Re: Club 100 ghurka's: that second failed batch

I would be interested. Just let me know what I need to do.

Best,
T

Frits Kuijlman wrote:

>Just to start a small discussion, and maybe to try again...
>
>The first batch of club100 ghurka's went very well. Even Jon is
>producing them now, so there is some commercial viability in
>them. However, as far as I can remember far less then the current
>club100 limits were required to get the project started.
>
>I made an attempt at a second batch, but that was a miserable
>failure:-) So, why was this the case?
>- The wrong figures were proposed?
>- Too many figures were proposed?
>- People want to buy finished figures, but do not want to commit to
>  something they don't know will ever be there?
>- Not enough publicity?
>
>I suspect the second option. I see the same thing with games at
>Columbia Games and GMT. They languish a long time, and only when
>numbers are starting to get significant there is a quick increase to
>the required limit.
>
>Publicity is probably also a problem. We could humbly ask Nic and Jon
>to place references with the currently available ghurkas.
>
>So, I am willing to try again, but to get this to work we have to
>limit the number of proposed entries in the club100. We also have to
>work with the condition that one entry will get 4 variants.
>
>I am interested in a prone figure(that is, laying on his belly) with a
>sniper rifle. This would probably mean one entry with prone figures:
>sniper, spotter, rocket launcher. Things like that.
>
>There are already some poses present: standing, walking,
>kneeling. This means we can probably ask for an entry with heavy
>weapons, or one with more 'normal' infantry. All can be variants of
>current poses.
>
>Nic can probably comment on what is doable/allowable.
>
>So, is there anybody else interested in trying for more ghurkas again?
>
>Cheers,
>	Frits
>  
>