Perhaps GW is a marketing machine. Perhaps they constantly keep their games
"fresh" by changing rules, codexes, and army lists at a rate that would dizzy
the novice. Perhaps they "milk" their market. Quite frankly, SFB changed its
rules a lot (not out of marketing, but out of the type of game they were). The
N versions of the game helped drive me off. GW drove me off
in part by their continual re-engineering, by their Microsoft like
nature, and by the quality (ick!) of the rules they produce.
Maybe Jon/GZG is none of these things. Approachable, interested in
things that interest the gamer base and growing it by word of mouth (demos and
intros by those of us already in). Maybe it is a Cottage Industry. If so, I
can live with that. If the game grows by steadily attracting new converts
through word of mouth, all to the better.
I hope Jon's business grows and prospers. But I sure hope he doesn't feel
compelled to reinvent rules for the sake of re-selling me the game. That
will have the same effect on the existing player base (or most of it) that GW
and SFB and others have had.... driving the folks to other systems.
Frankly, I'm not worried:)
Once again, I feel my point has been missed so I will drop the subject. Maybe
at some other time I will be able to articulate my point better but it is
obviously not today.
I came to the GZG fold because of Jon's great products and his
professionalism. He has always treated my questions himself and done so
quickly. If my posts seemed to put him or his company down then I failed
completely.
Daniel
[quoted original message omitted]
Your point seems clear to me. You said that it dosn't take much to make a
small outfit seem as
professional/ect. as a big outfit.
I agree, the internet is the great leveler. (And not just in the wargames
biz.) I think every small outfit should take full advantage of it. They can
compete shoulder to shoulder with the big guys.
I would like to see the small outfits outdo the big outfits. Maybe this will
get them to rethink their strategies. Because if the small guys can meet our
wargaming needs better than the big guys, then more power to the small guys!
> Once again, I feel my point has been missed so I will drop the
No you haven't failed Daniel. I think most people like the cottage industry
side of things because they can feel part of a community and feel they have a
voice within it. GW would never dreamed of mailing out a draft of a new system
to be play tested, nor would they ever think to ask players what figures they
would like to see produced next.
But the real truth of the matter is that you don't have to get rid of the
cottage industry feel when you become a larger more successful company.
If you take a look at Wizards of the Coast as a prime example. They have just
produced the 3rd edition of Dungeons & Dragons RPG. At first I was worried
about what a large successful company was going to do to ruin this RPG (hang
up's from GW days).
To my utter surprise the game includes practically every change to the system
that I and fellow players had been badgering TSR for. We have also been able
to ask for rule clarifications and get answers from the development team
themselves. And very uncharacteristically for a large company they have
allowed 3rd parties to use the games system to produce supplements and other
source material independently of WotC.
I do believe miniatures companies should be increasing their profiles. If
website development and maintenance is a problem then why not promote products
better within existing websites. 'The Miniatures Page' is a prime example. Or
in exactly the the same way as Daniel has offered, give details or even
samples to 3rd parties and get them to promote the miniatures. I always try to
name the figure manufacturers in any pictures I put on the web, we don't have
to lose the cottage industry feel just because we raise it's profile.
As for the original point of lack of pictures, all I can say is thank god we
have a miniatures show coming up this April. A chance once again to buy
figures!
I wholehearted agree that GW is in it for the money, and not the hobby. When I
first started my "company", I was told by SCORE, (a branch of the SBA) that
what I have isn't a business, it's a hobby! Just because I don't pull in
$30,000 a month, or even a year in sales! I bust my hind every day. Not Monday
thru Friday, everyday, to keep my orders up, and my stock moving, and new
ideas flowing. I don't know, but it sure feels like a business. When the
bottom fell out of the model making aspect of the movie industry, I was left
with, "what do I do now?" I'm in it for the hobby folks. I take great pride in
the work I produce, and even more when I make a sale, and ship it! I'm not
afraid of expansion, because I will have control of the pulse. I do all of the
work myself. Everything. R&D, casting, trimming, box art, advertising,
shipping, and I still have time for doing web site design. I cannot comprehend
how a "company" can do business without photos, or something for someone to
look at. I'm not going to "buy sight unseen". I wouldn't expect my customers
to either. Yeah, I might be a "Cottage Industry", or a guy in a garage that
was turned into a shop, but I can also create a web site with photos and color
and form. [even tho I stumbled thru all of it!:o] And I have had no training
on web design. It's not hard. If I can do
it......so can
others.....if they want and care to. Digital cameras are the way to go by far!
We have a scanner, but it takes so long to scan, when all I have to do is
click the camera and remove the disk and TaDa! Photo. It's real simple! What
I'm trying to say is that I wish that more companies would care more about the
customer than, "How many sales we can do in a month". After all, it's the
customer that makes that sale. And without them, there is no sale. It's the GW
mentality that brings gives the Gaming Market a bad rap. People get burnt by
GW's
switch-o-change-o of rules and therefore doesn't have the want to "try"
a new company (GZG). I guess I'm a little torqued at GW.....wonder
why....(hundreds of dollars wasted because of this rulez change or
that...grrrrrr) "Up With Cottage Industries, Down with the suits!" <sorry for
the rant! It struck a nerve>
In message
<417DEC289A05D4118408000102362E0A54C94C@host-253.bitheads.com>, "Bar
> clay, Tom" writes:
That
> will have the same effect on the existing player base (or most of it)
that
> GW and SFB and others have had....
I don't care much for GW, but they're not making tons of money by having
Huzzah!! Huzzah! Kudos to you David and anyone else with the gumption to keep
at it! Having dealt with the burdens of running a small business (though, yes,
in my case the SBA did acknowledge that we were a little larger than a hobby
(not by much))
Customer is first, last, always. If you've happy customers... the rest
follows.
Sorry to have taken up bandwith in this preachy manner, but I feel strongly
that too many companies have lost track of getting and keeping long term
relationship with customers.
Oops, just fell off soapbox. Well, now back to more important things
Thanks for the listen....err, read. Thanks Pat Connaughton
e-mail - ptconn@earthlink.net
homepage - www.home.earthlink.net/~ptconn
ICQ # 2535086 "He who knows not how to dissemble knows not how to reign"
Tiberius, Emperator and Princips of Rome
[quoted original message omitted]
David, thanks for your input. I was glad to see someone that proved it could
be done. Your web site looks great.
Daniel
[quoted original message omitted]
> In message
That
> will have the same effect on the existing player base (or most of it)
that
> GW and SFB and others have had....
Well, according to some sources they're not making tons of money,
period..... ;-)
But no, I hope we'll never reinvent rules for the sake of it (or for
marketing purposes) - the only time we'll change things is if we
honestly
G'day guys,
I was trying so hard to resist joining on this one, but its got the better of
me;) The one thing that always amazes me is that people buy the new editions.
If you were happy with the old ones why not just play them? OK I have only
ever played a little Necromunda and 2 games of Warhammer (which must be the
MOST boring game on Earth!!!!!!!!!!) so there is no way I could be mistaken
for a GW aficionado and I guess if you wanted to play tournaments etc you'd
have to keep up, but if its just a bunch of mates well why bother? I'm sure
there's still a people out there that don't play FB, its the same deal.
And before this starts another deluge of response, if you do want to correct
my obviously misguided thinking <;)> send it to me off list at
beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au
Thanks
Beth
> On 13-Feb-01 at 17:39, Ground Zero Games (jon@gzg.com) wrote:
> But no, I hope we'll never reinvent rules for the sake of it (or for
Yes, I am replying to an old post. Just out of curiousity, in the SG rules
there is mention that it is similar to DS but with some improvements. Is there
any plane to make these changes in DS or is DS pretty well a static project.
> On 13-Feb-01 at 17:39, Ground Zero Games (jon@gzg.com) wrote:
Well, DS is out of print at the moment, and we're still undecided whether
to reprint it as-is, to do a slightly updated version, or to revise it
completely. There are certainly things that we put in SG that will retrofit
into DS to improve it. If you really want DSII at the moment, you'll have to
find it from a stockist that still has some left, because we're all out
of them! But, IT WILL BE BACK..... ;-)
> On 26-Mar-01 at 15:23, Ground Zero Games (jon@gzg.com) wrote:
> >Roger (I won't buy DS until I have my SG minis painted and used,
Hah, I can't.:)
> Well, DS is out of print at the moment, and we're still undecided
Just as a data-point, one of the reasons I have avoided buying DS is
I am extremely happy with the SGII rules, and that comment at the beginning
put me off just enough to be able to not buy them.
