Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:

The price was a big issue for some. When Yanks are paying $12 for a ship and Brits are paying £12+...but then FFG always do this.

Everyone does this.

Forgeworld says Hi! And GW says G'day!

I don't think its particularly clear how we define success for a game? Is it a run of multiple years? Lots of kits? Kits in stores? Lots of players in stores? What about clubs and basements?

Part of the problem as I see it is we have so many games, and niches within niches, that its becoming harder and harder to keep a group around a certain game, or bought in for a significant period. And with Kickstarter, game hopping becomes a huge issue. Historicals usually skirts this, because my ww2 guys, and my Romans can be used in any of a hundred rules, while my 40k marines have a much more limited selection. So when an edition changes, I'm either selling or shelving my marines, where I can switch to a whole different historical ruleset without batting an eye, particularly if that ruleset (i.e. Warhammer Historicals) goes away - yet, I still play WH with their 3.5 rules with no problem at all.

Given the price and scale (meaning game size) creep of a lot of games and the individual models, it becomes hard to maintain that growth beyond a couple of years. Of course, we all know how loyal gamers are too...

I've been pretty happy since I switched to a 1 faction per game, play every game model.

One of the biggest problems for a game is loosing faith. This happened in our gaming group to WMH. We had a quite active group before mk3 came out. Then after a few months playtesting in mkiii, players moved to other games, besides 40k also infinity and bolt action. Today, the group plays mostly 40k which has always been the main game. Nevertheless there are two guys playing WMH every Wednesday.

 wuestenfux wrote:
One of the biggest problems for a game is loosing faith. This happened in our gaming group to WMH. We had a quite active group before mk3 came out. Then after a few months playtesting in mkiii, players moved to other games, besides 40k also infinity and bolt action. Today, the group plays mostly 40k which has always been the main game. Nevertheless there are two guys playing WMH every Wednesday.

How does one lose faith in a game (in this instance)? Is it uncertainty in the future of the game? Or is it just a dislike of where it is going? Is it the belief that the company can not right the ship?

Because I play (and enjoy) Runewars, but there is definitely some uncertainty as to the future of the game (it is FFG, after all, and they aren't known for keeping underperforming games on their roster for long). But I generally do like the game and where it is going. I don't know if more models are coming out after the current batch, but I feel like I'd be pretty happy with whatever does come out.

Meanwhile, I don't like where The Walking Dead: All Out War is heading. There's a lot of content announced for the near future, but it is largely PvP content for a game that I've almost exclusively enjoyed cooperatively against the AI zombies. Despite the fact that the game will continue to be supported, I'm not super happy with the direction (PvP mostly, but also the Negan game requiring a preorder to get TWD:AOW cards) and I'm holding off purchasing any more until I'm sure the game will go back to what I liked. It probably won't, and in the mean time, I'm more than happy to try every other game out there.

How does one lose faith in a game (in this instance)? Is it uncertainty in the future of the game? Or is it just a dislike of where it is going? Is it the belief that the company can not right the ship?

A bit of everything.
For instance, in the early mk3 days when it was clear that Cryx got nerfed (hard or not depends on perception), PP released Una who worked well with Scarsfell Griffons. Soon one could see Una with lots of such beasts. But this list was a bit OP and so PP axed the list soon. We had a great laugh about this behavior of PP. Actually, we had some players buying into this list. Playtesting by PP? No. Faith? No.

Thankfully bolt action and black powder haven't declined at all

 Sqorgar wrote:
and I'm holding off purchasing any more until I'm sure the game will go back to what I liked. It probably won't, and in the mean time, I'm more than happy to try every other game out there.

or you could just keep playing the game 'as is' and enjoying it. There is no expiration date on a game if you don't buy anything for it for a certain time period


Not responding to Sqorgar just a general comment -

Someone mentioned about having so many game systems out there that it is difficult for many to gain traction. I wonder if this has caused many gamers to become 'gamer butterflies' that flit from game system to game system without actually going deep in a game system and possibly never really enjoying any of them.

I know that many many games have come and gone over the years but surely dabbling in many systems reduces a persons enjoyment in the hobby, they never really understand the rules on a deeper level and they often get despondent spending alot of $$$ on games noone plays after a few weeks. Maybe if players planted their feet firmly in 1-3 systems they would be happier in the hobby (and maybe have more $$$ in their bank account )

Dont get me wrong, its good to have options but at some point it fragments an already small hobby into even smaller groups or in many cases individuals.

