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.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
I half expect GW to abandon Fantasy at some point. In fact I would not be surprised at all should Fantasy head the way of the dodo.

There is hardly anything GW can protect or offer as watertight and wanted IP/Brand within that system.

Hope I am wrong as 3rd ed Fantasy was the first rules book I brought but. with fantasy as one of the most generic tropes out there a litigious and money grabbing GW probably sees slim value in it's second game system.

Which is a shame. That didn't stop them from making one of my favorite armies, Bretonnia, and lifting it straight from Arthurian lore. But instead of making a superior product, they'd rather make a product and try to protect it's sales with IP law. The former is the right way of doing business. The latter, I hope, is not an option some day in the future.

Some ideas in this article are relevant to the discussion of GW and it's approach to the gaming community:

http://digiday.com/sponsored/autodesktt-the-game-of-thrones-approach-to-user-generated-content/

A few things that stand out:

"Marketers are in luck. While the communities that build themselves around specific interests and hobbies are increasingly independent of brands, they also tend to be more engaged, more enthusiastic and more willing to act as brand ambassadors without even being asked."

and

"By cultivating an online community, you’ve just grown a highly engaged audience at scale. The users who make an effort to contribute to these groups are predisposed to share the content they love."

Skirmish games are a complete red herring for long term viability, because the money they generate doesn't add up to much, even if it's a brilliant game.

Let's do some maths with Do I

Say you have 4 players looking to get into a skirmish game, and let's assume they have all the paints and gaming aids they need and lets assume they only need 12 figures max each to build a warband/kill team whatever.

Let's assume they all buy the rulebook which has everything they need to game, and lets assume they don't only buy one copy and photocopy it for everybody else.

So that's 4 x £30 = £120. I'm basing the £30 on the average price for a codex/rulebook on wayland games that various companies offer.

Next the models. I'm basing this price on the days when one box of Empire militia or 10 man dire avenger box was enough to equip a warband. I'm also basing it on prices from 4-5 years ago, which I believe should still be the GW price in this day and age, so that's £20 a box = 4x £20 = £80

Grand total is obviously £200 for four people to get into a skirmish game. At £50 each, that's not a bad start up price.

Even if you went down the route of buying two starter box sets (dropzone for example) it would still come to £130 (average starter box set price for various games on wayland is £65) so for 4 people, that's an average of £32.50 per person to get into that system.

Now, my methodology may be a bit crude, and fair play if you're still reading this post at this stage but compare the skirmish game price to the price if those 4 players were getting into warhammer fantasy or 40k

4 or 5 years ago, I could throw down £100 and roughly get a decent 1000 point chaos force or space marine force to start me off. Obviously those 4 players doing that would be spending £100 each = £400

Even if your players were buying paints and tools to go with their skirmish games, the bigger games still win out and this is where the money is for GW. They not making money because as people have been saying for months, their strategy is a shambles. Skirmish games will not save them. GW's rivals are like China. They're starting from zero so any growth is always going to look good, that's a basic rule of economics. For example, car ownership growth in China is always going to look more impressive than Japan, a country where most people own a car. A crude example but you get my point.

I think I've spent 5 minutes writing a point that could probably have been down in one paragraph!

I tend to agree with the aspect of GW being stuck as the "three-wheeler of minigames". (copywritten jsut now)

Where as other systems specialized in one end of the scale spectrum and expanded towards the middle (warmahordes, infinity, malifaux, starwars, flames of war), GW just plopped themselves right in the middle and figured they would get the best of all worlds.
Now that the other systems are expanding into the middle ground that the GW exodus has opened, GW has no easy territory to expand into. Any direction they go, either larger or smaller, someone has already made a 'better' (Cheaper, Less complex, or more tactical) ruleset. So GW has to add some extra spice (which is usually in the form of codex creep)... they know that if they give the option for something to be stupidpowerful, some WAAC is gonna use it, and then their usual opponents will be forced to escalate (or splinter off into smaller playing groups that have like views, which is equally detrimental to the community).

the problem becomes that although all is fair in love and war, not everything is fair when playing games.
What is everyones least favorite part of baskettball/soccer? flopping.
why? because its a big grey area in the rules that is hard to enforce even for an objective 3rd party.
playing 40k is like playing call your own fouls in basketball, its fine and fun if your opponent has honor, maturity, and a sense of fair play...but it quickly disintegrates when one of the players tries to abuse the grey areas for their own gain.

