[Epic] Re: questions, spam and customer service

From: Richard Dewsbery <dewsbery_at_...>
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 22:24:07 +0100

Ken Taborek wrote:
>
> Thanks, Andrew, for the info. I've read the Q&A and have some
> input/comments:
>
> The answer I received from GW in reguards to SH weapons and blast markers
> is that SH weapons without a FP value are *not affected at all by blast
> markers*. This seemed to make a company of Land Raiders too powerful to my
> group of friends, and I like this answer much better. Leave it to GW to
> give out conflicting answers!

Yep. Been there, done that. Within a week or so of the game's release,
I posted a bunch of questions to Jervis Johnson (the game's designer)
and to the GWUS customer service fellow. Result - two completely
diferent sets of answers. It looks like you got the customer service
answers. The official FAQ on Alle's page is a result of him receiving
the "official" word from Jervis, not the customer service body.

> We also asked about how many broods a Harridan can carry, and got an
> answer which must be wrong. Reading between the lines, it appears that
> one Harridan can carry one brood of up to 5 units. GW told us that each
> Harridan can carry 5 broods! They are smoking low-grade crack.

That seems to be what happens when they can't even read the rulebooks.
>
> I also want an answer to questions they haven't replied to yet:
>
> If I take a Space Marine only army, my strategy rating is 5. If I buy
> Thunderhawks (listed as Imperial air), does it drop? I would believe not,
> but who knows?

We certainly don't. Kicked that one around for a while, before giving
up. By and large, the preference was for saying that the Thawk is part
of the Marine army, therefore no drop in rating. However, until an
"official" answer emerges, there will be adherents to the "it's in the
Imperial Navy section, therefore they take a rating drop" point of view.

> Do disrupt weapons really inflict blast markers for their status as SH
> weapons as well as for their disrupt effect? The wording is vague.

I don't think so. Others disagree. I think we're waiting on an
official answer.
>
> Why is a Demon Prince so expensive with respect to the other, standard,
> deamon princes (Great Unclean One, Lord of Change, etc)? It seems that
> they have a better assult value, and other abilitys (skimmer, psycher,
> etc) built in already, where the generic prince has to pay for any
> abilitys.

Pass. It might be like paying 75pts for a Farseer to command a
detachment as opposed to 65pts for a better marine librarian.

> And finally: What do I do with my extensive Squat army? Not to mention
> my 3 companies (old term) and detachments (old term) of knights?
>
Squat rules will be available, eventually. The Citadel Journal, the
Squat Codex and here on the list are the most likely places to see it
published.


> Overall, I like the new game system. I'm just not comfortable with the
> level of customer service GW puts out.

It is not customer service that is really at fault here. Look at the
problem - a series of questions that are not answered in the rulebook
and answered inadequately by customer service. Yes, customer service
should be more on the ball. But the real problem is that the rulebooks
have been badly written and poorly playtested, in the sense that the
rule writers have clearly assumed some rules without bothering to tell
the rest of us - the SHW question being a case in point.

It is ridiculous to expect anyone
> who has spent both money and time painting to simply accept that their
> favorite units aren't in the game any longer.
>
> So, that's my spam for the day.

Where's the spam? Seems like a legitimate viewpoint. And your posthas
posed a few intelligent questions (you weren't to know that most have
already been raised here already) that so far have no satisfactory
answers. That's not spam in my dictionary.

Now if you tell me where I can download 1000s of pron images "for free"
or send me a chain letter, _that_ is spam.
>
> --Ken Taborek oberon_at_...

Richard
Received on Mon May 12 1997 - 21:24:07 UTC