Re: [GZG] GW

I enjoy customizing and posing them so that they look like a coherent
unit rather than a rank of identical twins. Also, so that they fit the
background I have carefully crafted for them.

Give GW their due-- their figures are well-sculpted, well-cast, and
usually great to pose and customize.

Robert Mayberry

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Michael <mwsaber6@msn.com> wrote:
> "What would you rather have 10 figures that are moulded lumps of lead,
> weapons welded to bodies"
>
> Isn't that a description of Historical Miniatures? The "customizing
ability"
> only really matters in a WYSIWYG environment
>
>
>
>
> Michael Brown
> mwsaber6@msn
>
> From: John Tailby
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 3:23 AM
> To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [GZG] GW
> Ryan, I played that same edition of epic. The problem I found was that
some
> of the points sytems for the units were really out of balance. Too
many of
> the units used special rules, a fault of several GW games at that
time, such
> that the units that used the basic rules were in the minority.
>
> I didn't make the transition to the epic 40,000 edition, I got more
into 40k
> about that time. As I understand it it wasn't compulsary to have the
basis
> on the strips and the square bases would work just as well.
>
> The new Rhino kit is a substantially better kit than the old one. It
is a
> lot more detailed and comes with a host of accessories. I remember
when GW
> figures came 5 in a blister for 2.50 pounds call that 20 years ago.
> Inflation would roughly double that price in todays dollars.
>
> What would you rather have 10 figures that are moulded lumps of lead,
> weapons welded to bodies, little ability to pose and convert or 10
multipart
> plastic kits with plenty of posability, alternate weapon options and
far
> more detail and 3d aspects. Is it worth more to pay for better models?
>
> I never liked the Squat models or Dwarfs for WFB either, sort and
bearded
> isn't anything I identify with, so I wasn't impacted to the same as
you when
> GW stopped supporting the Squat race. Loyal Squat fans have never let
them
> forget their decision to cease development for squats and it's become
a sort
> of an urban legend at every convention presentation they give for
someone to
> as about squats.
>
> While your tale is a valid cautionary one, it highlights an event that
> happened once over 10 years ago. About the same time GW simplified the
game
> and dropped support for some units like the Imperial robots. So
there's no
> guarantee that every unit will have special rules forever. However
there's
> quite often an alternate unit whose rules you can use.
>
> I think GW made an unpopular change in the nature of the Chaos armies
> recently.
>
> As frustrating as some of GWs decisions are from time to time, worse
things
> have happened to me with other games. I had a 25mm Aztec army and a
15mm
> one for WRG 7th edition ancients. When they changed the rules to DBM
the
> army I had ceased to exist.
>
> I got into Warzone it started out as an intersting game of corporate
war.
> Then the game imploded models came out with increasingly stupid rules
and
> increasingly powerful abilites making the existing models obsolete.
Then
> after released a second edition of the game they went bankrupt.
>
> I bought several fleet boxes of B5 ships from Mongoose. They are
expensive
> and contained manufacturing flaws. Now Mongoose has pulled the game
and
> there are no more models or rules.
>
> So while it is not very nice to have the army you collect be
oblilterated by
> a new version fo the rules, GW are by no means the only culprit in
this
> area. It seems to be a risk of gaming.
>
> The same thing happens in shopping. Buy a suit wear if for 18 months
and go
> back for a second pair of trousers only to find that model isn't
supported
> and you can't get a replacement pair to match.
>
> Withdrawl of product support isn't just a GW issue it's a feature of
all
> commercial arrangements.
>
> ________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l