Additionally, GW always seems to be the johnny-come-lately of progressive ideas.

infinity/starwars have flyers? a year later so does 40k
warmahordes add collosal/gargantuans? a year later gw adds titans.
flames of war has early war, mid war, late war: a year later FW has 30k

Howard A Treesong wrote:I find the suggestions of skirmish games using the currently available miniatures, like kill team, to be giving too much of a concession to GW to make it easy for them to make a smaller game. It's just lazy. It's a great suggestion having smaller skirmish games, but just doing 40k with fewer figures is rather dull and easy for GW. I'd be very disappointed in an official release of kill team was made. It's just like 40k but you only need one box of marines.

xxvaderxx wrote:They already have it, its called kill teams, what they need to do is properly support it.

Kill Team is lazy, and very poorly done. But it's not the fact that it uses currently available miniatures that makes it lazy; it's that it's just 40k with fewer models and just as many rules issues. They need to write a real, modern, stand-alone skirmish ruleset, designed specifically for that scale and for campaigns. Then they can use that "game engine" for Necromunda, Gorkamorka, Inquisitor, etc. And using the same models is an advantage the same way the Allies rules is an advantage - it encourages people to start small collections that then blossom into 40k armies.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:With all due respect to my fellow dakka members, the idea that a skirmish game is going to save GW, is pretty ridiculous.

Necromunda/Mordheim etc as good as they are, didn't exactly set the world on fire when GW took them seriously. They're too niche, too small scale to make any decent boost to profits.

Who said anything about specialist games existing solely to boost profits? You're on GW's board, aren't you? No, no one is saying specialist games alone will fix the bottom line or be a huge money maker. They can certainly be profitable (or else GW's competitors wouldn't be doing so well with analogous games), but it's the secondary benefits that GW needs to go after. GW desperately needs feeder games to bring new players into their ecosystem (what's left of their withered ecosystem), and side games to retain the interest of veterans or encourage them to start new collections. And in my opinion they need a way to channel their creative output and still generate buzz with new products that doesn't result in yet another bloated addition to 40k or Fantasy.

infinity/starwars have flyers? a year later so does 40k

Where are these Infinity flyers? I've seen one prototype model in the entire game. Star Wars is all flyers. Not sure where you are going with the flyer thing.

warmahordes add collosal/gargantuans? a year later gw adds titans

.
GW had titans before Privateer Press was a company. I have an old Armorcast Eldar titan to prove my point. Apocalypse 1.0 was published in 2007, well before PP colossals and gargantuans.

flames of war has early war, mid war, late war: a year later FW has 30k

Histoical games have lists broken up by time period. I don't believe GW as trying for 'early-war' with the Heresy models.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Skirmish games are a complete red herring for long term viability, because the money they generate doesn't add up to much, even if it's a brilliant game.

Let's do some maths with Do I

Say you have 4 players looking to get into a skirmish game, and let's assume they have all the paints and gaming aids they need and lets assume they only need 12 figures max each to build a warband/kill team whatever.

Let's assume they all buy the rulebook which has everything they need to game, and lets assume they don't only buy one copy and photocopy it for everybody else.

So that's 4 x £30 = £120. I'm basing the £30 on the average price for a codex/rulebook on wayland games that various companies offer.

Next the models. I'm basing this price on the days when one box of Empire militia or 10 man dire avenger box was enough to equip a warband. I'm also basing it on prices from 4-5 years ago, which I believe should still be the GW price in this day and age, so that's £20 a box = 4x £20 = £80

Grand total is obviously £200 for four people to get into a skirmish game. At £50 each, that's not a bad start up price.

Even if you went down the route of buying two starter box sets (dropzone for example) it would still come to £130 (average starter box set price for various games on wayland is £65) so for 4 people, that's an average of £32.50 per person to get into that system.

