.
>
>They weren't taken out to 'match revisionist fluff'; they were taken out
because
>the designers thought that they weren't appropriate for the IG to have, any
more
>than it would be appropriate to give the IG boltguns (which apparently used to
>happen). Thats a decision about the construction of the IG army list;
whether it
>was a good one is open to debate.
>

<snip>
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC