Willmark:
Nope. Apparently GW made a “business decsion” (read: were not turning enough profit) and canceled it. Allegedly because players didn’t have to update there fleets as frequently if ever…
wallacer:
I’m still hopeful for a new MoW.
Willmark:
I agree it would be cool especially if GW actually SUPPORTED it properly!
AGPO:
Thats what I’d heard Wilmark - once you had a fleet, which was pretty darn cheap in those days, you didn’t need anything else. So in the end the Shelf space went to more tactical squad variants
wallacer:
Again, I think GW are missing the point.
Instead of viewing games like MoW as money makers in their own right they should view them as gateway drugs that can get people hooked into the hobby and lead them towards the big cash cows like Warhammer and 40k.
AGPO:
Preaching to the converted here Wallacer
Willmark:
Again, I think GW are missing the point.Think about Space Hulk, that contained the very first Terminators which may have led to the first edition of 40k in some respects.
Instead of viewing games like MoW as money makers in their own right they should view them as gateway drugs that can get people hooked into the hobby and lead them towards the big cash cows like Warhammer and 40k.
wallacer
GW has to realize (if they don't already) that they are up against competition for people's entertainment dollars) and there are plenty of other avenues that people can go to spend said dollars. As it is playing warhammer is a considerable investment of not only money but lots of time.
Could be why 40k is more popular. less time to paint an army and less money to field an army as well. Of couse these are not teh only reason, but could be contributing ones.
AGPO:
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with 40k - all armour and few frills, not much in the way of fur, bulging muscles, exposed flesh etc. (there are exceptions before you start listing them!) means 40k is a lot easier for those who just want to get an army on the table. Look at space marines, Tau, Eldar etc to see what I mean