Now, my methodology may be a bit crude, and fair play if you're still reading this post at this stage but compare the skirmish game price to the price if those 4 players were getting into warhammer fantasy or 40k

4 or 5 years ago, I could throw down £100 and roughly get a decent 1000 point chaos force or space marine force to start me off. Obviously those 4 players doing that would be spending £100 each = £400

Even if your players were buying paints and tools to go with their skirmish games, the bigger games still win out and this is where the money is for GW. They not making money because as people have been saying for months, their strategy is a shambles. Skirmish games will not save them. GW's rivals are like China. They're starting from zero so any growth is always going to look good, that's a basic rule of economics. For example, car ownership growth in China is always going to look more impressive than Japan, a country where most people own a car. A crude example but you get my point.

I think I've spent 5 minutes writing a point that could probably have been down in one paragraph!

Tell that to the companies making millions a year on Skirmish games. If you know what your doing, you make money. GW doesn't know what they are doing. Any companies with any smarts wouldn't dismiss a sorce of cash flow just becouse it brings in less profit then their big games.

I have 3 1000+pts Infinity factions, and just started my 4th while still buying for my other 3 forces. That is just one of the Skirmish games I play.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Skirmish games are a complete red herring for long term viability, because the money they generate doesn't add up to much, even if it's a brilliant game.

The point of a skirmish game is not that it would be more profitable than 40k. The point is that a) they're completely missing anyone who only wants to play a skirmish game right now, so any expansion of their total available market is a Good Thing; and b) skirmish games can serve as a gateway into the core systems, so long as the models are at least vaguely compatible (skirmish heroes become sergeants & etc.).

I don't recommend 40k to new players any more, because it will usually cost >$700 before they have anything like a usable army at "normal" point levels. If Mordheim was still supported, though, I would happily be teaching people that (instead of Malifaux).

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Now, my methodology may be a bit crude, and fair play if you're still reading this post at this stage but compare the skirmish game price to the price if those 4 players were getting into warhammer fantasy or 40k

4 or 5 years ago, I could throw down £100 and roughly get a decent 1000 point chaos force or space marine force to start me off. Obviously those 4 players doing that would be spending £100 each = £400

Um....

Why are you comparing the entry cost of a skirmish game today to the entry cost for 40K from 4-5 years ago? Prices are dramatically higher today.

But, since you don't seem to get the obvious, I feel obligated to point it out to you.

Because of the barrier of entry that pricing poses, far more players would be interested in starting a game where you only need to put down $75 to start playing, as opposed to the $300+ you have to pay to start 40K. You make up in volume of customers what you lose in the size of each individual purchase.

And, as others have said, the main reason GW needs something like a skirmish game is to encourage players to get into GW products in the first place.

2112 wrote:

infinity/starwars have flyers? a year later so does 40k

Where are these Infinity flyers? I've seen one prototype model in the entire game. Star Wars is all flyers. Not sure where you are going with the flyer thing.

warmahordes add collosal/gargantuans? a year later gw adds titans

.
GW had titans before Privateer Press was a company. I have an old Armorcast Eldar titan to prove my point. Apocalypse 1.0 was published in 2007, well before PP colossals and gargantuans.

flames of war has early war, mid war, late war: a year later FW has 30k

Histoical games have lists broken up by time period. I don't believe GW as trying for 'early-war' with the Heresy models.

DOH: i meant to type Dust has flyers.
Armorcast was a 3rd party that GW allowed to make mini's, if im not mistaken... they have long since abandoned that route. And im not too sure that they ever had official titan rules outside of epic. although i could be wrong
GW is exaclty trying for early war with 30k... they have vastly differnt rules, abilities, and units that arnt designed to be used against the other set. with the only realy common ground being the name of the faction.

Kiwidru wrote:

2112 wrote:

infinity/starwars have flyers? a year later so does 40k

Where are these Infinity flyers? I've seen one prototype model in the entire game. Star Wars is all flyers. Not sure where you are going with the flyer thing.

warmahordes add collosal/gargantuans? a year later gw adds titans

.
GW had titans before Privateer Press was a company. I have an old Armorcast Eldar titan to prove my point. Apocalypse 1.0 was published in 2007, well before PP colossals and gargantuans.

flames of war has early war, mid war, late war: a year later FW has 30k

Histoical games have lists broken up by time period. I don't believe GW as trying for 'early-war' with the Heresy models.

