Games Workshop and the Future of the Tabletop Gaming Industry

[Atrotos]

Wall of Text, Attack!


What if the video gaming mega titles like Call of Duty or Halo allowed you to craft your own environment from scratch or design, in intricate detail, the shape and appearance of your character, his weapons and armor and that of all of your allies? What if every game shifted to meet the needs of every player and could perform equally as well as any gamer's imagination?

Well then it would be a tabletop game wouldn't it? Because tabletop gaming is all about demolishing the barriers between the game designer and the game player. If you were to design Battlefield or any other AAA title, well you couldn't do it alone. You would need a few friends, very talented friends each with a carefully selected skillset (drawing, writing, programing etc) and plenty of time on their hands - perhaps a couple of years to start. Then you would need machines (computers), at least one for each friend, and they would have to be good machines that people know how to use so naturally you need more friends to handle that. Then you'll need some volunteers to take on extra administrative duties such as milestone planning, testing and archiving. Oh nobody's volunteering because they're already slaving 60 hours a week? Guess it's off to find more friends but now momma's basement is beginning to get a little crowded so let's have a change of venue shall we?

That's better! Everything is running along smoothly - but what's this? One of your friends is in a coma because he hasn't eaten in a week! You didn't forget to pay him did you? If you're thinking paying everyone would be expensive you'd be right but luckily you know a friend who's willing to spot you as long as your original group of friends can prove the game is going to be a top seller years before they've finished it. And even then they won't trust you to not spend their money on marshmallow fortresses and miniature unicycles so they'll send their friend over. He's called a "producer" even though he produces nothing.

A lot of time, effort and resources goes into the gaming industry often never to return but here we are trying to tame it nevertheless. And what does it take? If you're into tabletop gaming you'll probably say "not much" and you'd be more or less right but the full answer is: not much, relatively. Relative to the video gaming industry tabletop gaming is a lemonade stand but Games Workshop employs thousands of people (though mostly because they handle their own distribution) and reels in millions of pounds sterling in profit each year. Theirs is an enviable position, that of the 200 ton blue whale sitting in a very small koi pond.

But whales are endangered and part of the reason that is so is because they are so big. Large often means "inefficient" and I can think of few companies that face inefficiency on such a huge scale. Tabletop gaming may be far easier on the checkbook than digital game development but when you're a worldwide leader in an industry you can afford to sit on your laurels for only so long. Now enter other companies that didn't share the same behemoth growth spoon-fed by a monopolistic market. Companies such as Privateer Press and Battlefront miniatures that are clawing their way up the steep slope of free market competition. These guys aren't going anywhere. They've got solid growth development models based on customer feedback and airtight rules systems. They know that the path to a hobbyist's wallet is a forked one. One way is to make awesome models (this is where GW excels) and the other is to make rules design a priority because, as it turns out, hobbyist buy models because they look cool but they collect models based on rules and background. The former might allow you to cover costs and even put something aside for a rainy day but if you have the models and you make good rules you'll never have to worry about rainy days because you'll have enough money to pay God to make wherever you are as dry as the Sahara.

So now you ask "What's keeping other companies from doing exactly as you say?" Well the issue that Privateer Press faces is a matter of design direction. They've dedicated themselves to an aesthetic identity that doesn't sit with older gamers who typically want a more 'believable' miniature in terms of proportion and balance. The veteran hobbyist is more likely to respond to a more understated utility and violence than the clunky wrecking ball look of PP's miniatures. This is issue is based not only on Privateer Press' art direction but is also likely linked to the technology they have available since many of their models share similarities with GW's older collections. Newer releases such as the recent Legion of Everblight and Cryx additions boast a more somber, refined appearance that, if continued with other factions, will likely draw more mature gamers away from GW's decidedly simplified and mainstream rulesets.

The older gamers are so important because they are the ones that typically have the disposable income as well as the leisure time to entertain tabletop hobbies. They're generally more industrious and focused allowing them to complete collections at higher rate before beginning a new one. Their incomes are tied to a steady salary rather than a holiday or birthday and so their investments in the hobby are more frequent and dependable.

Adult gamers (focus, I'm still talking about toy soldiers) are naturally drawn to historical wars and conflicts meaning half of Battlefront Miniature's work is done for them. Older hobbyist, men especially, enjoy the 'what if' alternative history both in discussion and on the tabletop. There is also the pride of knowledge that comes with collecting WWII miniatures - recognizing vehicles and squad markings that we read about as children and teenagers. Sharing that historical interest with other like-minded hobbyists is an addictive pursuit and one that can last a great while thanks to the diversity in the range of armylists and minis as well the breadth and diversity of the conflict itself. Battlefront has made the most of this wide spectrum of units splitting their model range into overlapping armylists so that players can seek out that elusive uniqueness in their army composition - a luxury that is sorely missing from GW's rulesets due to poor internal balancing.

However Battlefront does face one major problem and that is the scale of their miniatures. The tiny 15 mm scale draws a lot of attention away from the infantry models which are key to the game. It reduces the ability of history buffs to work on historical accuracy with their models as most attempts to paint complicated schemes such as German woodland camo will leave your Fallshirmjäger looking like clown school rejects or worse.

The scale also forces you to simplify rules so that models can be grouped together in large units, ignoring, for the most part, stats and equipment on an individual level. The models themselves cannot be altered to any great degree which also limits individuality. In the end all that the Flames of War player can do to his models to make them unique to others of the same force is decorate the bases and even that is limited to just desert, grass, ruins and snow.

One has to consider how much is saved by reducing scale before judging Battlefront too harshly. The price of such armylist diversity means that many different kits have to produced and shipped. Weight and complexity of manufacture add cost to the supplier which is of course passed to the consumer potentially pushing Battlefront out of the competitive price ranges.

Privateer Press and Battlefront aren't the only ones out there. Dozens of miniatures companies are stepping up and being acknowledged (check out Mantic, Avatar of War or Infinity for example). The pressure is on for Games Workshop to pick up the pace. We've already seen evidence of GW's commitment to more balanced codecies in 5th edition as well as a solid attempt to improve internal balance so that multiple army builds are possible with each new release. This is a sluggish but determined response to complaints from competitive players wishing to see their hobby exist in a tournament format as well as casual play.

In addition, GW is giving more support to its games than ever before with rules and expansions appearing in White Dwarf (yes, I know Spearhead sucked but it's a big step for them) and a massive slew of FAQ's accompanying Fantasy 8th edition. Still the massive Warhammer flaghips are treading water - more improvement is needed to keep this titanic enterprise from sinking (see what I did there?).

To begin, all Warhammer armies need to be updated so that each player can enjoy the game the way it was meant to be played rather than how it was played years ago when their codex/army book was released. This massive gap between releases is intolerable and especially with companies such as Privateer Press highlighting the issue with their own timely, well tuned update schedule. GW needs to handle their releases in smaller, more manageable portions either through smaller codicies or regular releases in White Dwarf and online. This will not only make quality assurance and balancing a breeze (since you'll only be adding a small piece to an army rather than a complete overhaul) but stabilize revenues with customers making their purchases slowly over time rather than in bulk upon release. No more living in fear of a single bad release destroying your fiscal year.

Next Games Workshop needs to diversify. Part of this is internal balancing - it needs to improve. In Halo, at the beginning of each match many players rush forward to grab "power weapons" such as the Sniper Rifle or Spartan Laser. Kill/Death ratios and even wins are often linked to a player/team's ability to control these weapons, generate kills with them and suppress the enemy team with superior firepower. This is the way that Warhammer has worked for some time now. Players are able to accrue wins based solely on the "power weapons" each codex features ignoring the rest of the unit entries as inimical to achieving victory.

By contrast Modern Warfare 2 allows you to choose and customize your weapons before the match begins and (here's the important part) all of the choices are good. You'll note I didn't say "every choice is a good as any other" but the difference is miniscule enough that you can go games on end without ever meeting an adversary with the same kit, with the same "army composition" as yourself. If you can create a diverse environment where every player can choose his or her own path to success, you, as company, will be successful. Players need to express themselves through their choices and until you give them approval (I.e. rules) to do so they won't buy your minis.

As we speak there are players looking to create armies that appear in the fluff but exist nowhere in the hyper-streamlined rules - these guys want to give you money but they can't! Meanwhile oddball appearances such as Thunderwolf Cavalry add nothing to the game but poor quality narrative and internal balancing issues. These resources are best used serving existing fans, players who have read about armies they want to see on the table for years but have no way to represent them. Tie these rules to existing kits and watch those fly off the shelves - let's see how many Storm Trooper kits are sold when you release a character that makes the unit a Troops choice. The best part is that such a release costs virtually nothing.

