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.

jonolikespie wrote:
The problem is that they are only dead because GW didn't like the idea of selling a game that you don't need to constantly buy models for. If they had tried to keep them they would probably be selling reasonably well (at least well enough not to get rid of them) but most of GWs customers these days don't even know they exist and GW want to keep it that way.
You're not wrong that dead games should be allowed to die, it's just that these were good games that GW killed.

You may be right, but isn't at least as probable that SG were allowed to die a slow death because the last round of releases didn't sell well enough to warrant more releases. Thus faced with a choice between pouring good money after bad, killing the game(s) right there, or ceasing support while keeping the ranges available for those who might be interested, they chose option 3, and then went for option 2 almost a decade later.

I do agree though that GW would much rather point customers toward the big 3. Lots more money to be made there.

Also, my wife love's your avatar.

DiabolicAl wrote:
They didnt NEED to be dead games though. In the gaming groups near me most of these games still have a strong following and i cant believe that GW could not arrange one last hurrah, maybe a brief supplemental magazine in WD or something rather than let them fade into oblivion. Its really sad. I mean WHQ sells for £150 to £200+ a copy on Ebay. Its like GW are scared of money.....

I didn't realize that SG's had a strong following over there. Perhaps there aren't enough "strong followings" to make the games worth keeping? On this side of the pond, alot of folks pay SG lip service, but one rarely sees them being played. A last hurrah would have been really nice, but unfortunately I think GW would rather let them die as quietly as possible.

As to WHQ, it's not a specialist game, and a collectors market doesn't necessarily mean there's a market for retail. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if it -or something like it- gets a ltd. release like dreadfleet or Space Hulk, though probably not while Talisman is still available.

Keep in mind that a lot of the angst over this was the way GW handled it. There was no announcement made, there was no last hurrah, there was no explanation given. Even if the line was unprofitable, GW could have handled this in a way that treated their customers and fans with more respect. Further, considering that many Kickstarters have funded entirely new miniatures for only a few thousand dollars, I don't entirely believe that the line was unprofitable. There's no way to know for sure without information that I genuinely doubt GW would be offering up to anybody who asked nicely.

I don't mean to suggest that GW must continue an unprofitable business line. Heck, they can be pretty darn ruthless in the pursuit of profit without even getting into ethical grey area (it's not like they sell food or medicine where people's lives are at risk.) I don't believe that there's any excuse for the way they went about discontinuing the line however.

 Eilif wrote:

jonolikespie wrote:
The problem is that they are only dead because GW didn't like the idea of selling a game that you don't need to constantly buy models for. If they had tried to keep them they would probably be selling reasonably well (at least well enough not to get rid of them) but most of GWs customers these days don't even know they exist and GW want to keep it that way.
You're not wrong that dead games should be allowed to die, it's just that these were good games that GW killed.

You may be right, but isn't at least as probable that SG were allowed to die a slow death because the last round of releases didn't sell well enough to warrant more releases. Thus faced with a choice between pouring good money after bad, killing the game(s) right there, or ceasing support while keeping the ranges available for those who might be interested, they chose option 3, and then went for option 2 almost a decade later.

I do agree though that GW would much rather point customers toward the big 3. Lots more money to be made there.

Also, my wife love's your avatar.

DiabolicAl wrote:
They didnt NEED to be dead games though. In the gaming groups near me most of these games still have a strong following and i cant believe that GW could not arrange one last hurrah, maybe a brief supplemental magazine in WD or something rather than let them fade into oblivion. Its really sad. I mean WHQ sells for £150 to £200+ a copy on Ebay. Its like GW are scared of money.....

I didn't realize that SG's had a strong following over there. Perhaps there aren't enough "strong followings" to make the games worth keeping? On this side of the pond, alot of folks pay SG lip service, but one rarely sees them being played. A last hurrah would have been really nice, but unfortunately I think GW would rather let them die as quietly as possible.

As to WHQ, it's not a specialist game, and a collectors market doesn't necessarily mean there's a market for retail. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if it -or something like it- gets a ltd. release like dreadfleet or Space Hulk, though probably not while Talisman is still available.