DOH: i meant to type Dust has flyers.
Armorcast was a 3rd party that GW allowed to make mini's, if im not mistaken... they have long since abandoned that route. And im not too sure that they ever had official titan rules outside of epic. although i could be wrong
GW is exaclty trying for early war with 30k... they have vastly differnt rules, abilities, and units that arnt designed to be used against the other set. with the only realy common ground being the name of the faction.

Forge world took over where armour cast left off. And rules have been around for years. They also had flyers for years. The hover rules covered allot of flyers, and FW had flyers.

Your making an strange comparison with 30k and other games. I don't think that had anything to do with other companies and everything to do with years of players asking FW to do it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Skirmish games are a complete red herring for long term viability, because the money they generate doesn't add up to much, even if it's a brilliant game.

Let's do some maths with Do I

Say you have 4 players looking to get into a skirmish game, and let's assume they have all the paints and gaming aids they need and lets assume they only need 12 figures max each to build a warband/kill team whatever.

Let's assume they all buy the rulebook which has everything they need to game, and lets assume they don't only buy one copy and photocopy it for everybody else.

So that's 4 x £30 = £120. I'm basing the £30 on the average price for a codex/rulebook on wayland games that various companies offer.

Next the models. I'm basing this price on the days when one box of Empire militia or 10 man dire avenger box was enough to equip a warband. I'm also basing it on prices from 4-5 years ago, which I believe should still be the GW price in this day and age, so that's £20 a box = 4x £20 = £80

Grand total is obviously £200 for four people to get into a skirmish game. At £50 each, that's not a bad start up price.

Even if you went down the route of buying two starter box sets (dropzone for example) it would still come to £130 (average starter box set price for various games on wayland is £65) so for 4 people, that's an average of £32.50 per person to get into that system.

Now, my methodology may be a bit crude, and fair play if you're still reading this post at this stage but compare the skirmish game price to the price if those 4 players were getting into warhammer fantasy or 40k

4 or 5 years ago, I could throw down £100 and roughly get a decent 1000 point chaos force or space marine force to start me off. Obviously those 4 players doing that would be spending £100 each = £400

Even if your players were buying paints and tools to go with their skirmish games, the bigger games still win out and this is where the money is for GW. They not making money because as people have been saying for months, their strategy is a shambles. Skirmish games will not save them. GW's rivals are like China. They're starting from zero so any growth is always going to look good, that's a basic rule of economics. For example, car ownership growth in China is always going to look more impressive than Japan, a country where most people own a car. A crude example but you get my point.

I think I've spent 5 minutes writing a point that could probably have been down in one paragraph!

Your whole post makes no sense. This is basic supply and demand stuff. If it costs more to buy something, fewer people will buy it. So in your example, it's far more likely that of the four people who would spend £32.50 to start playing a skirmish game, not all four will spend £100 to start 40k (and even that is a ridiculous number to throw about - that's getting you a codex and maybe two units, not a 1000 point army). So it's probably more like £150 to start an army, and now 3 out of 4 of your hypothetical players have balked and the 4th guy decides not to buy because no one will play with him.

Profit is profit - margins are probably thinner on a skirmish game, but if you're making a profit you're making money. And the network effect is crucial for gaming. Like above, if you can't find enough people to play against, you won't buy the game. A good 28mm skirmish game might only marginally increase their sales volume, but the potential to snag new players at a lower price point is critical right now when their player base is dwindling.

Two points on Skirmish Games:

1) I think it is seriously doubtful if GW retains the game design talent to produce a competitive Skirmish game. They may get a cool game, because the WH40K IP is brilliant for multi-level gaming. But a good game? Highly unlikely.

Which means that the first stage in GW's renaissance is realizing that it is a game company in a competitive marketplace. GW leadership proudly proclaims that it is a miniatures company in a collecting GW miniature marketplace. Absent changing this fundamental GW leadership precept, the good Skirmish game cannot happen.

