>Return-Path: Kitzman_at_...
>Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 11:12:50 -0600
>X-Sender: kitzman_at_...
>To: Keith Zanardi <xenofobe_at_...>
>From: Kitzman_at_... (Harvey H. Kitzman, Jr.)
>Subject: Comments to Marc
>
> Harvey wanted me to post this.
>
>Response to Marc Feuerstein,
>
> This letter is in response to your comments sent to Keith reguarding
>comments I made about Jervis'letter/lack of Squats in the new Epic rules
system.
>Keith forwarded my comments to the mailing list for me since I can't subscribe
>the Space Marine mailing list anymore. These comments reflect my opinions and
>not his. He is an old gaming buddy and doesn't need to be abused for my
>comments. He is an excellent player, and his painting is incredible.
> First of all Marc, you seem to not know the meaning of tongue-in-cheek
>sarcasm. I went over the top to vent some of my frustration with with way
>GW runs the Epic system. I will explain some of my complaints below. As
>for being a racist, I am offended that you are calling me this. I don't
>have a racist bone in my body and have worked hard all my life to combat it.
> I didn't sat "all English are greedy bastards", and was only refering to
>the idiots who run GW. Read what is said and stop being so literal.
>Surely, you and everyone else who plays Epic must have been frustrated with
>them at some point or another. Look up the word sarcasm in the dictionary,
>you might learn something. As far as beating the English in 2 wars, did you
>forget the War of 1812? We won that too, just for your information.
> I have a 16,000 point Squat army, as well as an Ork, Eldar,
>Imperial, and Marine armies. I have been playing since 1992. In the new
>rules system. Squats are not mentioned until GW decides to grace us with the
>40K Squat Codex. I would be surprised if this came out before the new
>Millenium. Some of us don't play 40K. What should I do with this army now,
>use them as expensive paperweights? While the new figures look cool, I'll
>be damned if I am going to chuck all my stuff just because GW wanted to make
>more money, which they admit is one of the reasons they redesigned the game.
> Epic is the lost bastard child of GW, and it is obvious that they don't
>care about the game.
>
> Let us look at the track record of GW:
>
>1. There are obvious errors in the game which they haven't bothered to
>fix. Take a look at the Imperial Rough Rider Company card. It costs 600
>points. This is an obvious error because if you look at the back it says
>Victory Points 6 and in small type underneath "Your opponent gains 5 VP for
>breaking the company." Huh? Explain this. And also explain why you would
>want to take this company if you can buy 3 RR detachments for 450 points.
>Two commanders and a Rhino is worth 150 points? The company should be worth
>450 points. Also, in the Space Marine game, a Warlord Titans was listed as
>900 points. In Titan Legions, the Titan Battle Groups were formed such that
>you would get 3 Titans for the price of 2. Since the Warlord Battle Group
>is 1500 points, it would be logical to assume that a single Warlord is worth
>750 points. Yet I have had people swear to may that no, a single Warlord is
>worth 900 points because GW said so. COME ON PEOPLE, THINK!!!!! In fact,
>the error was pointed out on the Epic Q&A sites on the net. It was said
>that, yes, there was an error, but it would be too much of a pain to fix it.
> Gee, I think a 1 sentence correction in White Dwarf wouldn't be too hard.
>
>2. The repackaging of figures into "more conveneint" (NOT!) packaging.
>Some of you old timers might remember the old Battle Group big boxes where
>you got 5 spreus of Imperial, Marine, Eldar, and Chaos troops for $24. If
>you split the box between 4 friends, which I did, you could get what you
>needed for $6. Yet in 1993 or 1994 (I don't remember). This box was
>repackaged into 4 boxes or Imperial Guard, Space Marine Legion, Eldar
>Warhost, and Chaos Horde, each for $14. Let's see...that means an
>equivalent Battle Group box now costs $56 (without tax). That is more than
>a doubling of price. Let's say you wanted to make an Imperial Beastman
>Company. Since there are only 15 in one of these in the Imperial Sprues,
>you would need 10 boxes of Imperial Sprues. If you split 10 Battle Group
>boxes, it would cost you $60 for this. If you bought 10 "new and improved"
>Imperial boxes, you would spend $140. This doesn't bother you? It must be
>nice to have money. Some of us need to pay bills, pay rent, pay school and
>car loans, and do thing with our wives and/or kids. Why do I need 4 boxes
>to get an Eldar Howling Banshees detachement? The examples of this go on
>and on.