Regarding the Popularity of SG, i have played in a BB and Mordheim campaign recently and a Necro one is in the works. There are also mentions of BFG but a few people have picked up firestorm armada recently so that might not happen tbh. Dont get me wrong 40k is by far the most heavily played but specialist games definitely have their place especially amongst the ahem, 'older' gamers like myself.

As to WHQ i was just referring to something obsolete and still pricy. To be fair, WHQ style gaming is done far better by other companies now (Descent and the like) but a box of Necromunda can still fetch a fine price (mainly for those bulkheads i guess)

Id still love a reissue of WHQ though. Id buy it for sure.

Oh and i recently played Relic. WAAY better than Talisman IMO. Check it out


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Its probably worth also adding that regardless of how 'strong' a following is for a game we nearly always have the models required and if GW refuses to release any new materials for said games we have very little reason to purchase anything extra. (Even my BB team is most made up of WFB skinks and Saurus.)

My old gameing group did a summer Necromunda Campaign every year, and even with out me their it still goes on.

Alot of the specialist games are quirky, and their are balance issues to be had. But everyone had a story about something that happened during a game of necromunda, or a impossible pass made in blood bowl. That's why so many of us kept coming back to them.

Well, ol' Games Workshop's coming through. They wound up having another Battle Barge and are sending me a replacement for the one that was missing the piece. I will then "use" the piece from the newly sent kit on the old one, and thus have two functioning Battle Barges for the price of one.

Good times.

 Darth Bob wrote:
Well, ol' Games Workshop's coming through. They wound up having another Battle Barge and are sending me a replacement for the one that was missing the piece. I will then "use" the piece from the newly sent kit on the old one, and thus have two functioning Battle Barges for the price of one.

Good times.

And yet, they didn't ship the Battle Barge (or Hunter / Gladius escorts) I ordered 3 weeks ago. :(
And the Nova Escorts they sent only had 3 ships in instead of 4... and to get a replacement I need to return it. :(

If Battlefleet Gothic was unprofitable, then how does Firestorm Armada exist??? Spartan has put out more ships for that game than GW and Forgeworld ever produced for BFG, and have gone into their second edition of the rulebook. They also have prices on their resin ships that make the guys at Forgeworld look like absolute crooks.

Specialist games were only unprofitable because GW has been wanting that section to die for ten years.

I wish more people round here played Firestorm Armada :(

 Eilif wrote:

You may be right, but isn't at least as probable that SG were allowed to die a slow death because the last round of releases didn't sell well enough to warrant more releases. Thus faced with a choice between pouring good money after bad, killing the game(s) right there, or ceasing support while keeping the ranges available for those who might be interested, they chose option 3, and then went for option 2 almost a decade later.

I do agree though that GW would much rather point customers toward the big 3. Lots more money to be made there.

I have real hard time believing that at least most of the Specialist Games weren't profitable. They were sold right from the online store, which is the most profitable way of sales from GW's perspective. Sure, they may not have generated much revenue, but little revenue is better than no revenue.

Also, what are "the big 3"? I don't know a single person who plays LOTR, much less Hobbit, but I do know lots of people play Blood Bowl, also few active BFG players, even some Mordheim players. As I said elsewhere, I'm pretty sure BB is actually amongst the most popular miniatures games worldwide. Also I do not for a moment believe that discontinuing Specialist Games will drive those players to GW's core games.

Backfire wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

You may be right, but isn't at least as probable that SG were allowed to die a slow death because the last round of releases didn't sell well enough to warrant more releases. Thus faced with a choice between pouring good money after bad, killing the game(s) right there, or ceasing support while keeping the ranges available for those who might be interested, they chose option 3, and then went for option 2 almost a decade later.

I do agree though that GW would much rather point customers toward the big 3. Lots more money to be made there.

I have real hard time believing that at least most of the Specialist Games weren't profitable. They were sold right from the online store, which is the most profitable way of sales from GW's perspective. Sure, they may not have generated much revenue, but little revenue is better than no revenue.

Also, what are "the big 3"? I don't know a single person who plays LOTR, much less Hobbit, but I do know lots of people play Blood Bowl, also few active BFG players, even some Mordheim players. As I said elsewhere, I'm pretty sure BB is actually amongst the most popular miniatures games worldwide. Also I do not for a moment believe that discontinuing Specialist Games will drive those players to GW's core games.