 MangoMadness wrote:

Someone mentioned about having so many game systems out there that it is difficult for many to gain traction. I wonder if this has caused many gamers to become 'gamer butterflies' that flit from game system to game system without actually going deep in a game system and possibly never really enjoying any of them.

That's kind of what it is.

A combination of idealism and infinite scrolling.

People start a game, fall in love with it, idealize it, play it, discover its problems, hate it, find a new game, repeat.



Where in the past, the scarcity of options would've driven them to find a way to exit this endless loop, today they have the option of living their endless cycle.... kinda - because in practice, it takes a lot of butterflies butterflying to the same flowers at the same time to create any kind of a game community, otherwise you're stuck playing 80 different games with maybe one opponent or 0 most of the time.

 MangoMadness wrote:

or you could just keep playing the game 'as is' and enjoying it. There is no expiration date on a game if you don't buy anything for it for a certain time period

I am. As far as campaign goes, I'm still at the prison. Still need to do Woodbury. I enjoy the game and will continue to do so. It's just that the game is now focusing on the parts of the game that I don't enjoy, so I'm thinking that we'll end up parting ways sooner than later.

Someone mentioned about having so many game systems out there that it is difficult for many to gain traction. I wonder if this has caused many gamers to become 'gamer butterflies' that flit from game system to game system without actually going deep in a game system and possibly never really enjoying any of them.

I know that many many games have come and gone over the years but surely dabbling in many systems reduces a persons enjoyment in the hobby, they never really understand the rules on a deeper level and they often get despondent spending alot of $$$ on games noone plays after a few weeks. Maybe if players planted their feet firmly in 1-3 systems they would be happier in the hobby (and maybe have more $$$ in their bank account )

I'm a "gamer butterfly", as you put it, and I always have been. I own something like 2,500 video games and I dabble in most major miniature games. And I think I'm being accurate here when I say that, generally speaking, I'm happier with miniature gaming that most people on this board seem to be. Because I am not wholly invested in a single system, my entire existence as a miniature gamer is never threatened by the successes or failure of a single system. If a game isn't 100% exactly what I want, that's fine. It can be a "sometimes food". If a game goes in a direction I don't agree with, that's fine. If a game dies and ceases to exist completely, that's upsetting, but you know what, I'll survive.

Take, for example, Star Wars Legion. I enjoy the game, but I'm not a fan of the current direction of it. I don't begrudge anyone who does enjoy it and I'm not making some sort of statement of dissent or anything. I'm not even demanding that the game change to suit my wishes. It's just not my thing at the moment. Ain't nothing wrong with that.

Some people are all about the mastery. They want one game, and only one game, and they want to own it, body and soul. If gaming were a map, they want the most efficient path to their destination. That's my wife. Some people, like myself, are about exploration. They want to see what is around the next corner, or figure out what makes something tick. They look at the map and they head directly towards the place that says "here be dragons".

I think that the idea of playing only a single miniature game is like eating pizza every day. It stops feeling special. Only by having a variety of food do you learn to truly appreciate pizza night.

Dont get me wrong, its good to have options but at some point it fragments an already small hobby into even smaller groups or in many cases individuals.

The hobby is large enough that I think there is enough room - provided that lots of people play lots of games. It's hard to find someone to play Infinity with, for example, because everybody seems to play 40k. But if people played 40k AND Infinity, then there would be options. The fact that people play one game, one army, day after day, night after night - that makes the hobby smaller, not larger. People can always find a game with me, since I'm always up for whatever.

morgoth wrote:

People start a game, fall in love with it, idealize it, play it, discover its problems, hate it, find a new game, repeat.

Well said, that certainly rings true.

 Sqorgar wrote:
And I think I'm being accurate here when I say that, generally speaking, I'm happier with miniature gaming that most people on this board seem to be. Because I am not wholly invested in a single system, my entire existence as a miniature gamer is never threatened by the successes or failure of a single system. If a game isn't 100% exactly what I want, that's fine. It can be a "sometimes food".