Finally, focus needs to shift from "race" defined (I play Space Marines) to unit and theme defined (I play Deathwing). Once releases are based on single homogeneous forces you can begin to stagger them accordingly making the most of each model kit. Shrink codcies and army books to make them easier for development teams to handle and then add to them over time with each addition opening a new direction for players to take both thematically and in-game. These releases should be similar to the theme cards produced by Privateer Press wherein a player is rewarded in points for the thematic limitations he or she imposes on themselves.

So Activision and Bungie are working together now. It seems strange that Bungie would choose to work with such a high-profile partner seeing as they never really step beyond the Halo franchise anymore. It makes one wonder what a similar alliance could accomplish in the tabletop industry. What if Battlefront released a new 28 mm skirmish game with 40k rules? What if PP's designers had GW's manufacturing power to support them? How easily the miniature industry could be turned on its ear. Exciting things are taking place all over the gaming world and all of them all likely to put the consumer on a new pedestal. The nature of these evolutions and revolutions may be nebulous but as never before, it's a good time to be a gamer.

-Atrotos

Article for my portfolio - wanted some feedback on the quality and the content. Thanks for reading!

[Cossack]

First!

I'm not going to respond to every point, because there's a lot there. However, you might improve the article by adding some 'history' of the hobby.

For example, 15mm is a common and popular scale amongst historical wargamers and it makes perfect sense for Battlefront to focus on that scale. You should note that nowhere in official FoW literature are their miniatures labeled as 15mm! (They used to be, before the rules came out).

Miniatures Wargaming is very different from computer gaming, and they are not a threat to each other any more than a video game of golf will kill real golf. (And GW gaming is cheaper than golf too!)

Finally, Games Workshop will always churn out new versions of their core rules, codexes and army books simply because they must continue to sell stuff in order to stay in business. There will never be the FINAL version of 40K. Even if GW were to go out of business, somebody would buy it and 'improve' it.

[Aldramelech]

You talk about WW2 Gaming as if it were a new thing, it ain't. The clever thing BF did was to market FOW in a way that appealed to GW customers and make it tournament friendly. If you were new to historical gaming you'd be forgiven for thinking that BF had invented WW2 gaming and that it was a new thing.

But it isn't, and we have been here for a very, very long time. The skirmish rules for WW2 that you wish for already exist, in fact half a dozen really good sets exist. Boltaction miniatures are about to release the first 28mm multi pose plastic WW2 figures. The Plastic Soldier Company is about to release 15mm hard plastic Soviet infantry (64 figures for £10).

Battle Front have just announced a price rise that will put the price of their medium tanks at the same price of some 20mm and even 28mm tanks on the market and they were already considered by most to be too expensive. Most historical wargamers are now moving away from BF, put off by the price and their GW type attitude to gaming and product. This will leave BF directly competing for the "GW Dollar" and I don't see that is a fight they can win.

GW Gamers are incredibly loyal to the brand and will stick with it, historical gamers have no such loyalty and will go wherever they can get what they need cheaply.

[Atrotos]

Wow, great feedback already...

@Gambles: You're right I should give a little more weight to historical wargaming in the article. I think Aldramelech is saying the same thing. I don't really cover it in as much detail as I perhaps should. More research is required.

Also I agree that GW should recycle their IP but amend that by saying they should be more eclectic about how they move forward with new releases. I don't think they should "finalize" the game, I don't think it would even be possible or fun for the cutomer.

@Aldramelech: While I knew that historical gaming was old before GW it was the scale of production that I think sets Battlefront apart. I confess I have no experience with other historical rulesests and so cannot comment on their quality though instinct tells me they're likely to be complicated and difficult to navigate with a greater focus on realism. It seems they would be too hardcore to be mainstream whilst Battlefront has endeavored to make their product simpler and therefore more approachable - as you say "more appealing to the GW customers." Again more research on the subject is required.

On the topic of wargame competition: Battlefront may not have the widespread clientèle required to compete with GW but they certainly control a piece of the market pie - more than they would if GW was on the ball about supporting their releases and focusing on the quality of their rules.

GW gamers are locked into GW's unique IP (the reason, I believe the defend it so ruthlessly) whilst historical "Intellectual Property " is just history and therefore not unique to anyone. This is why you're correct in saying GW has it much easier when it comes to retaining their customer base than historical wargaming companies.

