The Importance of Starters

[Legbiter]

A Troll about The Impending Demise of A&A Minis on the other board got me thinking about my own interactions with Southsea Models, Portsmouth [prop: Marshall MacCombie]. He said something rather interesting to me the other day about the relative sales of different Collectible Miniatures games, namely that the thing which differentiates a quick-seller [eg Horrorclix] from a slow-seller [eg A&A minis] is the availability of starters. There aren't any starters in Southsea models, nor at his distributor. In consequence the only people who buy A&A minis boosters at his shop are people like me who already have starters aplenty. And the people-like-me market is saturated or close to being so because we all have all the models in all the sets.

Horrorclix produced a lot of lovely starters, comprising fixed minis in clear-windowed boxes. As a collector you will only ever want one or two, which leaves enough for the new people. In consequence, Horrorclix just flies out of Marshall's door.

Obviously this is only an anecdote but I think it's an important one. Marshall has been in business for 20 years, surviving competition from a High Street Games Workshop and outliving Portsmouth's other two independent games shops [AND the one in neighbouring Southampton], so I think he knows what he is talking about. My reading of his experience is that if A&A minis is to achieve the long-term success for which we mostly hope, then it needs to make sure that starters are available.

[Sean-Khan]

Well, original AAM starter was mostly fixed; I'm not quite sure why it was changed. But I'll have to say that I liked Star Wars miniatures starters even more; Getting Darth Vader & Luke in the original starter felt like a really valuable thing; That's why I hoped there would be 2 exclusive unique ships in WaS starter too. It would give something really valuable right in beginning to those who try the game, but still thirst for more!

[Muenchausen]

Hold on, let me check, Ya, I'm right. What does a troll on the A&M board have to do with AANM. I didn't see one thing in the original post about AANM and the second poster tried to tie it in. This should have been posted on A&M board.

[Richter von Manthofen]

Its hard to get starters of any kind (original and double) here too. BUt thats a good sign - they seem to sell good?

Actually the only thing you really need from a starter are the maps and the tokens (dice are available elsewhere and tokens - simply use a substitute) The rules are downloadable...

A fixed startrer unique rare would be cool but if they make it a good one everybody will want to buy multiples, if they make a bad decission NO one will buy a second starter...

Making it a random it will probably make you buy a few starters hoping that you get a good one...

The fixed UC/C have tempted me to buy a few more starters than I needed as knowing what you get (especially when you are after certain pieces is well worth the money ;)

[unc_samurai]

I'm more curious about expansion set availability. Are there still large quantities of Eastern Front and Contested Skies available? I've noticed that once parts of a collectible game - card or plastic - you see fewer people willing to expend a more significant investment in a game. They get frustrated by "Gee, that unit looks neat, I wish I could find it." WotC had to eventually create the Type II format in Magic for this particular reason. And one of the reasons I gave up on CCGs in favor of historical wargaming was the fact that you can't restrict or ban a Panzer IV like you can a Mox.

[Richter von Manthofen]

You CAN ;)

AAM Type II All German unts with Def 5/4 or higher are not allowed in TYPE II games.

:D

[Legbiter]

Hold on, let me check, Ya, I'm right. What does a troll on the A&M board have to do with AANM. I didn't see one thing in the original post about AANM and the second poster tried to tie it in. This should have been posted on A&M board.

No, I don't agree. The link to the troll-post was that it was based on a questionable anecdote about an anonymous retailer. Based on an anecdote about a Named retailer I am making a point about ALL collectable minis games. I posted here because I want War at Sea to avoid a mistake which I think A&A minis [actually, Wizards in general] made in its policy about starters.

Just to be absolutely clear about what I'm proposing, I think everyone should need to buy ONE starter [two or more only if they are collecting freaks, or want to fight really big battles]. The starters should be big, attractive and transparent, not necessarily in the literal sense, but definitely in the sense that you know what you're getting when you buy one, down to the individual miniature. I advocate this policy because it will stop the collector-frenzy from buying up all the starters leaving none for the new people.

I'm suggesting this because it's a policy that has worked really well for Horrorclix, which is a Wizkids games. By contrast Wizards/AH collectable minis games are suffering not in absolute but in comparative terms because their different policy means the supply of starters is drying up. This in turn results in fewer new players than there should be, and retailers and wholesalers clogging up with boosters, which makes them reluctant to order more.

I know it is probably too late to affect the design of the starters for War at Sea [and VERY too late to affect A&A minis], but it's not too late to change direction for the design of future starters.

[Legbiter]

Its hard to get starters of any kind (original and double) here too. BUt thats a good sign - they seem to sell good?

Actually the only thing you really need from a starter are the maps and the tokens (dice are available elsewhere and tokens - simply use a substitute) The rules are downloadable...

