PDA

View Full Version : When was the last specialist game update?



Ivellis
28-03-2011, 14:43
Basically, as the title says, when was the last time GW officially updated any of their specialist games? Have they actually said they will no longer be updated or do people just assume that, because of how long it has been since the last update?

I've read the rules for many of the systems and they all have solid rules, much better than what 40k or WFB has to offer. So it's quite disappointing to see that they're mostly ignored. With the quality GW has shown with some of their modern plastics I'd really like to see what they'd do for say BFG or Epic.

yabbadabba
28-03-2011, 14:53
There are 1001 threads on the second half of your post, so maybe having a look through those would answer your questions.

The last time GW and the community updated the SG rules was, I think, the difficult BBLRBv6 a year or so back.

Chaos and Evil
28-03-2011, 15:20
All SG rules development for all game systems is now done by the community.

In practice, that means most of the SG's will never be officially updated again.

Exceptions are Blood Bowl, and BFG, which both have still-active rules committees.

Lord_Goober
28-03-2011, 23:47
Speaking of BFG, a whole batch of files was sent to GW recently including these and a couple more IIRC.

2010/11 FAQ
Space Marine Update
Adepticus Mechanicus Update/cleanup
Inquisition
Chaos update
FW tau fleetlist
Craftworld Eldar update
and a few more I can't remember.

tezdal
29-03-2011, 07:07
Basically, as the title says, when was the last time GW officially updated any of their specialist games? Have they actually said they will no longer be updated or do people just assume that, because of how long it has been since the last update?

I've read the rules for many of the systems and they all have solid rules, much better than what 40k or WFB has to offer. So it's quite disappointing to see that they're mostly ignored. With the quality GW has shown with some of their modern plastics I'd really like to see what they'd do for say BFG or Epic.

Yes modern plastics would rock, but GW doesn't care about vets or games that are not kiddie friendly.

Bodysnatcher
29-03-2011, 07:48
Where are the rulespacks, FAQs etc. for the games collated these days?

yabbadabba
29-03-2011, 08:52
Yes modern plastics would rock, but GW doesn't care about vets or games that are not kiddie friendly. Or ones that don't make enough money

Where are the rulespacks, FAQs etc. for the games collated these days? Here (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/landing.jsp?catId=cat440142a)

ChrisIronBrow
31-03-2011, 21:53
Or ones that don't make enough money
Here (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/landing.jsp?catId=cat440142a)

That's a big assumption isn't it? Sales aren't as black and white as that. Plenty of people I know would get into BFG with a starting point of $100 or so. These same people will NEVER pay $1k to play 40k.

So GW actually loses $100 per person by not supporting this game.

yabbadabba
31-03-2011, 22:00
That's a big assumption isn't it? Sales aren't as black and white as that. Plenty of people I know would get into BFG with a starting point of $100 or so. These same people will NEVER pay $1k to play 40k. So GW actually loses $100 per person by not supporting this game.No, its not a big assumption. I used to sell GW stuff, so I have some experience and I have been around the industry for a while. For a company GW's size, making that $100 might not be economical. It really is that simple. Chris, this has been discussed to death on Warseer, and I really don't think resurrecting it will do any good. For what it is worth, SGs would probably be a very viable cottage/garage industry product, but unless GW come up with great new way to make them profitable and commercially viable long term, then the only hope SGs have is to be licenced off. And as only GW make GW models .....

Novrain
31-03-2011, 22:02
It is a case of diminshing returns from a smaller potential customer base. "loosing" $100 from people by not providing for specialist games is made up for by the gaining of x amount of money from the core games.

ChrisIronBrow
02-04-2011, 14:14
It is a case of diminshing returns from a smaller potential customer base. "loosing" $100 from people by not providing for specialist games is made up for by the gaining of x amount of money from the core games.

Again, assuming they actually gain money from the core games by not supporting specialist games.

