I am sorry but I have to disagree with you over the pricing point. I don't =
know what the export pricing is like, but in the UK the newly released Tyra=
nid's actually show a significant drop in price per model.
Eg:
Carnifexes/=
Zoanthropes: 3.00 GBpounds for 1 model before, now 4.00 GBpounds for 4 mode=
ls.
Assault Spawn (all types) 4.00 GBpounds for 1 model before, now 5.00 GB=
pounds for 3 models.
Overall the new blister cost more than the old ones, =
but they contain more models overall.
I know that GW models are not cheap, =
but bear in mind it is a hobby and few hobbies are. Compared to computer ga=
mes where the life expectancy is on average 1 month, the 'bangs for bucks' =
value of GW minis is significantly better in the long term. I for one would=
love the models to be cheaper, heck who wouldn't :) but I am realistic. To=
say that 40K is just an exercise in extorting money out of the gaming comm=
unity is like saying Hollywood makes movies for the purpose of extorting mo=
ney out of the movie-going public...both cases are of course true. Games Wo=
rkshop Ltd is a business, not a charity. They produce games and models that=
I for one enjoy collecting. In order to be able to do so they have to make=
money out of it...that is not corrupt or unfair, that is commerce. Without=
profit, there is no growth and without growth there is no Games Workshop.
=
I don't intend this to be a personal attack and I hope that you take it in=
the spirit that it is given. My intention is not to harass or offend and I=
apologise if you feel that way. It is just that I feel your comments are a=
little harsh on GW and I get the impression that you feel you are being ei=
ther ripped off or exploited in some way because the hobby you chose is not=
a cheap one and GW are unfairly making money out of it...correct me if I a=
m mistaken?.
Sorry if I appeared over the top...I get a bit carried away s=
ometimes :)
Best
Carl
Gryphonne IV Gene-seed
http://freespace.virgin.net/c=
arl.woodrow/epic/
-----Original Message-----
From: Brett Hollindale [SMTP:=
agro_at_...]
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 1997 01:51
To: space-marin=
e_at_...
Subject: Re: [Epic] Couple Questions
<snip>
>I guess what it =
comes down to is that GW feels they have a right to tinker with
>their univ=
erse 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 whe=
n 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 fraterni=
ty.
I don't know how things happened on your side of the pond, but over he=
re GW
Aus sent sales reps around to all GW stores prior to the release of t=
he
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 jo=
b, 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 sin=
gle stand in the middle of a square base and have the
figure look vaguely O=
K...
(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) expla=
ining why they had changed the IG
the way
>they had, and I agreed with a lo=
t 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 g=
ive them to Epic IG players but not WH IG players.
>
>They weren't taken ou=
t 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
>ha=
ppen). Thats a decision about the construction of the IG army list;
whether=
it
>was a good one is open to debate.
>
<snip>
- application/ms-tnef attachment: stored
Received on Mon Sep 15 1997 - 12:35:35 UTC