Well, that and looking at all the unpainted lead I have around, which wouldn't
be a big deal except my regular wargamers turned into MTG players in an
attempt to attract younger players.
Hmmm. It seems that you have your work cut out for you.
FT2 is 70% obsolete due to changes introduced in FB1/2.
MT is out of print DS2 is out of print BDS is long overdue.
-Other pokers in the fire-
FB3
FMASk
Scenario Book 15 mm line (IF, NI, PAU, etc.) FT ships for IF & ORC that are
partially done (not every ship class represented)
I would think that FT3 should be the first priority. Now before the BDS
outcry, let me explain why. It is somewhat unfair to ask your customers to
purchase a book that is over half obsolete. Many crutial rules (such as
fighter morale) is in the out of print MT. And the other important rules are
scattered across 2 fleetbooks and MT. Consolidating these into a single volume
for the rules should be a high priority. Also FT appears to be your top
seller.
I think that an updated DS3 should be next on the priority list. If you plan
to go fully FMA with DS (opposed roll for damage instead of chit drawing), now
is the time to do it (before another print run). Also it could
consolidate with SG2 at this point (GMS/P, decoys, etc.). I would also
encourage you to update the construction rules. Some of the miniatures in the
Dirtside and Future Wars lines do not seem possible to build with the current
rules. It may also be a good time to drop the point system or update it. And
new interface rules for use with FT.
Concurrent with DS3 (or shortly after) should be BDS introducing alien
ground tech for DS3 and SG2. It should also contain DS/SG consolidation
information (such as adding PDS to SG vehicles).
Anyway, my $.02 worth on what I would like to see happen.
In message <2A5C49585B46EC42BB99D3000F725D4707470B@col1smx01.dscc.dla.mil>,
"Be
> ll, Brian K (Contractor)" writes:
Frrrrrrp! Freakin' Vacheads.;) "Forget it, Rico. Mobile Infantry and Fleet
don't mix."
> outcry, let me explain why. It is somewhat unfair to ask your
True, but at least "the rules are out there." I would say to John: don't
neglect the Vacheads, since they're helping to subsidize what we know you
really want to work on, the ground pounding rules, but here's what I'd like to
see in order:
FMASk (DROP ALL ELSE!) It seems to me that this game could really draw in new
players. It's new, it's "lower scale" and IMO might be more attractive to
40kers than SG2 was. FMA DS2 Clean up DS2, get it back into print, and do so
quickly so that it doesn't delay BDS! BDS
Once DS2 has been brought up to speed, follow it with DS2/SG2/FMAsk
alien rules.
> Concurrent with DS3 (or shortly after) should be BDS introducing alien
I agree with this, but ss much as I'd like to see BDS, I can make up
> On 27-Mar-01 at 09:55, Andy Cowell (andy@cowell.org) wrote:
So you would jump on the new and nifty before putting out DSIII to support an
already extensive range of miniatures???? I'm not going to suggest what should
be done next, it's not my business and not my income, it's just this
suggestion seems...odd.
In message <ML-3.4.985705240.2225.books@babinga.dms.state.fl.us>, Roger
Books w rites:
> >
Heck yeah. There are a lot more 25mm SF skirmish players than there are
microarmor players in all eras. Put something out to attract them, they like
the rules, branch out to other GZG products. DS2 has
been out for 6+ years-- most of the people who are going to pick it up
already have, you're just getting the occasional new player. Put out DS3, all
you sell is the rulebook, plus maybe a small increase in mini sales. Put out
FMASk, you sell the rulebook (sales would probably be similar), plus you might
get a larger mini sales increase from new
I agree with most of what Brian said except one comment. Do not drop the point
system. The lack of a point system has been a great hindrance to converting
people to SG here in my area. Most mini players are of the WH40K ilk and thus
want to see points and army lists. I can get them to work without army lists
but they still want to see points to know a game is "balanced", at least in
their minds.
Daniel
> -----Original Message-----
> In message
[snip]
Step 1) Locate hornet's nest Step 2) Insert stick Step 3) Stir vigorously....