Yabba, I used to sell GW products as well. What I remember is that despite what corporate wanted we never sold as many "core" games as they set targets for. Infact Many times after an intro game of 40k looking at the "then" $75 starter set tag, they would walk out of the store with a battlefleet gothic starter. Either way, I'm not looking to argue either, I just find it shocking that people are practically begging a company to take their money, and the company is refusing. :P

yabbadabba
02-04-2011, 15:06
Again, assuming they actually gain money from the core games by not supporting specialist games. I think thats a false assumption people make, it was certainly an easy one to drive a bus through. What was always harder to demonstrate, but felt instinctively right, was that SGs gave established customers a chance to take the pedal off the main games, still do GW stuff, and return to 40K or WFB refreshed. I don't think removing SGs either took money away from, or added money to, the main games. SGs were removed from instore supply because they sold too slow, and in the corperate minds of GWs mid to upper management were going to be replaced by a product they knew would sell, even if for 4 years or so (LotR). I know in the UK Trade division SGs were one of their biggest pains in the posterior as many a LGS thought they knew better than GW about selling the products, then ended up moaning when they didn't sell.


Yabba, I used to sell GW products as well. What I remember is that despite what corporate wanted we never sold as many "core" games as they set targets for. Infact Many times after an intro game of 40k looking at the "then" $75 starter set tag, they would walk out of the store with a battlefleet gothic starter. Now, I would hazard a guess that by that $ you are American? In which case I am firmly of the opinion that the Amercian market is currently a white elephant for GW, and I predict that it will be difficult for a lot of non-Us miniature companies unless they adopt a hands off approach. I would leave the US to distributors, offer them the whole product range at a competitive prices and then no returns unless for faulty product. Ideally long term would franchise out GWUS and let someone else worry about it.


Either way, I'm not looking to argue either, I just find it shocking that people are practically begging a company to take their money, and the company is refusing. :P Can't be begging that hard mate. Rules are free, there is a decent amount of product online to buy. The previous promotions (mostly WD and online centred) seem to suggest that that is about as profitable as it is for GW to advertise them. There aren't any major toy soldiers businesses leaping up around producing alternative SG models although, interestingly, there are a few small size businesses who are doing it but they are by no way creating any big waves. As I said, cottage industry at best.

One of the problems I have always had with the wargames market is despite the plethora of very intelligent and experienced people who are a part of it, both as customers and businessmen, when it comes to toy soldiers the blinkers come on and anecdotal evidence or personal experience is taken as gospel. The reality is often quite different and as it is a tiny, tiny market there is almost no indepth analysis or understanding of how the market works, who the customers are or anything to be frank.

Anyway, I have done what I said I wouldn't so apologies. To the OP it would be nice to hear from you again.

Asp
02-04-2011, 20:01
but uhm... if all these other skirmish companies can survive and make models of a company comparable to GW....?

yabbadabba
02-04-2011, 21:13
but uhm... if all these other skirmish companies can survive and make models of a company comparable to GW....? Your point being?

Korraz
02-04-2011, 22:24
but uhm... if all these other skirmish companies can survive and make models of a company comparable to GW....?

They are garage companies.

Also, skirmish isn't the problem. GW could probably do a new Mordheim that would let you use your WHFB miniatures, but only infantry, so if you want monsters and warmachines and cavalry, you'd still need to expand to WHFB. Update it every five years to accustom new minis and throw a bone by doing a special character (they are doing mascots and merchants for Empire, after all.)
The problem is Blood Bowl, and Epic, and Warmaster and BFG and Inquisitor. Those need their own miniatures, not just the odd boss guy, every now and then.


On topic...the last real release I remember is the Arabian Army from...'06? '07?

Wintertooth
03-04-2011, 00:55
New versions of Griff Oberwald and The Mighty Zug a couple of years ago were the last product release, I think.

Inquisitor Kallus
04-04-2011, 17:41
Arabians were followed by the Adepticus Mechaanicus fleet for BFG

carlisimo
04-04-2011, 20:22
Someone involved in Epic: Armageddon claimed in a TacComs thread that the game accounted for 0.8% of GW's revenues at its peak. So I can't blame them, even if BFG and Epic stuff is all I've bought in the last few years. At least they haven't discontinued old miniatures.