[scadugenga]

Hey Atrotos--

Couple things:

1) What is the overall point of your article? You seem to ebb and flow along a few points throughout the wall of text and flip to and from a video game perspective without trying to clearly identify what role (if any) it should play.

2) You're using a lot of analogies that seem to come out of nowhere and then take on a life of their own. (IE, that 200 ton whale...)

3) Check you homophones. A koi pond is somewhat distinctly (and infinitely saner) than a coy pond. (That sultry minx of a pond...it plays so hard to get!)

The easiest way to succeed in an article like this would be to create your skeleton framework, and then flesh it out.

Or, in other words start with a sentence or two for each "heading" and then build up from there. Once finished, put it aside for at least 8 hours and then come back to it. Then hack it apart and make it better.

Introduction/intention
Support 1
Support 2
Support 3 (etc)
Conclusion.

Avoid going off the reservation with analogies. That will throw your reader off your topic faster than bad grammar.

Hope that helps, and good luck!

-S

[HsojVvad]

I am not shure what you are trying to get at. I thought this was Table Top gaming vs Computer gaming then when in anothoer direction. Then I thought you were going to try and make a new game.

I am confused (easily to do) with what you are trying to say.

[wittdooley]

First, GW won't ever make cards similar to PP because the Warhammer games are all about being able to customize your units. They'd have to make 4-8 cards per unit type with different load outs. Doesn't make any sense. In Warmachine/Hordes, when I buy Arcane Tempest Gun Mages, they get a particular set of weapons and stats.

Second, there are plenty of people that aren't interested at all in reinacting historical battles (raises hand!) on the tabletop and prefer 40k/WHFB/Warmachine because they are that alternate universe where other cool *** things happen and you can create your own narrative.

Third, adding to each codex over time? Ha. Hahahaha. That's rich. Both the 40k & WHFB universes are far too large to do this. Balancing issues alone would be a nightmare.

Fourth, I'd argue you haven't played much 40k/WHFB if you're calling them hyper-streamlined. I think the rules are good and fun, but they certainly aren't hyper streamlined. Plus, I don't why you hate the Thunderwolves so much. They're a flavorful addition to the Space Wolves that actually had a nice little story to accompany them.

Like a lot of others, I'm not entirely sure on the purpose of your article, but I certainly disagree with some major points.

[Aldramelech]

Wow, great feedback already...

@Gambles: You're right I should give a little more weight to historical wargaming in the article. I think Aldramelech is saying the same thing. I don't really cover it in as much detail as I perhaps should. More research is required.

Also I agree that GW should recycle their IP but amend that by saying they should be more eclectic about how they move forward with new releases. I don't think they should "finalize" the game, I don't think it would even be possible or fun for the customer.

@Aldramelech: While I knew that historical gaming was old before GW it was the scale of production that I think sets Battlefront apart. I confess I have no experience with other historical resists and so cannot comment on their quality though instinct tells me they're likely to be complicated and difficult to navigate with a greater focus on realism. It seems they would be too hardcore to be mainstream whilst Battlefront has endeavored to make their product simpler and therefore more approachable - as you say "more appealing to the GW customers." Again more research on the subject is required.

On the topic of wargame competition: Battlefront may not have the widespread clientèle required to compete with GW but they certainly control a piece of the market pie - more than they would if GW was on the ball about supporting their releases and focusing on the quality of their rules.

GW gamers are locked into GW's unique IP (the reason, I believe the defend it so ruthlessly) whilst historical "Intellectual Property " is just history and therefore not unique to anyone. This is why you're correct in saying GW has it much easier when it comes to retaining their customer base than historical wargaming companies.

WW2 rulesets are many and varied. I have to admit I do have a penchant for very detailed skirmish type rules but there are many sets that are actually less complex then FOW. Crossfire are an excellent set of 15mm rules that focus on infantry actions and are way less complex then FOW. I would say that Rapid Fire are also easier to play (although I don't like them).

Battle Front are different in the way they have marketed and packaged their product. 15mm is still the most popular scale for historical wargamers and always has been. This is due to the need to have large amounts (far more then WFB/40K) of figures to represent historical armies. In the past only the very rich were able to afford 28mm historical armies (especially ancients through to ACW) and these armies take a hell of a lot longer to paint, so 15mm are a logical choice. They were the first 15mm company to invest heavily in marketing and packaging. Buying Wargames Illustrated Magazine, offering boxed army deals, and making separate army books, see the parallels with GW? Unfortunately they now think that they can charge what they like (Like GW) and have forgotten that unlike GW they do have serious and direct competition and most historical wargamers don't give a F*&$ where you bought your T34.