Good to hear you are enjoying gaming, I think some (many?) people continue in their hobbies not because they enjoy them but because they remember enjoying them. I was certainly that way in around 2008 playing in a 40k GT, I just came to realize I was playing for the nostalgia of enjoying the game and not actually enjoying the games themselves.

 Sqorgar wrote:
People can always find a game with me, since I'm always up for whatever.

I have known some people who are very similar, the difficulty I always had with them was that they enjoyed games in a 'beer and pretzels' style whereas I enjoyed the competitive nature of the game. I could always call them for a game but I often felt I was going through the motions against a less skilled opponent, not because they didnt have the capacity to learn the game at a deeper level but because they only dabbled in so many games they never delved that deeply in any of them.

I know, everyone enjoys the hobby in their own way and thats perfectly fine but i just wanted to out line that even though you might dabble in many systems doesnt mean that people who are deeper into those systems would want to play you.

 MangoMadness wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
People can always find a game with me, since I'm always up for whatever.

I have known some people who are very similar, the difficulty I always had with them was that they enjoyed games in a 'beer and pretzels' style whereas I enjoyed the competitive nature of the game. I could always call them for a game but I often felt I was going through the motions against a less skilled opponent, not because they didnt have the capacity to learn the game at a deeper level but because they only dabbled in so many games they never delved that deeply in any of them.

I know, everyone enjoys the hobby in their own way and thats perfectly fine but i just wanted to out line that even though you might dabble in many systems doesnt mean that people who are deeper into those systems would want to play you.

Well, if you want to be a dick about it, sure. If I wanted to be a dick, I'd point out that I'm completely capable of playing at the level you are suggesting but purposefully don't - because competitive players are rarely as good as they think they are and tend to be sore losers, so I find that playing them tends to be an exercise in tedium and minutiae, where the payoff is spending half an hour afterwards where they verbally replay the game and try to explain that even though they lost, somehow they are the real winner.

I enjoy a good challenging game, but miniature games are not good challenging games. They literally aren't made for it. Like, if they made a fair, challenging, complex miniature game - everybody would HATE it, because they would all suck at it. I see people who brag about their abilities in these games, and I'm embarrassed for them. The things they think are challenging and difficult, aren't. The abilities they're bragging about, they stole from the internet. And that's what these games are designed around. They are made to present simple but interesting choices, not challenging ones.

People who are actually good at these games don't feel the need to prove it. They are so above your level that they will NEVER find challenge in playing the likes of you. Which is why they don't look for it. But there's still a lot of fun to be had with miniature games, socializing with others in a shared fandom, engaging in a creative and relaxing hobby, and the tactile enjoyment that comes from pushing little figures around a beautifully realized three dimensional space. It gets difficult to enjoy those things when competitive players come around and ruin it.

Please keep in mind that Rule Number One is Be Polite. Thanks!

 Sqorgar wrote:

 MangoMadness wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
People can always find a game with me, since I'm always up for whatever.

I have known some people who are very similar, the difficulty I always had with them was that they enjoyed games in a 'beer and pretzels' style whereas I enjoyed the competitive nature of the game. I could always call them for a game but I often felt I was going through the motions against a less skilled opponent, not because they didnt have the capacity to learn the game at a deeper level but because they only dabbled in so many games they never delved that deeply in any of them.

I know, everyone enjoys the hobby in their own way and thats perfectly fine but i just wanted to out line that even though you might dabble in many systems doesnt mean that people who are deeper into those systems would want to play you.

Well, if you want to be a dick about it, sure. If I wanted to be a dick, I'd point out that I'm completely capable of playing at the level you are suggesting but purposefully don't - because competitive players are rarely as good as they think they are and tend to be sore losers, so I find that playing them tends to be an exercise in tedium and minutiae, where the payoff is spending half an hour afterwards where they verbally replay the game and try to explain that even though they lost, somehow they are the real winner.

I enjoy a good challenging game, but miniature games are not good challenging games. They literally aren't made for it. Like, if they made a fair, challenging, complex miniature game - everybody would HATE it, because they would all suck at it. I see people who brag about their abilities in these games, and I'm embarrassed for them. The things they think are challenging and difficult, aren't. The abilities they're bragging about, they stole from the internet. And that's what these games are designed around. They are made to present simple but interesting choices, not challenging ones.