2) A Skirmish game(s) offers two advantages to GW:

- A low cost entry into the WH40K universe with heavy emphasis on Heroic action. Self explanatory, really.

- A second source of development. I agree with the idea that WH40K has been over exploited in terms of additional rules and units. There aren't obvious additions to the rules, so GW has to force new units and concepts into an overly bloated game. Skirmish games offer the game developers a chance to experiment with new ideas in a smaller setting. Now, not all GW skirmish games need be in WH40K. GW could produce a modern warfare skirmish game, using a different set of rules, or, in time for the WW1 anniversary, a WW1 skirmish game.

The idea here is periodic new games, centered around a particular gameplay idea. (In WW1 case, squad action moving against Machinegun Nests and Artillery) Limited unit product and depth and almost entirely self contained, but supported through a GW FLGS/Store marketing network. If a particular game does well, GW can allocate more resources to continuing it. Otherwise, produce the gem, get the money, and move on. (And kill off competition.)

About LoTR: Were GW competent, they could have leveraged their LoTR experience to push for the rights to publish an LoTR style game for Game of Thrones. Same non-heroic scale 28mm mass skirmish, similar rules without magic and with greater emphasis on campaigns. The additional IP isn't an either/or, it is a continuing secondary line of business. However, that would require that GW accept that it needs to be a professionally run corporation. (Again, a limitation of the current management.)

If GW is going to do a skirmish game, it needs to get its arse into gear and release one within the next year or so. And even if they did that, I'm not quite sure they are the panacea that a lot of people seem to think they will be.

Games like Deadzone are gaining ground all the time and getting more and more players, as are the likes of Infinity and Malifaux. Firestorm Armada and X-Wing have got space combat covered. You have to think that if GW does release such a game, using their current mindset, it's probably going to be over-priced compared to its competitors.

So the rulesets, prices, miniature quality are going to be directly compared to products already on the market with an established demographic. The evocative IP is going to count for a lot, but GW can't just rely on big shoulder pads to see off the games that they are directly competing against.

(Not that I think this will actually happen, the next year we're probably just likely to see a flood of more space marines and a token 'new WFB! Look!' release that will rapidly disappear from the front pages.

i understand that theoretically titans, flyers, and the heresy existed before those that i mentioned.... but they didnt make it into the common game of 40k until a different gaming company had already introduced them.

yeah i saw a pair of scratchbuilt thunderhawks, a stompa, and a homemake titan in 3rd edition.... but to say taht they were a part of the game is a VAST overstatement


spelling is hard

2112 wrote:

infinity/starwars have flyers? a year later so does 40k

Where are these Infinity flyers? I've seen one prototype model in the entire game. Star Wars is all flyers. Not sure where you are going with the flyer thing.

warmahordes add collosal/gargantuans? a year later gw adds titans

.
GW had titans before Privateer Press was a company. I have an old Armorcast Eldar titan to prove my point. Apocalypse 1.0 was published in 2007, well before PP colossals and gargantuans.

flames of war has early war, mid war, late war: a year later FW has 30k

Histoical games have lists broken up by time period. I don't believe GW as trying for 'early-war' with the Heresy models.

Yeah, but GW totally ripped off Warcraft and Starcraft.

I think it would be too risky right now for them to do a different IP skirmish game. They would want to tie it into their main game in some form or another, because that's how they roll.

WHFB could easily leverage LOTR or The Hobbit (not sure of how those rules actually are) for a skirmish type of game, which if received well could branch out into an entirely new version of WHFB from the ground up.

40k is trickier but I maintain that a 28mm Inquisitor style game would work well within the parameters of what a skirmish game should entail. It could have a small number of models (no more than 20 say, slightly more than Infinity) with a similar but not the same rules set to 40k. The thing here is that I don't think they can do anything really radical as they don't have time to do it; it would have to use the same figures but be a different game.

