RE: [Epic] Epi ignored

From: Miller, Chris <CMiller_at_...>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 15:42:19 -0600

> Okay, does any one else feel that epic is not given the some attention
> as
> other GW games. I do understand that it may be not as popular, but
> there
> seems enough popularity to warrant ma be a supplement or a few new
> models.
> I stopped buying White dwarf because the articles about epic were
> short
> and lame, it seemed to me that they just came up with something to
> still
> have an epic section. although I do have to admit that there are some
> good
> articles.
> Just wondering what you all think
> Fabio
>
-----> They can hold off on the 30-50$ supplements for as long as they
want IMO, until something justifies it like a slew of new races. As for
new models, well I thought they were doing pretty well with that. Very
few mini's have been reissued from the old range. Now Chaos could use
some help, and I'd kinda like to expand on the 4 reavers I have right
now,,,

   WD in general has sucked quite a bit lately. Despite my initial
dislike, I've kinda gotten interested in the Necrons, and WD218 has
stats on a necron vehicle. Did they put it in the card section as a
punchout? NO! They didn't even put a card section in the stupid
magazine! What the hell is that? I get a bunch of crappy buildings for
Gorka Morka, and a stupid jousting game in recent issues, but my 40K
vehicle card goes back to the "glue it on some cereal packet" approach
from before they went to Fat Dwarf and stuck me for an extra dollar! I
sure don't see the content in there I used to see. They've put together
a "Battles" book for many of their games based largely on WD articles.
After a year, they'd be damn short of Epic content or content for any
other game for that matter. Used to see new troop types, wargear,
units, insignia ideas, army lists, etc. They've had 2 decent card
articles for Epic, the battle-tracker thing which had no article but is
handy, and the Space Marine special rules article. These are the types
of things that make the magazine worth buying, along with the occasional
decent battle report. So, after a year I can cite 4 issues which
mattered for Epic. Lame!
   Hell, I even liked the "J" files and where's it been? The battle
reports went south, bigtime, though they may be making a recovery. The
painting and modeling articles are thin to rare too. I get reprints from
already-released codexes instead of new or alternate material. How about
advanced campaign ideas for all of the Big 3 games? We had some for
Fantasy, then NADA.

   OK, enough ranting. They have a new editor, maybe it'll get better.

Chris Miller
Received on Mon Mar 02 1998 - 21:42:19 UTC