As for painting 15's, pop on over to the BF forum and have a look at the painting gallery, you'll see Fallshinjager as good as any 28mm figure. 15's are easier and quicker to paint, thats why they are so popular.

I would say that the big movers and shakers in the wargames world at the moment are the Perry Twins.

Perry Miniatures are quietly changing the wargames world completely under the radar. You can now seriously think about 28mm wargaming on a budget for the first time. 28mm ACW? Not a problem now, Napoleonic? Go for it, Medievals? Why not. And as they developed this revolution others took note and followed, so now there is choice too. Vitrix, Warlord Games, The Plastic Soldier Company, Bolt Action have all woken up and smelt the coffee.

It is indeed a very exciting time to be a wargamer.

[miteyheroes]

Perry Miniatures are quietly changing the wargames world completely under the radar. You can now seriously think about 28mm wargaming on a budget for the first time. 28mm ACW? Not a problem now, Napoleonic? Go for it, Medievals? Why not. And as they developed this revolution others took note and followed, so now there is choice too. Vitrix, Warlord Games, The Plastic Soldier Company, Bolt Action have all woken up and smelt the coffee.

What's interesting is that two of these new Historical rivals to GW were key elements in GW's success. The Perry Twins are obvious; Warlord Games (and their WW2 branch Bolt Action) is run by John Stallard who was GW's head of sales & practically invented the Games Workshop Store format and Paul Sawyer of White Dwarf editing fame. And Tim Adcock seems to get everywhere!

Anyway. Other awesome 28mm plastic models are made by Wargames Factory in the US (and they're also the official manufacturers for the Fields of Glory ancients game made by Osprey) and Immortal Miniatures have just released a gorgeous plastic Greek hoplite box.

28mm ancients is the future. If only there was a good ruleset...

[Atrotos]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. It's great to see so much polite constructive criticism.

Hey Atrotos--

Couple things:

1) What is the overall point of your article? You seem to ebb and flow along a few points throughout the wall of text and flip to and from a video game perspective without trying to clearly identify what role (if any) it should play.

2) You're using a lot of analogies that seem to come out of nowhere and then take on a life of their own. (IE, that 200 ton whale...)

3) Check you homophones. A koi pond is somewhat distinctly (and infinitely saner) than a coy pond. (That sultry minx of a pond...it plays so hard to get!)

The easiest way to succeed in an article like this would be to create your skeleton framework, and then flesh it out.

Or, in other words start with a sentence or two for each "heading" and then build up from there. Once finished, put it aside for at least 8 hours and then come back to it. Then hack it apart and make it better.

Introduction/intention
Support 1
Support 2
Support 3 (etc)
Conclusion.

Avoid going off the reservation with analogies. That will throw your reader off your topic faster than bad grammar.

Hope that helps, and good luck!

-S

I am aware that the article does not have a clear cut message although I didn't know it would be so distracting. I meant it to have a conversational tone, hence the very relaxed format and content, but it seems I've taken it too far. The analogies, off-topic references and analogies were included in order to make the article less dreary, less like a rant. What I was hoping to achieve was a discussion of what GW is doing wrong as well as what some other companies are doing right with a video game perspective thrown in for comparison (and because that's the background I come from). The objective was to get the reader to think about how the hobby is evolving and what factors are affecting this evolution with a focus on GW.

lol coy pond... I'm such an idiot.

I am not shure what you are trying to get at. I thought this was Table Top gaming vs Computer gaming then when in anothoer direction. Then I thought you were going to try and make a new game.

I am confused (easily to do) with what you are trying to say.

Well you're there is some Tabletog vs. Digital comparison here. Digital development is far, far more demanding than RPG/Tabletop/Boardgame development. It gives perspective to what GW has accomplished and to how much more they could be doing. It also ties in with the fact that other manufacturers know the industry has more potential to be realized and are acting on that knowledge.

Also, I am trying to make a new game, but I'm not sure how you got that from this article. =)

First, GW won't ever make cards similar to PP because the Warhammer games are all about being able to customize your units. They'd have to make 4-8 cards per unit type with different load outs. Doesn't make any sense. In Warmachine/Hordes, when I buy Arcane Tempest Gun Mages, they get a particular set of weapons and stats.