People who are actually good at these games don't feel the need to prove it. They are so above your level that they will NEVER find challenge in playing the likes of you. Which is why they don't look for it. But there's still a lot of fun to be had with miniature games, socializing with others in a shared fandom, engaging in a creative and relaxing hobby, and the tactile enjoyment that comes from pushing little figures around a beautifully realized three dimensional space. It gets difficult to enjoy those things when competitive players come around and ruin it.

I've been told it's better not to present opinion as fact.

That said, being competitive minded myself - at times - I agree that I see infinitely less competition in a luck-based tiny-competitive-player-base game like 40K than in SC2, LoL or Overwatch, which have almost zero luck involved (lag maybe?) and count so many more competitive players.

On the other hand, I've enjoyed playing 40K as well as I can, and I think what he was referring to is the same reason most Poker players don't want to play games with no money on the table: people who don't game money don't play seriously.

It's not about being "good" or "skilled", it's about being "involved", "focused", actually trying to win, including by writing a list that has a good shot at performing, and then making the right choices.

As he says, there is zero point in playing a game against an opponent who doesn't even try.


And, while it often happens that the dilettantes take it lightheartedly, they also rarely ever play the game stricto sensu, just going through the motions does not equal playing in my opinion.
You need involvement, focus, the illusion that the objective matters for the duration of the game.

On the other hand, people who have low self-esteem and get invested in the game tend to have performance anxiety and generally be no fun to be around.
Not because they actually play the game - unlike the dilettantes -, but because they really need someone to teach them that their self-worth is entirely independent of their inability to win a game of 40K.


The risk with a dilettante is that the game itself will be entirely pointless, more of a background task to discussing and drinking beer.
The risk with a competitive is that the game itself will engulf everything else and that the discussing and beer drinking will turn to gak because of it.

I don't think one is better than the other, I personally would prefer playing competitive games in a relaxed setting.

Back on the first page, it was mentioned that having a game appeal to hobbyists and gamers alike may be important in preventing a dramatic decline. However, some of the discussion here reminds me that gamers and hobbyists can get along like cats and dogs. If a community begins to decline, this contraction may bring the gamer and hobbyist communities into contact with one another. This contact can be destructive and lead to bigger losses.

One would not expect that personal interaction on a local level to produce a large scale exodus from a game, but maybe it can.

One word: Promotion.

Even crappy games can live a long time if properly promoted. Great games that get zero promotion will die off.

Games Workshop got to be the biggest not by being 'first' or 'best', but by self promoting - first by having their own magazine, White Dwarf, secondly by opening their own stores. They hired some of the best painters and photographers to promote their product.

Privateer Press got as big as they did by following this lead. They started with a D&D based RPG to get people familiar with their setting, then made a tabletop game with good promotional materials (painters, art) and their own magazine.

Magic the Gathering and Pokemon understood the need for promotion as well. Heck, even Palladium Books knew enough to buy ad space in Dragon Magazine back in the day.

I suspect there is also a large element of "gun-foot-aim-fire" where a company is run by well gamers and ends up shooting one or both feet, often with a decision that sounds good at first glance but wasn't though through.

Classic case is pre-announcing a new version way too early, which nukes sales of the current version, starving the funds to release the new one, or some stuff like Relics where there was an "internet only" rules release, for a game that previously had a hardbacked rulebook - its a different market.

Dependence on kickstarter killing long term viability etc also hurts.

Its obviously not that hard to create a decent game, look at how many are out there, its a lot harder to turn it into a sustainable business to grow that game and avoid people moving on

To be honest, the natural order of business is for 95% of them to fail and die off. The survivor is the exception that we think is the rule, but Capitalism and business just don;t work that way. All will fail.... eventually. Creative destruction and all that.

 Easy E wrote:
To be honest, the natural order of business is for 95% of them to fail and die off. The survivor is the exception that we think is the rule, but Capitalism and business just don;t work that way. All will fail.... eventually. Creative destruction and all that.

Absolutely, same as with any area of business really.

Its a pity that some good games go under, and some garbage prospers, but this is the way things are likely to always be, you need to get the business model right as well as the game

 Sqorgar wrote:
Well, if you want to be a dick about it, sure. If I wanted to be a dick, I'd point out that I'm completely capable of playing at the level you are suggesting but purposefully don't - because competitive players are rarely as good as they think they are and tend to be sore losers, so I find that playing them tends to be an exercise in tedium and minutiae, where the payoff is spending half an hour afterwards where they verbally replay the game and try to explain that even though they lost, somehow they are the real winner.