A fixed startrer unique rare would be cool but if they make it a good one everybody will want to buy multiples, if they make a bad decission NO one will buy a second starter...

Making it a random it will probably make you buy a few starters hoping that you get a good one...

The fixed UC/C have tempted me to buy a few more starters than I needed as knowing what you get (especially when you are after certain pieces is well worth the money ;)

Absence of starters is NOT a good sign because it means fewer people can come into the game. And later in your post, you describe exactly the mechanism by which the starters disappear. If the starters were completely fixed they would hang around for longer, but they would draw more people into the game, and more boosters would get sold in the long run in consequence.

[maciej12]

I just opened my store a few weeks ago and the first thing I ordered was starters. I don't see how you could play the game without at lest one. I don't understand why there seems to be a shortage of them out there. I can get as many as I need from my distributor. I think maybe some stores are dropping the ball on this one.

[Legbiter]

I just opened my store a few weeks ago and the first thing I ordered was starters. I don't see how you could play the game without at lest one. I don't understand why there seems to be a shortage of them out there. I can get as many as I need from my distributor. I think maybe some stores are dropping the ball on this one.

Maybe some stores are. But here in Portsmouth UK the problem goes right back to the distributor.

Anyway regardless of whose fault it is, there is a real problem and it would pay Wizards/AH/Hasbro to sort it out. I think that could be done quite easily, based on the Horrorclix experience.

And good luck with your store!

[maciej12]

Thanks Legbiter, having my own store is a dream come true. If you need any starters, PM me and maybe we can work something out.

[TheFoeHammer]

In a collectible game, I like the idea of mostly random starters better and I'd be more likely to consider purchasing a second starter in that situation.

Here are my reasons:

1. Typically the fixed figures in a fixed or semi-fixed starter are unique. So a second purchase is a waste.
2. Tier 1 figures for the meta-game will seldom come from a fixed starter. If everyone has one, your army/fleet/squad is not going to be unique or hard to come by if everyone can build it by buying a starter.
3. Once I achieve a full set, I may want additional maps, but an additional fixed figure is less likely to be valuable to me. Having a chance of pulling a hard to get rare is more likely to justify that purchase.

I think Heroclix/Horrorclix works well for the target audience because everyone is drawn by a particular iconic figure (Spiderman, Dracula, etc..). In SWM certainly Luke and Vader in the starters was key.

But in games like DDM, AAM, and WAS the figures that are the big draw will be figures that you would be unlikely to use multiple copies of. I personally don't want two Bismarcks or two Yamatos, but would relish the chance of pulling a second Baltimore. No one would be drawn to the game by seeing the Baltimore in the starter, but the Bismarck or the Yamato would certainly be desirable.

In my own case I have bought multiple starters for AAM, and DDM, but not for SWM or SSB. I will buy two WAS starters because they are randomized.

So while I agree that access to good starters are important, I disagree that a fixed or transparent starter is good for every game.

[Legbiter]

In a collectible game, I like the idea of mostly random starters better and I'd be more likely to consider purchasing a second starter in that situation.

Here are my reasons:

1. Typically the fixed figures in a fixed or semi-fixed starter are unique. So a second purchase is a waste.
2. Tier 1 figures for the meta-game will seldom come from a fixed starter. If everyone has one, your army/fleet/squad is not going to be unique or hard to come by if everyone can build it by buying a starter.
3. Once I achieve a full set, I may want additional maps, but an additional fixed figure is less likely to be valuable to me. Having a chance of pulling a hard to get rare is more likely to justify that purchase.

I think Heroclix/Horrorclix works well for the target audience because everyone is drawn by a particular iconic figure (Spiderman, Dracula, etc..). In SWM certainly Luke and Vader in the starters was key.

But in games like DDM, AAM, and WAS the figures that are the big draw will be figures that you would be unlikely to use multiple copies of. I personally don't want two Bismarcks or two Yamatos, but would relish the chance of pulling a second Baltimore. No one would be drawn to the game by seeing the Baltimore in the starter, but the Bismarck or the Yamato would certainly be desirable.

In my own case I have bought multiple starters for AAM, and DDM, but not for SWM or SSB. I will buy two WAS starters because they are randomized.

So while I agree that access to good starters are important, I disagree that a fixed or transparent starter is good for every game.

Of course, I too would like randomish starters for exactly the reasons you've set out. But what you and I personally want is actually, as it turns out, probably rather bad for the game - at least that's what I've come to believe.

I'm trying to think of a commercial analogy for what's going on here, but I really can't, there's no precedent for this peculiar market effect. So let's just go back over what is happening.