A little revenue is better than no revenue, however if the staff and space can be used to make more money elsewhere that's even better,

that's the point GW seems to have got to with the specialist games (probably through the lack of support for them but that's a different issue)

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

Backfire wrote:

Also, what are "the big 3"? I don't know a single person who plays LOTR, much less Hobbit, but I do know lots of people play Blood Bowl, also few active BFG players, even some Mordheim players. As I said elsewhere, I'm pretty sure BB is actually amongst the most popular miniatures games worldwide. Also I do not for a moment believe that discontinuing Specialist Games will drive those players to GW's core games.

A little revenue is better than no revenue, however if the staff and space can be used to make more money elsewhere that's even better,

However, I don't think they can. I very much doubt GW is going to sell single Space Marine more just because they cancelled Epic or Necromunda.

you may well be right

but from the issues of the last two releases, and some hints from 3rd party distributors about the upcoming elder maybe they actually need the staff & space just to maintain their current sales rate

I get that GW is a business that wants money and as much of it as they can get, but there is no reason to discontinue the Specialist Games. If GW advertised them more and maybe just maybe released new content in the form of products for the specialist games then maybe more people would buy them.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

Backfire wrote:
[

I have real hard time believing that at least most of the Specialist Games weren't profitable. They were sold right from the online store, which is the most profitable way of sales from GW's perspective. Sure, they may not have generated much revenue, but little revenue is better than no revenue.

Also, what are "the big 3"? I don't know a single person who plays LOTR, much less Hobbit, but I do know lots of people play Blood Bowl, also few active BFG players, even some Mordheim players. As I said elsewhere, I'm pretty sure BB is actually amongst the most popular miniatures games worldwide. Also I do not for a moment believe that discontinuing Specialist Games will drive those players to GW's core games.

A little revenue is better than no revenue, however if the staff and space can be used to make more money elsewhere that's even better,

that's the point GW seems to have got to with the specialist games (probably through the lack of support for them but that's a different issue)

This is what I would think. Maybe SG made a little money, but staff and space take $ as well. They clearly decided a few years back that it wasn't worth the staff to keep developing those games. I'm not surprised they now don't think it's worth the space and casting time/labor/material to keep making and selling them, especially as they are making a very clear move away from metal.

Also, there's very real reasons that SG may be viewed as a distraction from GW's core product. Why give the customer the ability to choose games with limited, non-growing ranges (with no hope of continued sales once they've been collected), when you can direct them toward games that make more money, are continually being supported and have the chance to keep a customer buying for many years. That's just cold blooded economics.

I don't like it, but I understand it, and I think from GW's perspective it makes an sad kind of sense.

Maybe the really sad thing is that there are so many similar games out there now. (malifaux, Infinity, The spartan games, The mantic clones) that we don't really need specialist games.

I will miss them though. Hate to see this part of GW die. :(

 Eilif wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

Backfire wrote:
[

I have real hard time believing that at least most of the Specialist Games weren't profitable. They were sold right from the online store, which is the most profitable way of sales from GW's perspective. Sure, they may not have generated much revenue, but little revenue is better than no revenue.

Also, what are "the big 3"? I don't know a single person who plays LOTR, much less Hobbit, but I do know lots of people play Blood Bowl, also few active BFG players, even some Mordheim players. As I said elsewhere, I'm pretty sure BB is actually amongst the most popular miniatures games worldwide. Also I do not for a moment believe that discontinuing Specialist Games will drive those players to GW's core games.

A little revenue is better than no revenue, however if the staff and space can be used to make more money elsewhere that's even better,

that's the point GW seems to have got to with the specialist games (probably through the lack of support for them but that's a different issue)

This is what I would think. Maybe SG made a little money, but staff and space take $ as well. They clearly decided a few years back that it wasn't worth the staff to keep developing those games. I'm not surprised they now don't think it's worth the space and casting time/labor/material to keep making and selling them, especially as they are making a very clear move away from metal.