Kiwidru wrote:

DOH: i meant to type Dust has flyers.
Armorcast was a 3rd party that GW allowed to make mini's, if im not mistaken... they have long since abandoned that route. And im not too sure that they ever had official titan rules outside of epic. although i could be wrong

Uh, I really doubt that GW folks sat down some evening and decided "omg DUST is kicking our asses...we better add flyers into game like they!".
Even GW proper had models like Stompa and Baneblade before PP had Colossals.

I saw people playing with GW made Titans (FW and Plastic Stompa's) in 2007. When did Collosals & Gargantuans come out again?

DOH: i meant to type Dust has flyers.
Armorcast was a 3rd party that GW allowed to make mini's, if im not mistaken... they have long since abandoned that route. And im not too sure that they ever had official titan rules outside of epic. although i could be wrong
GW is exaclty trying for early war with 30k... they have vastly differnt rules, abilities, and units that arnt designed to be used against the other set. with the only realy common ground being the name of the faction.

I'm not a fan of GW's current business strategy, but you have to give credit where credit is due.

I believe the earliest rules for titans, superheavies and flyers in 40K were in Imperial Armour 1 & 2 (2000 and 2001). These rules beat PP to colossals and gargantuans by at least 10 years. I would argue that PP noticed the success GW had selling $100+ large kits and wanted in on the action.

You can't compare the Horus Heresy line with FoW Blitzkrieg. All historicals have army lists and rules variations based on time periods. I don't think this is a case of GW trying to copy Blitzkrieg. In FoW there is nothing stopping you from mixing late war and early war. I'd be happy to field my Tigers or Jumbo Shermans against your Char B1.

 Pacific wrote:
If GW is going to do a skirmish game, it needs to get its arse into gear and release one within the next year or so. And even if they did that, I'm not quite sure they are the panacea that a lot of people seem to think they will be.

I don't think they are either. And not because GW will somehow screw it up.

Skirmish isn't a bad thing to have in the product portfolio, and I think a 40k skirmish game done right could be a great product. But note how these other companies being mentioned start at a skirmish level but almost without fail soon begin pushing larger games, larger units/models/etc, more factions, additional settings, etc. Bloat is where the money is.

Personally, I think the Stormclaw approach addresses a number of the points being talked about and seems to be a win all around. We get cheaper models and some great campaign support, GW gets to push more 'starter armies.' I'm really very positive about it and think it's one of the best things GW's done in a while.

I do think a Skirmish game would work, I just don't think GW has the creative ability to pull it off successfully.

Aside from a skirmish game, what could they do for another original main game like 40k or fantasy? Is that even feasible?

2112 wrote:
You can't compare the Horus Heresy line with FoW Blitzkrieg. All historicals have army lists and rules variations based on time periods.

OMG. GW totes ripped off...history.

 Pacific wrote:
If GW is going to do a skirmish game, it needs to get its arse into gear and release one within the next year or so. And even if they did that, I'm not quite sure they are the panacea that a lot of people seem to think they will be.

Games like Deadzone are gaining ground all the time and getting more and more players, as are the likes of Infinity and Malifaux. Firestorm Armada and X-Wing have got space combat covered. You have to think that if GW does release such a game, using their current mindset, it's probably going to be over-priced compared to its competitors.

So the rulesets, prices, miniature quality are going to be directly compared to products already on the market with an established demographic. The evocative IP is going to count for a lot, but GW can't just rely on big shoulder pads to see off the games that they are directly competing against.

(Not that I think this will actually happen, the next year we're probably just likely to see a flood of more space marines and a token 'new WFB! Look!' release that will rapidly disappear from the front pages.

This is absolutely true. I won't say it's impossible, but given GW's current leadership and design team, I don't think they have the knowledge to get a skirmish game right, or the knowledge to know what needs to be made in the first place. And if they do get something like that out the door, it could be too little too late - an overpriced and poorly written attempt that will go head to head against other games that will only have gained ground between now and then. It's potentially risky.

However, just because those games exist, doesn't mean GW couldn't compete against them, or shouldn't try. Firestorm Armada and X-Wing are good games, but Battlefleet Gothic was a good game too - revise the rules, make new starter fleets, and re-release it, and I think you'd see it gain a decent foothold again. Even if they can't compete on being a superior game, they still have very strong and recognizable lore to attract fresh players, and a large "veteran" player base from their main games that could cross over. Those both count for a lot.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I do think a Skirmish game would work, I just don't think GW has the creative ability to pull it off successfully.