The company manufactures and markets starters to get people into the game, and boosters as the real money-maker. To make sure they don't get stuck with product, they set the starter prices relatively low, and make them interesting enough that you'ld consider buying one even if you had one already. The company guesses what the right number of starters and boosters to manufacture might be, and bashes on with the game.

What happens now is that if the game becomes anything like popular, the starters and boosters all get snapped up by the same people. Now, because the boosters are the things the company make the big money on, they manufacture a load more boosters. The trouble is that the nature of collectable games means that there's a very narrow window between peak demand and market saturation. So the effect of this policy is that you end up with a ton of sluggishly-moving boosters and a lack of new players because they can't buy the starters to get them into the game.

Maybe the nearest analogy is washing machines and clothes. Ideally, you want to sell everyone a washing machine, and then LOTS of clothes. You don't want a few people to snap up all the washing machines by, for example, making them wearable, because then the people who can't buy a washing machine won't be in the clothes market.

[TheFoeHammer]

Of course, I too would like randomish starters for exactly the reasons you've set out. But what you and I personally want is actually, as it turns out, probably rather bad for the game - at least that's what I've come to believe.

I'm trying to think of a commercial analogy for what's going on here, but I really can't, there's no precedent for this peculiar market effect. So let's just go back over what is happening.

The company manufactures and markets starters to get people into the game, and boosters as the real money-maker. To make sure they don't get stuck with product, they set the starter prices relatively low, and make them interesting enough that you'ld consider buying one even if you had one already. The company guesses what the right number of starters and boosters to manufacture might be, and bashes on with the game.

What happens now is that if the game becomes anything like popular, the starters and boosters all get snapped up by the same people. Now, because the boosters are the things the company make the big money on, they manufacture a load more boosters. The trouble is that the nature of collectable games means that there's a very narrow window between peak demand and market saturation. So the effect of this policy is that you end up with a ton of sluggishly-moving boosters and a lack of new players because they can't buy the starters to get them into the game.

Maybe the nearest analogy is washing machines and clothes. Ideally, you want to sell everyone a washing machine, and then LOTS of clothes. You don't want a few people to snap up all the washing machines by, for example, making them wearable, because then the people who can't buy a washing machine won't be in the clothes market.

But the real answer to that problem is not to overproduce starters but to release a new starter periodically if the game gets longevity. That is what Heroclix does, AAM, DDM and SWM have done it. Even the LOTR TMG had an eventual "Deluxe Starter Set" that included the original starter and 2 of each current booster.

So I don't see how a random or non-random starter effects that negatively. There are still lots of starter sets available for both types of games.

[Legbiter]

But the real answer to that problem is not to overproduce starters but to release a new starter periodically if the game gets longevity. That is what Heroclix does, AAM, DDM and SWM have done it. Even the LOTR TMG had an eventual "Deluxe Starter Set" that included the original starter and 2 of each current booster.

So I don't see how a random or non-random starter effects that negatively. There are still lots of starter sets available for both types of games.

We can certainly agree that any mechanism whatever that keeps starters available is good for the game. I still think it's unwise to split the marketing ethos of the starters between entry level and experienced players. I see the starters as doors into the game. We need, by whatever mechanism, to keep those doors open. If the experienced players buy up all the starters, the doors close.

[TheFoeHammer]

We can certainly agree that any mechanism whatever that keeps starters available is good for the game. I still think it's unwise to split the marketing ethos of the starters between entry level and experienced players. I see the starters as doors into the game. We need, by whatever mechanism, to keep those doors open. If the experienced players buy up all the starters, the doors close.

That part I too agree with. The marketing and product dev groups can't get complacent and assume that the market has all the starters they need and just produce boosters into perpetuity. Games that last longer than 3 years do so by drawing in a new generation of gamers.

[Sean-Khan]

There's always some that want only certain content from starters, or few that want all the content from new starter, even if it's contents are fixed. Some people Mod minis, and I for example only wanted Grievous from 3rd Star Wars starter and was able to trade for it.

But mainly starters with fixed unique content don't stack on same people; That has a bonus to the company to let them know pretty accurately how many people have actually been gotten into the game, and can help in planning production amounts.

[Vikingwarrior]

There are PLENTY of starters available so that is not the problem. The problem is when you are a new player if you buy a starter kit to try out the game,then you open it and see that there aren't enough units to play a resonable game. That is a problem. They need to make a starter kit that can have a new player actually field enough units to try a game to see if they like it BEFORE they spend more money on boosters.

[Legbiter]

There are PLENTY of starters available so that is not the problem. The problem is when you are a new player if you buy a starter kit to try out the game,then you open it and see that there aren't enough units to play a resonable game. That is a problem. They need to make a starter kit that can have a new player actually field enough units to try a game to see if they like it BEFORE they spend more money on boosters.