Also, there's very real reasons that SG may be viewed as a distraction from GW's core product. Why give the customer the ability to choose games with limited, non-growing ranges (with no hope of continued sales once they've been collected), when you can direct them toward games that make more money, are continually being supported and have the chance to keep a customer buying for many years. That's just cold blooded economics.

I don't like it, but I understand it, and I think from GW's perspective it makes an sad kind of sense.

Once again, SG were a stagnant range that generated little income with a fixed model range because GW chose to make them that way

I think you'll find more goodwill and nostalgia towards SG than any other games in the range, not to mention they're a brilliant gateway product which GW are sadly lacking. But rather than capitalise on that, management chose to let them rot.

GW should make their new slogan : "Games Workshop : We never fail to piss off our fans."

Anyway this is pretty disappointing because I wanted to play BFG.. guess I'll just play Firestorm Armada.

 Eilif wrote:
Why give the customer the ability to choose games with limited, non-growing ranges (with no hope of continued sales once they've been collected), when you can direct them toward games that make more money, are continually being supported and have the chance to keep a customer buying for many years.

Yes, and GW is doing a very good job of directing those customers towards Privateer Press, Infinity, Mantic, etc.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
Why give the customer the ability to choose games with limited, non-growing ranges (with no hope of continued sales once they've been collected), when you can direct them toward games that make more money, are continually being supported and have the chance to keep a customer buying for many years.

Yes, and GW is doing a very good job of directing those customers towards Privateer Press, Infinity, Mantic, etc.

This.

I was a happy GW camper for a long time. SG gave me the variety to ensure that i didn't really NEED to look elsewhere for my Gaming kicks. SG stagnation and GW's general poor disregard for it's playerbase have prompted me to try most of their competititors ranges and when i have i have usually found that they are far better than GW in the first place.

Dystopian Wars
Warmahordes
Infinity
Malifaux.
Dreadball

All bought into and enjoyed due to GW just generally being terrible these days.

 DiabolicAl wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
Why give the customer the ability to choose games with limited, non-growing ranges (with no hope of continued sales once they've been collected), when you can direct them toward games that make more money, are continually being supported and have the chance to keep a customer buying for many years.

Yes, and GW is doing a very good job of directing those customers towards Privateer Press, Infinity, Mantic, etc.

This.

I was a happy GW camper for a long time. SG gave me the variety to ensure that i didn't really NEED to look elsewhere for my Gaming kicks. SG stagnation and GW's general poor disregard for it's playerbase have prompted me to try most of their competititors ranges and when i have i have usually found that they are far better than GW in the first place.

Dystopian Wars
Warmahordes
Infinity
Malifaux.
Dreadball

All bought into and enjoyed due to GW just generally being terrible these days.

I'll chime in with this as well. I loved GW's products and still, by and large, love the universes. I also love a chance to support my FLGS, and they've got a really good GW selection. GW's asinine business practices though, of which fully killing off SG is just the latest boneheaded move, have actually gotten me to go look at other gaming systems from other manufacturers. It's cost them well over a thousand dollars since September of 2012 (accounting for wholesale discounts because I'd only buy from a local vendor).

One or two people is not a trend, but the more and more of those converts GW creates through their own mismanagement of the brand, the less of a brand there will be to manage. While GW has the lion's share of the market and is at least able to look good on a financial report, there is no immutable law that says this will be the trend forever. The real problem is I think GW has descended into such a "yes-man" corporate culture that they can't even fathom that possibility...

If it wasn't making them money, then that's obviously a big problem. However, it's a problem of their own creation, and one they could solve themselves in a way that sees them making money off of their languishing propeties.

Necromunda could make them tons of money if they put in any effort in it.

They need a box game release similar to what they did with Space Hulk. Then they had to make Dreadfail and ruin any hope of other limited box games...

azreal13 wrote:
I think you'll find more goodwill and nostalgia towards SG than any other games in the range, not to mention they're a brilliant gateway product which GW are sadly lacking. But rather than capitalise on that, management chose to let them rot.

I don't believe for a second that the goodwill and nostalgia of some vets for SG outweighs the feelings of dedicated WHFB and 40k players for their games, in magnitude or in moneymaking ability. It's a fair guess that most currently active 40k players have never played an SG game.