Aside from a skirmish game, what could they do for another original main game like 40k or fantasy? Is that even feasible?

One way they could do skirmish would be to simply reuse the existing plastic box sets. So in the skirmish game you can take a SM tactical squad, which has the options that are on the tac squad sprue. They'd probably want to do some repackaging to make it clear which boxes work for both systems, but it'd probably be preferable to adding a bunch more SKUs and trying to figure out where to fit it all in the one-man stores.

 gorgon wrote:
Skirmish isn't a bad thing to have in the product portfolio, and I think a 40k skirmish game done right could be a great product. But note how these other companies being mentioned start at a skirmish level but almost without fail soon begin pushing larger games, larger units/models/etc, more factions, additional settings, etc. Bloat is where the money is.

That's silly. Just because some other companies eventually expand to compete with GW's bloated rules, GW should completely cede a large and growing market for small/skirmish/casual games to their competitors? No, they should be trying to crowd them out at all levels, capturing more of the gaming market by bringing in players with a variety of games at a lower price point, all of which should tie into their main offerings.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Skirmish isn't a bad thing to have in the product portfolio, and I think a 40k skirmish game done right could be a great product. But note how these other companies being mentioned start at a skirmish level but almost without fail soon begin pushing larger games, larger units/models/etc, more factions, additional settings, etc. Bloat is where the money is.

That's silly. Just because some other companies eventually expand to compete with GW's bloated rules, GW should completely cede a large and growing market for small/skirmish/casual games to their competitors? No, they should be trying to crowd them out at all levels, capturing more of the gaming market by bringing in players with a variety of games at a lower price point, all of which should tie into their main offerings.

True this. GW gave up large sections of its market to companies that gladly stepped in and took their place. Blood Bowl, BFG, Necromunda. That's money that isn't going to GW and going to competitors.

I think we have a fundamentally different idea of what it means to be included in the basic framework of a game.

Yall seem to be of the opinion that any existence of rules or minis, even if explicitly stated as being experimental and/or requiring your opponents consent and/or banned from 'sanctioned GW games' constitutes inclusion.

my opinion is that inclusion is only truly established when the rules becomes integrated into the common rule set.

thats fine, but i stand by the statement because i feel that it is more accurate to say its an official part of the game if your opponent cant veto it as "not being an official part of the game"

id say the same for special characters, sure they had rules in 3rd edition...but the rules also explicitly stated that you needed your opponents consent to play with them, which forced them out of tournament play (back when they had official tournament play)

similarly, jsut because the unit has rules in apocalypse or imperial armor, doesnt mean that it was green lit for standard 40k play. A good rule of thumb would be, "Think back to a previous edition, would you have allowed someone to field a superheavy/homemade flyer at a tournament you were participating in?

Correlation does not imply causation, but it is highly suspect that all these ideas floating out there just happened to manifest into the mainstream game only after something analogous was introduced into a different systems core rules.

also the jumbo/charB is the exact issue that im trying to point out.... sure you CAN use them, because they have the same basical game skeleton, but they arnt DESIGNED to be played that way due to obvious power scaling differences.

The box sets aren't about being a major revenue earner, they are about keeping gamers interested, introducing new gamers to the world of 40k or even getting money out of gamers who aren't really that fussed about 40k but like that box set. It's extra revenue and a good way to test the water.

I think they missed a trick with Aeronautica Imperialis. If they'd done models at sensible prices it could of picked up more players, but they didn't and it died a death.

2112 wrote:

I believe the earliest rules for titans, superheavies and flyers in 40K were in Imperial Armour 1 & 2 (2000 and 2001).

Earliest "official" rules produced by GW/FW perhaps, but Inquisitor mag had a full playable set of rules for Titans and superheavies for Mike Biasi's models from 1992- 1995, even before Armorcast exisited. Titans and superheavies were far more powerful than they are in the current rules, but people were basically playing Apoc style games with them, not trying to integrate them into regular games of 40K.