I am sure you don't mean to call me a liar, and I am not calling you one. So I accept that there are lots of starters available where you are. Where I am, there are NO starters available. Not 1. This IS a problem, because Europe is a BIG market. Furthermore, it is a soluble problem: indeed, there might be more than one solution. I think my solution, or rather Wizkids solution, would stop the problem arising in the first place.

[mikoyan]

I like the way they did it for Starship Battles. You have two opposing huge ships and then a random assortment of other ships.

[Richter von Manthofen]

... The problem is when you are a new player if you buy a starter kit to try out the game,then you open it and see that there aren't enough units to play a resonable game. That is a problem. They need to make a starter kit that can have a new player actually field enough units to try a game to see if they like it BEFORE they spend more money on boosters.

OR include a mini scenaria that uses exactly the fixed units that are included.

IMHO with a original starter you could do a reasonable battle between both sides (excluding the rare)

Compare

ALLIES
Sherman - (21)
Red Devil Captain (7)
Garand (4)
Vickers MG (8)
6-pounder (9)
(bazooka - is in addition because of the better tank and ATG of the Germans) (4)

6 units 53 points

AXIS
Panzer IV (30)
SSHSF (7)
Mauser (3)
MG42 (10)
Pak 38 (10)

5 units 50 points

a reasonably balanced selection IMHO - And most of us would by an additional Booster, so thats 9 additional units (AFAIK commons are 2 of each side + 1 random) + 3 uncommon -

Though it could get unbalanced if you include all units... one side can be ahead in a booster.

If you are lucky you could also get a comparable rare for each side.

A second booster should allow you to field 100 points for each side (with some spares possible)

And a third should allow you to customize a 100 point army.

You don't need too much pieces before you can play standard games. - And to try out the original starter had a nice selection.

[XAos]

There are PLENTY of starters available so that is not the problem. The problem is when you are a new player if you buy a starter kit to try out the game,then you open it and see that there aren't enough units to play a resonable game. That is a problem. They need to make a starter kit that can have a new player actually field enough units to try a game to see if they like it BEFORE they spend more money on boosters.
Good point, the WaS starter might have enough ships (100+ points) for one player. But only if you ignore both nationality & sides. i.e. play a mixed US & Japanese fleet. And randomly some starters could be as low as 60-70 points.
A good plan would be for your FLGS to run a draft tournament with 1 starter & 1 booster per player. That way, everyone should walk away with 100 points of one side or the other. Draft tournaments do take longer, particularly with a new game. But the time spent on the drafting process itself is usually fun.:D

[oddfellow]

There are PLENTY of starters available so that is not the problem. The problem is when you are a new player if you buy a starter kit to try out the game,then you open it and see that there aren't enough units to play a resonable game. That is a problem. They need to make a starter kit that can have a new player actually field enough units to try a game to see if they like it BEFORE they spend more money on boosters.


I have to admit, as someone who already has quite a few pieces, I'm part of the problem. I buy out the stores starter kits when they get them in because its such a better value ($14.99 for two boosters) and you get really good units in set 1 and 2. I'll try to leave a few for the new players from now on :)

[Sean-Khan]

I have to admit, as someone who already has quite a few pieces, I'm part of the problem. I buy out the stores starter kits when they get them in because its such a better value ($14.99 for two boosters) and you get really good units in set 1 and 2. I'll try to leave a few for the new players from now on :)

This is a problem - it's no good if starters give stuff cheaper than boosters, and boosters don't guarantee getting even small playable armies.

We've seen some good points about how fixed content in starters is good. I've liked all the starters with some fixed content better than those random ones. The only exceptions are SW starships starter - there's many who would have lived without widely unrecognized Gigantic Mon Calamari super dreadnought - and second Kenobi from SWM:RotS -starter. Everything else in these fixed contents has been fine.

SW & AAM have had different approach on this, and I think both have something good. If you want everyone to have starters, uniques in starters in good. That might mean several starters staying on shelves, but on the other hand, I haven't seen too many SWM starters around lately.

What would be good then? My suggestion would be to have a starter, that everyone would be interested in getting only one piece of. In addition, there would be 'supplement' -pack; In case of AAM, I'd say that it would have maps from the starter, counters & few basic riflemen. There's always need for basic riflemen, so this would be a good way to give people a few more. M4A1 and Panzer IV were also great to have in starter, even if PzIV isn't very effective, it's one of my favourites :) But I believe you're getting enough of them in boosters anyway, especially if you're trying to collect several pieces of some rares.

[axisarmyrules45]

The only true way that AAM or WAS could fail is if whizkids takes the game over turns the mini's into combat dials and then to deal with slumping sales turns the game into an RPG that doesn't make any sense.