>
I think that all the complaints against GW is really our way of mouring the passing of what was once Games by Gamers for Gamers. It is a valid example of the pro-capitalist society we live in today. Unfortunatly for GW, they have become so caught up in the money they've discovered they could make, they've forgotten that everything has a breaking point. Just as you can only sell a certain quantity of product before you start losing profits, even if people are buying them, you can only maximize profits until people start getting upset. It is truely a sad state, and I for one feel helpless. That helplessnes leads to anger, and then people start talking. How can something they sell for around $100 .CA (Space Hulk) include pieces who individually cost $100 .CA. I am of course speaking of the 6 piece space marines, at $50 .CA a shot, the same as most pewter
miniatures.
Tyler
I agree that miniatures will never be inexpensive, and that almost everybody involved has over-reacted in some way. We know why, and most of us can appreciate it. It just hurts
> 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 either 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 am mistaken?.
>
> Sorry if I appeared over the top...I get a bit carried away sometimes :)
> Best
> Carl
> Gryphonne IV Gene-seed
> http://freespace.virgin.net/carl.woodrow/epic/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brett Hollindale [SMTP:agro_at_...]
> Sent: Sunday, September 14, 1997 01:51
> To: space-marine_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 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>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Part 1.2 Type: application/ms-tnef
> Encoding: base64
Received on Wed Oct 08 1997 - 22:54:59 UTC