Tannhauser42 wrote:Yes, and GW is doing a very good job of directing those customers towards Privateer Press, Infinity, Mantic, etc.

I agree with you there, but that seems to be a price issue rather than their treatment of a few SG products. When I moved GW to the backburner, cost was the major factor.

azreal13 wrote:
Once again, SG were a stagnant range that generated little income with a fixed model range because GW chose to make them that way

H.B.M.C. wrote:If it wasn't making them money, then that's obviously a big problem. However, it's a problem of their own creation, and one they could solve themselves in a way that sees them making money off of their languishing propeties.

CaptKaruthors wrote:Necromunda could make them tons of money if they put in any effort in it.

Folks say these things, but that's really just speculation by folks who haven't seen GW's sales numbers. Just because a property is languishing doesn't mean that it has the potential for profit making. Step back a second and think about this..
Does anyone actually think that GW stopped supporting SG because they were making alot of money with those lines?
I'm speculating too, but it's far more likely that they were't making much money and GW is simply doing now what it didn't do 6 years ago.

 Eilif wrote:

Folks say these things, but that's really just speculation by folks who haven't seen GW's sales numbers. Just because a property is languishing doesn't mean that it has the potential for profit making. Step back a second and think about this..
Does anyone actually think that GW stopped supporting SG because they were making alot of money with those lines?
I'm speculating too, but it's far more likely that they were't making much money and GW is simply doing now what it didn't do 6 years ago.

Deadzone, which is Necromunda-lite, stands to make Mantic the better part of a million dollars before all is said and done. Dreadball did much the same in the arena of "fantasy sports." Dropzone Commander has shown the market exists for Epic-scale sci-fi. These are games that clearly have a market, which generally when a good market is paired with a good IP and a long-lived pedigree translates into pretty stable income.

GW has undoubtedly ended the ranges for a variety of reasons. First and foremost was the games were mostly done in metal, which is a material GW no longer wishes to deal with. This presented them with a choice, tweak the molds (some of which may have been lost/damaged) to work with FineCast, or ditch them. Combined with the fact that they were mostly small-scale games that were not designed to soak a player for every possible dollar, with a passable gang/team/fleet being buildable for less than $200, meant it wasn't in line with GW's strategic goals. There would have been quite a bit of backlash to them "GW-fying" the prices, especially with the great amount of alternative and second-hand models available already. Just for good measure, piling in teaching your high-turnover, single-employee stores about how to promote the products and loss of retail shelf space and the equation becomes even more grim still.

Could they have updated things to make them work? Probably, but in their opinion it wasn't worth the money to do so. What others are pointing out the conditions that led to GW making that determination are because of GW's own lack of effort. It is the classic self-fulfilling prophecy; we don't think these lines are worth the money to support so we won't support them thereby making them not worth the money.

GW making a business decision based on the numbers isn't what has gotten people worked up. It's the very large role GW's own inaction had in creating the numbers it based its decision on combined with the lack of any sort of public acknowledgement that 1) the lines existed and 2) they were being discontinued for those who did want them.

 Eilif wrote:

Does anyone actually think that GW stopped supporting SG because they were making alot of money with those lines?
I'm speculating too, but it's far more likely that they were't making much money and GW is simply doing now what it didn't do 6 years ago.

SG are gone, not because they were unprofitable, but because they were not profitable enough to warrant the expense of a move to full plastic/crapcast. Why they took down FW minis for them I don't really know.


IMHO it was a management decision cascade: 'We're getting rid of metal'. "Ok, but that means we will have to redo a lot of SG". "That's too expensive." "Well, we could stop support." "Ok, get rid of SG." "All of them?' 'Yeah, feth it, all of them."

Thus we also see them getting rid of FW minis, etc. Not that the FW BFG minis other than Tau were big sellers, in all likelihood. Most were wildly overpriced, or, bizarrely, directly competed with the metal line.

 Eilif wrote:

azreal13 wrote:
I think you'll find more goodwill and nostalgia towards SG than any other games in the range, not to mention they're a brilliant gateway product which GW are sadly lacking. But rather than capitalise on that, management chose to let them rot.