Second, there are plenty of people that aren't interested at all in reinacting historical battles (raises hand!) on the tabletop and prefer 40k/WHFB/Warmachine because they are that alternate universe where other cool *** things happen and you can create your own narrative.

Third, adding to each codex over time? Ha. Hahahaha. That's rich. Both the 40k & WHFB universes are far too large to do this. Balancing issues alone would be a nightmare.

Fourth, I'd argue you haven't played much 40k/WHFB if you're calling them hyper-streamlined. I think the rules are good and fun, but they certainly aren't hyper streamlined. Plus, I don't why you hate the Thunderwolves so much. They're a flavorful addition to the Space Wolves that actually had a nice little story to accompany them.

Like a lot of others, I'm not entirely sure on the purpose of your article, but I certainly disagree with some major points.

1. I wasn't suggesting that GW should print cards for their unit entries, I was pointing out that PP design themes into their army lists (which they print on cards) and how this method could enhance GW's games.

2. I wasn't including absolutely everyone in that generalization, forgive me for being so abstract. However, you should not be so quick to claim you don't enjoy any historical gaming since a large portion of both Warhammer and Warmahordes is based on historical sources even if they do take a widely different form.

3. Balancing is far more difficult to do when you have to design every single unit over again. Adding unit entries over time means balancing should be easier - one or two units to playtest rather than 30 or so. You could trim down codices to their basic constituents thus making releases more regular and then add to them over time. For instance you could have 1 Space Marine codex but with one expansion to it being a Belial-analogous character that allows Terminators as Troops (thus covering Deathwing in one go - no need for shoddy second rate Dark Angels codex)

4. I play a LOT of warhammer. What you mean perhaps is that I don't play much of other games and thus Warhammer seems simplified to me because I can't compare with much authority.

Finally forgive me but Space Marines riding on giant wolves? You do like to be treated like an adult right? There a plenty of good story arcs that GW could develop before they start groping around the bottom of the barrel to sell us space marines on giant WOLVES. Giant mechanical wolves that they control? Sure. But do they have to ride them? GW is basically telling you you're idiot and that you'll buy anything they sell - that they don't have to try to come up with plausible ideas because they own the game. I dunno that's just my take.

WW2 rulesets are many and varied. I have to admit I do have a penchant for very detailed skirmish type rules but there are many sets that are actually less complex then FOW. Crossfire are an excellent set of 15mm rules that focus on infantry actions and are way less complex then FOW. I would say that Rapid Fire are also easier to play (although I don't like them).

Battle Front are different in the way they have marketed and packaged their product. 15mm is still the most popular scale for historical wargamers and always has been. This is due to the need to have large amounts (far more then WFB/40K) of figures to represent historical armies. In the past only the very rich were able to afford 28mm historical armies (especially ancients through to ACW) and these armies take a hell of a lot longer to paint, so 15mm are a logical choice. They were the first 15mm company to invest heavily in marketing and packaging. Buying Wargames Illustrated Magazine, offering boxed army deals, and making separate army books, see the parallels with GW? Unfortunately they now think that they can charge what they like (Like GW) and have forgotten that unlike GW they do have serious and direct competition and most historical wargamers don't give a F*&$ where you bought your T34.

As for painting 15's, pop on over to the BF forum and have a look at the painting gallery, you'll see Fallshinjager as good as any 28mm figure. 15's are easier and quicker to paint, thats why they are so popular.

I would say that the big movers and shakers in the wargames world at the moment are the Perry Twins.

Perry Miniatures are quietly changing the wargames world completely under the radar. You can now seriously think about 28mm wargaming on a budget for the first time. 28mm ACW? Not a problem now, Napoleonic? Go for it, Medievals? Why not. And as they developed this revolution others took note and followed, so now there is choice too. Vitrix, Warlord Games, The Plastic Soldier Company, Bolt Action have all woken up and smelt the coffee.

It is indeed a very exciting time to be a wargamer.

I was wondering how long it would take for a company to release a cheap miniatures range and undercut the whole market. The industry as whole suffers from a lack of capable competition mostly, I feel, because GW have such a huge headstart. I'm not certain if things are the same for historical wargaming but it is interesting and will research it. If you can make one kind of mini on the cheap you can make any mini on the cheap - how long before sci-fi and fantasy wargaming are affected?