You have totally misread my post and the intent in which it was written. The fact you have taken it so personally makes me wonder why but that is a problem you need to sort out yourself methinks.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:

It's not about being "good" or "skilled", it's about being "involved", "focused", actually trying to win, including by writing a list that has a good shot at performing, and then making the right choices.

As he says, there is zero point in playing a game against an opponent who doesn't even try.

And, while it often happens that the dilettantes take it lightheartedly, they also rarely ever play the game stricto sensu, just going through the motions does not equal playing in my opinion.
You need involvement, focus, the illusion that the objective matters for the duration of the game.

Well said.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 MangoMadness wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
People can always find a game with me, since I'm always up for whatever.

I have known some people who are very similar, the difficulty I always had with them was that they enjoyed games in a 'beer and pretzels' style whereas I enjoyed the competitive nature of the game. I could always call them for a game but I often felt I was going through the motions against a less skilled opponent, not because they didnt have the capacity to learn the game at a deeper level but because they only dabbled in so many games they never delved that deeply in any of them.

I know, everyone enjoys the hobby in their own way and thats perfectly fine but i just wanted to out line that even though you might dabble in many systems doesnt mean that people who are deeper into those systems would want to play you.

Well, if you want to be a dick about it, sure. If I wanted to be a dick, I'd point out that I'm completely capable of playing at the level you are suggesting but purposefully don't - because competitive players are rarely as good as they think they are and tend to be sore losers, so I find that playing them tends to be an exercise in tedium and minutiae, where the payoff is spending half an hour afterwards where they verbally replay the game and try to explain that even though they lost, somehow they are the real winner.

Wow, that's a pretty spectacular misreading of that post methinks. I understand where MangoMadness is coming from and it's not about being l337 and pro at games. Playing with people who treat the game differently can be annoying for some people. I used to have one opponent, for example, who lost constantly, basically because they just kind of shoved models around without thought and did what "felt" right when playing their army. They'd complain and get annoyed but would never actually try to understand why they lost. It became an exercise in futility playing against them because you knew what would happen - they'd play without any thought, get annoyed, complain then sulk. They actually had fine, fun games against others with similar attitudes. There can definitely be a problematic disconnect when two players want different things from a game.

I find that games tend to have a gradual tapering off, then a heavy dropoff based on a single bad decision.

Generally, that decision is one of the following:

1) ALL NEW EDITION with changed stats (MK) changed scale (Axis n Allies minis) or something similar that requires a hell of a heavy reinvestment.

2) YOUR MODELS DONT WORK NO MO (malifaux, AOS initial release) where existing collections are invalidated

3) NEW HOTNESS MEANING YOUR STUFF AINT NEVER GETTING AN UPDATE (again AOS, monsterpocalypse, etc. And I get it with these - you can only add new stuff to existing factions so long. But in a failing game, it can be the catalyst for a fall.)

the_scotsman wrote:
I find that games tend to have a gradual tapering off, then a heavy dropoff based on a single bad decision.

Generally, that decision is one of the following:

1) ALL NEW EDITION with changed stats (MK) changed scale (Axis n Allies minis) or something similar that requires a hell of a heavy reinvestment.

2) YOUR MODELS DONT WORK NO MO (malifaux, AOS initial release) where existing collections are invalidated

3) NEW HOTNESS MEANING YOUR STUFF AINT NEVER GETTING AN UPDATE (again AOS, monsterpocalypse, etc. And I get it with these - you can only add new stuff to existing factions so long. But in a failing game, it can be the catalyst for a fall.)

You probably don't want to use AOS as your example - sales stats show it outperforming WHFB in it's prime

Slipspace wrote:
Wow, that's a pretty spectacular misreading of that post methinks. I understand where MangoMadness is coming from and it's not about being l337 and pro at games. Playing with people who treat the game differently can be annoying for some people. I used to have one opponent, for example, who lost constantly, basically because they just kind of shoved models around without thought and did what "felt" right when playing their army. They'd complain and get annoyed but would never actually try to understand why they lost. It became an exercise in futility playing against them because you knew what would happen - they'd play without any thought, get annoyed, complain then sulk. They actually had fine, fun games against others with similar attitudes. There can definitely be a problematic disconnect when two players want different things from a game.

