Re: [GZG] GW and Re: Artillery considerations (was: Re: Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
didn't glance over your comment I carefully considered it against my own
experience in reading modelling magazines for the best part of 30 years.
Yes there are examples of GW modelling projects that are beyond the
average gamer where the makers got things cast. There are people in my
Club that have gotten into resin casting and can make rubber moulds and
resin or plaster casts of a whole range of components. It's an ideal way
to make items for conversions or terrain projects.
You have stated before that you don't like GW games or practices. It
seems like all you posts are themed around GW "the great Satan" of
wargaming and that they do all these things that are wrong. 
Why position the item so that it looks like GW did something uniquely
bad and wrong? When the scenario you describe isn't signficantly
different to what other modelling magazines have featured for years. If
the GW staffer doing the feature that upset you because they got one of
their mates at the company to cast them some components would you have
been happier if they had gotten 20 kitsets and dumped them after using
one component? That the kind of thing modelling magazines can do because
they get the free kits to review.

----- Original Message ----
From: "emu2020@comcast.net" <emu2020@comcast.net>
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Thursday, 10 July, 2008 4:04:49 AM
Subject: Re: [GZG] GW and Re: Artillery considerations (was: Re: Help
me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!)

Well, if you want to glance over my comment like that, sure. But my
comment wasn't that GW wasn't the only one doing it but that they did do
it. Also, there is a big difference between extensive use of yours bits
collection and the inclusion of custom made parts only attainable if you
happen to work in the miniatures industry.
 
-Eli