Future of Full Thrust WAS Re: [FT] Even more NAC ships

Loopholes in the rules don't even figure into it in the States

There are 2 big problems in the States:

1) Game is not in stores and many people are scared about ordering from
overseas 
2) Perception that you have to buy an outdated rulebook AND a supplement
(Fleet Book) in order to play the game

The second is the most ironic.	It's my belief that the Fleet Book
pleased existing players (a good reason for the product to exist) while
becoming a barrier to entry for new players.  

The first is probably the bigger problem, though.  

One of our more fervent players also hates the six arcs introduced in
the FBs, but you can't please everyone.  

Some possible solutions to the problem:
1) Partner with Brookhurst Hobbies to get the models into the States.
2) Release Full Thrust Lite -- a free product that describes the
cinematic movement system.  This and Fleet Book 1 or 2 gives you enough
of the rules to play.
3) Retire Full Thrust and offer it like More Thrust.  Sell Fleet Book
4) Retire Full Thrust and complete and publish FT3. :-)
5) Pictures of models available (also an issue with Eureka - do YOU know
what a "British Officer in Gorilla suit looks like?  I think I want one,
but who can tell).  

It used to be simplicity itself to get new players into Full Thrust. 
The rules were simple, cheap and the models were easily available.  

Past:  "That was fun -- the rules are only $15?  And look at this rack
of ships.  Wow, these are cool.  I'll take one of these and one of
these"

Now: "That was fun -- I have to order from England?  Do they have the
ships here at least?  No, huh?	But I could order from a website -- no
pictures, huh?	Ooh, look at these GW figures over here."

I don't even try to bring any new people in anymore.  It's like fighting
tofu.

The problem for us in the States is that Jon's business is doing
perfectly fine meeting its own goals and supporting him.  We want him to
be more, 'cause we like the game.  But he doesn't have any incentive --
it's just more work for him, I think.  (Not to put words in your mouth,
Jon -- please correct me if I'm wrong)

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: "Noah V. Doyle" <nvdoyle@insightbb.com>
Sent: Feb 11, 2004 12:14 AM
To: gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [FT] Even more NAC ships

Hugh Fisher wrote:

 >Full Thrust is simple and playable, which puts it ahead of 90% of the
 >wargame rules on >the market. That it has loopholes does not
disadvantage it.

Oerjan Ohlson responded:

 >Full Thrust is steadily losing market shares to the space combat games
 >among the remaining 10% of the wargame rules on the market. I'd say
that
 >this makes FT's loopholes a fairly serious disadvantage, unless you
want FT
 >to drop out of the market and get replaced by other games...

My questions, to any and all:

Is that the reason for FT losing market share? Do players actually cite
the 
rules/construction loopholes as such a problem with FT that they switch
to 
other systems? What systems are they going to? I simply don't have
enough 
space combat players around here (Central Indiana) to be able to tell;
the 
only groups that I know of play FT, or Battlefleet Gothic. The rest that

are commonly available here are barely represented (Aerotech, Hard
Vacuum, 
etc.). Maybe I'm lucky; the small FT group that I know of would rather
play 
interesting scenarios/campaigns, than push the edges of the design
rules.

Noah Doyle