;-)
Me, I am vachead and a groundpounder, so I would like to know what St^3 Jon is
going to do next. In the end, he is the one that actually writes these games
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 09:19:57 -0600 Andy Cowell <andy@cowell.org> writes:
<snip>
> Heck yeah. There are a lot more 25mm SF skirmish players than there
Nice logic. It really upsets me to see reason destroy my irrational desires.
<grin>
I agree, it would open up new possibilities *but* 'if you print it, will they
come?' is a possibility, not a 'fer sure' thing.
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 08:46:06 -0500 "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> writes:
Just bought FB1 after recently getting FT/2nd - but I'd buy FT3
(combining the 'just out of my grasp' MT book if only for the fighter rules
for my Whistlers force...)
> I think that an updated DS3 should be next on the priority list. If
As a DS2 freak, I can accept the difference for now - but then I don't
play Stargrunt and most others *do* so it /is/ a good idea to try and
link them somewhat seamlessly...
> Concurrent with DS3 (or shortly after) should be BDS introducing alien
Well, yes for canon players, as a Space
Marines(Non-GW)/StarGuard/DS2/FT2nd user I would like to see BDS ahead
of
FMASk (but only as a source - I admit I wouldn't be playing the game
itself.)
And while I did just order some Future Wars and Dirtside Miniatures I can
admit that with 'other' lines plus WW2 and Modern converts I have plenty to
choose from currently.
Plus there is the store going out of business with all that Battletech stuff
on the walls...
> Anyway, my $.02 worth on what I would like to see happen.
dos centavos mas...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Casquilho, Daniel wrote:
> I agree with most of what Brian said except one comment. Do not
It's a shame, for most of the truly interesting games are anything but
balanced (forces-wise)
Cheers,
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Casquilho, Daniel wrote:
I agree, but I must convert them first then move toward true scenario based
games. Remember the 40k fanboy thinks he is playing a scenario based game.
Each scenario starts with "each player has 2,000
points...".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Casquilho, Daniel wrote:
> > It's a shame, for most of the truly interesting games are anything
*laugh* Okay, I see your point there. Mmm. Best of luck, it took 'them' a good
few years to rob me of this attitude;) (*)
Cheers,
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> Just bought FB1 after recently getting FT/2nd - but
Eh? I'm pretty sure there's some More Thrust in various stores where I
frequent.
> As a DS2 freak, I can accept the difference for now
I like DSII. Very much like it and really don't care enough about the
differences between DSII and SGII. BUT, I've been waiting for those BDS rules
FOREVER, and I'm starting to get antsy (as well as starting to write my own,
but they're not even done enough to show the list).
> --- Andy Cowell <andy@cowell.org> wrote:
> FMASk (DROP ALL ELSE!)
I really am not terribly interested in this puppy. I mean, I'm going to buy it
because it has Mr.Tuffley's name on it and he hasn't put out any crap yet. But
it's just not exciting me like it seems to be exciting everyone else.
> FMA DS2
Indeed. I'd vote for having the bug rules for all 3 games in one volume, IF
(and only IF) it can be done in a timely manner.
> Many crutial rules (such as fighter morale) is in the out of print MT.
Jon, can we have permission to post these on a web site please? Just the still
relevant MT rules that are to be found nowhere else
than the never to be re-printed MT.
> Many crutial rules (such as fighter morale) is in the out of print MT.
Yes, Tim - if you or someone else has the time to do it, that's fine by
me!
In fact, as we're not going to reprint it, if anyone wants to put any pages of
MT up as something like PDF downloadables (not the whole book, but those bits
that haven't yet been superseded by other published material) then that'd be
OK too (as long as you don't charge anyone to access them of course!! <grin>)
> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 08:46:06 -0500
product priority: FT3 DS3 BDS
Jon, make that $.04.
thanks,
> Many crutial rules (such as fighter morale) is in the out of print MT.
> Yes, Tim - if you or someone else has the time to do it, that's fine by
> In fact, as we're not going to reprint it, if anyone wants to put any
Further to my own last post (above), Paul Owen has just suggested that he'll
put the relevant PDFs etc up on the GZG online catalogue site; this will make
things easier, since I can supply him direct with the page files from the
book. Tim, you're still welcome to copy the fighter rules and any other bits
you want for your site as well, as above.
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:44:46 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
> John
John, what would it cost for you to get me a copy, and mail it to me? (Hasd to
be less then on eBay!)
I live in Saint Louis, MO, USA.