I don't believe for a second that the goodwill and nostalgia of some vets for SG outweighs the feelings of dedicated WHFB and 40k players for their games, in magnitude or in moneymaking ability. It's a fair guess that most currently active 40k players have never played an SG game.

Most of the active 40k players have also never read a Black Library novel, or bought Forgeworld models. That doesn't mean those enterprises can't have a place in GW business strategy.

Backfire wrote:
Most of the active 40k players have also never read a Black Library novel, or bought Forgeworld models. That doesn't mean those enterprises can't have a place in GW business strategy.

I think of it that way too. I don't expect SGs to be important but I feel there's certainly room for them within GW's business strategy. If properly managed then consumer confusion and positioning wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately I don't feel GW is really able to move with the times in its current incarnation. It's still confused about bricks 'n' mortar vs. the internet, for gods' sakes.

Krinsath wrote:
Could they have updated things to make them work? Probably, but in their opinion it wasn't worth the money to do so. What others are pointing out the conditions that led to GW making that determination are because of GW's own lack of effort. It is the classic self-fulfilling prophecy; we don't think these lines are worth the money to support so we won't support them thereby making them not worth the money.

GW making a business decision based on the numbers isn't what has gotten people worked up. It's the very large role GW's own inaction had in creating the numbers it based its decision on combined with the lack of any sort of public acknowledgement that 1) the lines existed and 2) they were being discontinued for those who did want them.

Maybe GW's inaction created the numbers, but I'm not convinced.
Take Necro for an example, GW released a new rulebook, and started releasing new sculpts (Enforcers, Van Saar, Goliath, etc.) . Then GW stopped developing Necro. Seems likely that those new lines didn't sell well enough to warrant further investment.

What I'm trying to say is that maybe more could have been done, but looking at the history it looks like it wasn't all "inaction" GW did try to reboot Necro and even released new miniatures. I just don't think it worked. In light of that, more development might well have been seen as good money after bad.

BaronIveagh wrote:
SG are gone, not because they were unprofitable, but because they were not profitable enough to warrant the expense of a move to full plastic/crapcast. Why they took down FW minis for them I don't really know.

IMHO it was a management decision cascade: 'We're getting rid of metal'. "Ok, but that means we will have to redo a lot of SG". "That's too expensive." "Well, we could stop support." "Ok, get rid of SG." "All of them?' 'Yeah, feth it, all of them."

I don't think either of us know how profitable SG was, but I do agree about the move away from metal. GW seems to be getting out of metal. If SG wasn't worth developing further 6 years ago then it certainly wouldn't be getting the finecast treatment now.

Backfire wrote:
Most of the active 40k players have also never read a Black Library novel, or bought Forgeworld models. That doesn't mean those enterprises can't have a place in GW business strategy.

Possibly, but apparently GW disagrees.

I'm enjoying all this discussion. My points really boil down to these:
1) Yes, it's sad that SG is no more.
2) Maybe GW could have done more to develop the line, but the history of Necromunda does suggest that there's a real possibility that they did try to make it work before letting it go.
3) There are very real marketing and customer retention reasons to not give your customers the option to buy into games that you have no intention of supporting.
4) If the policy to phase out metal is real, then it's likely that the resources required to transfer SG products to finecast made keeping SG a non-starter.

Sum up, it's cold blooded and not friendly to vets, but dropping SG was probably inevitable and ( given the metal phase-out and focus on the main lines policies) the likely the best financial decision for the company.

First let me say I'm not trying to start a arguement or call anyone out.

With that said, I'm going to repeat my conversation with some individuals at GW HQ. When I asked/told them about the rumor that SG was being phased out. They laughed and said "We have done some dumb things over the years, we admit that, but SG last year alone counted for 18% of our overall sales. Why would we give away that much in sales." followed up with, a statement that they admit to be phasing out metals, but that people need to be patient as old metals get new molds, and are put into plastic and finecast.

Now granted it would not surprise me if one hand didn't know what the other was up to, but I have a hard time thinking any company would cut out close to 20% of sales. Of course they could also just be telling me this so not to much blood is leaked into the water for other compaines to go into a feeding frenzy on since they have similar lines. (like firestorm, etc)