> On that same note, did you notice how prior to the Great Epic Recall
>of Space Marine items that certain things disappeared? For example, the
>only way to get a Squat Land Train or Ork Kustom Kannon speedstas is from
>England, special ordered paying out the wazoo. Also, an ork playing friend
>once bought a blister of 6 Ork dragstas. These were repackaged as 1 dragsta
>with a Super Lifta droppa. Convenient, huh? Also, you could get Warhounds,
>Eldar Titans, Reavers, and Slasha Gragants in blisters before they
>repackaged them and doubled the price.
> Quality control is always fun too, isn't it? My Warhounds that were
>bought in a blister came with 4 body pieces. I have had a Thunderhawk
>blister (the old flying bricks with 2 in a blister) with 4 wings. This same
>friend who played Orks got a Great Gargant missing an arm. I also had a
>Whirlwind missing a side piece, so I had to sacrifice a plastic rhino. I'm
>sure others of you have similar experiences.
>
>3. If there was ever any reason to believe that Epic is the lost
>bastard child of GW, look at the White Dwarfs prior to the Great Epic
>Recall. There were very few pages devoted to Epic, sometime none at all.
>I'm not saying that the whole thing should have been devoted to Epic, but
>unless there was a battle report (which they did very nicely with the maps,
>it was the best feature they did). The average article was 4 pages or less.
> Also there was some blatently stupid or wrong things printed.
>
>Examples:
>
> In WD 192 or 193 (I don't have them in front of me), an article
>about flyer tactics was written. It refered to Squat Gyrocopters as flyers.
> Funny, in Titan Legions and Ork/Squat Warlords, they explicitly said Gyros
>were skimmers. No maybe the author made an error, but I bet you that there
>was at least 1 fight between players where an unthinking GW drone (a player
>who beleives everything that comes out of GW without question) swear that a
>Gyrocopter is a flyer since it was in a WD.
> Also in 192 or 193 there was an article about infantry where the
>author refered to putting Space Marine Scout Companies in Thunderhawks.
>First of all, this is cheesy. Secondly, if you look at the stats for the
>Scout and Tactical Marine, they are the same! Why bother tacking a Tactical
>Company when a Scout Company is cheaper? The range on a Scout should be
>25cm. Again, THINK PEOPLE!!!!
> In an Epic Q&A a Thunderhawk was said to fly at neither high or low
>level, but in the middle. *&^$%#_at_!!!! What the hell is this? I
>personally have had this argument with a GW drone.
>
> So given GW's track record, you will excuse me if I don't jump for
>joy at the thought of a new game, especially after shelling out a great deal
>of money to make cool armies. As far as this mailing list goes, these
>comments are mine, not Keith's. If you want to reply, SEND TO ME DIRECTLY,
>(OR ARE YOU TOO LAZY TO TYPE IN MY ADDRESS MARC?)
>don't waste everyone elses time by fighting with Keith pointlessly on the
mailing
>list.
> Also, please don't flame me.
> I get E-mail at work, so I don't have time for childish bull*&^%. I won't
>even read it.
>It's one thing to make fun of the GW staff, but to call people names, (this is
>for YOU Marc) is in bad taste.
>
> Some parting comments:
>
>1. THINK! See how things released fit into the game. Don't believe
>everything the GW says. If you believe that they are acting in the best
>interest of the gamers, them I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
>2. Use this mailing list to discuss tactics or problems with the game.
>Don't
>waste time by flaming someone you disagree with. Save that for GW!
>3. Learn the history of the game. It is more than pretty pictures in a
>book. This is why I'm upset at the thought or rewriting Squat history.
>4. Personally, I don't plan to buy the new game. I might play with
>people who have it as long as I can use my existing stuff. GW says they
>will be compatable, but given their track record, do you believe them?
>5. Have fun with the game! Try new stuff.
>6. Marc, I see you still keep sending comments to the list. Let it rest!
>The war is over!
>Harvey Kitzman
>
>
>
>
Received on Mon Mar 03 1997 - 18:55:33 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:11 UTC