Who cares if the person you are playing against isn't any good or isn't trying hard enough? You can't handicap yourself or find some other goal for playing other than winning? When you are playing a pen and paper RPG, the game master isn't trying to "win". He's trying to be just challenging enough that you have a good time, and to present you with a good experience filled with variety and intrigue. When you are particularly competent at gaming, you get the game master role more often than not because your experience is what allows you to know when and where to push and when and where to retreat to make the best gaming experience.

Playing a miniature game is a dialogue between two people, not a competition. You both tailor how you play to the needs and wishes of the other, creating a shared experience. Often, you will have to compromise. Winning is a goal, but it is not THE goal. If people are complaining, sulking, or getting annoyed afterwards, then you didn't make the right compromises. If you consider yourself the better player of the game, it is your responsibility to "play down" to your opponent in order to create the best experience for both of you. He isn't having fun getting his ass beat, and you aren't having any fun failing to be challenged - so change how you play (if he can't compromise, you have to) and you can both "win".

Versus competitive games, I generally aim to not win. Their enjoyment is all about winning, while mine is not. I can create a challenging enough game for them that they feel like their victory was hard fought, while still making a tactically unsound (but usually interesting) moves. There are gamers who I haven't won a game against in decades - I'm not sure whether I could legitimately beat them if I tried, but I know that beating them wouldn't be an enjoyable experience for me. To paraphrase Star Wars, I don't rip people's arms out of their sockets when I lose. We still have fun playing together though.

I understand the joy one gets from playing to the best of their abilities in a high stress, high stakes match. I appreciate that very much, but I rarely find it in the types of board and miniature games that I choose to play. I have other outlets for that sort of challenge.

This is getting way off topic and we all ready had a Mod stop by, so let's talk more about why a game declines.

I think gamers are particularly enamored by two opposing impulses, the new shiny and the fear of change. Too much change and they flee, only to be induced back by new shiny. If a game does not get enough new shiny, people fade away.

 Easy E wrote:
This is getting way off topic and we all ready had a Mod stop by, so let's talk more about why a game declines.

I think gamers are particularly enamored by two opposing impulses, the new shiny and the fear of change. Too much change and they flee, only to be induced back by new shiny. If a game does not get enough new shiny, people fade away.

An interesting theory. Seems like it would be correct for Battletech - too much new shiny caused a player backlash where the vets refused to play the new content, leading to playerbase fracturing. On the other hand, some games like Flames of War rarely get new shiny and still truck along.

I think there was a substantial part of the Battletech fanbase that decided basically everything post 4th Succession War was garbage, rules and fluff wise. But that was what kept getting supported, 'moving the story forwards' at all costs. I think there is a lesson about being careful what you wish for in there for 40K in the way Battletech handled things.

Battletech was one of the games that started me in this hobby. I quickly found other games that weren't accountancy in disguise.

In many cases, the company implodes, sometimes due to personal issues, sometimes due to financial shenanigans. {waves solemnly at FASA}

Sometimes the company just completely misreads their audience [Rackham, among many other issues]. That happened to GW several times, but they were able to take the blow and try again.

I think we're currently seeing it with Privateer Press (and in a related industry, Paizo). Unknown if they'll survive.

BattleTech was a shambles by the minis, IP infringement, and splitting of the company. IMO. EDIT: BT was my first (when FASA owned it) and I still love it.

Another tragedy was Hawks DropZone Commander. Such a tight game. Single designer. Sad. It needed some mechanics tweaks but that's it.

Voss wrote:
In many cases, the company implodes, sometimes due to personal issues, sometimes due to financial shenanigans. {waves solemnly at FASA}

Sometimes the company just completely misreads their audience [Rackham, among many other issues]. That happened to GW several times, but they were able to take the blow and try again.

I think we're currently seeing it with Privateer Press (and in a related industry, Paizo). Unknown if they'll survive.

I am in awe at how, in five short sentences, you managed to use [brackets], {curly brackets}, AND (parentheses). If you would've used <angle brackets>, you could've had Bingo.