lrn 2 irony
The reason the Minis sales slumped is because the "game" they were representing was dropped. This went with a drastic price increase (per piece) and a downgrade in quality. (Paint jobs were getting very sloppy)
One has to wonder if past figures will get stats in the new game. If Magic (the Gathering) is any indication with it's "Modern" format recently introduced, I would have to guess not.
Maybe I'm just missing something here. But, isn't it ironic that Dungeons and Dragons 4.0 is based on miniatures usage (which I'm fine with by the way). Yet all the old great miniatures from years past are discontinued and now high dollar?
I think it's ironic that 4e gets criticized for being a 'miniatures game,' when D&D, itself, has it's roots firmly in miniatures wargaming. D&D has always been a miniatures game, when it came to combat. AD&D 2nd tried really hard to pretend to be more of a setting-heavy 'storytelling' game when that was popular in the mid 90s, but harkened back to its roots with Combat & Tactics. 3e's 'back to the dungeon' philosophy brought back mini usage in a big way. 4e merely continued that.
There have been a lot of rationales for the killing of the mini line. Plastic prices going up, pushing this or that agenda. Really, though, there's one obvious one: people weren't buying enough of 'em for it to be profitable. 3e minis were put out for a long time, and were perfectly useable with 4e - everyone just plain had enough minis.
However, on topic, I would have imagined that the amount of plastic going into the average mini would be the least of your price once you add on molding, manufacturing, painting, shipping and markup.
And here I was thinking that this was going to be an Alanis Morissette thread.
Ironically, I had the same thought (Come at me, English professors).
And here I was thinking that this was going to be an Alanis Morissette thread.
Ironically, I had the same thought (Come at me, English professors).
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY_amJ0YZrM
And here I was thinking that this was going to be an Alanis Morissette thread.
Ironically, I had the same thought (Come at me, English professors).
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY_amJ0YZrM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj_fED9VUro
All true. I didn't see many pathfinder minis online today. When is the new set coming out? Also, what are other good brands that work well with the DnD grid system?
I would say you can use pretty much any minis. The only caveat is that the older lines of minis were all 25mm and the newer ones seem to be a bit larger (maybe more like 28mm), which is noticable. OTOH for monsters it usually doesn't matter much. Reaper makes good stuff, I think they've got the PF stuff. Darksword stuff looks pretty good.
www.trollandtoad.com
Probably one of your better sources, though there's certainly a lot more out there than what they have.
And remember, Pathfinder is getting prepainted plastic minis now.
Minor correction: WizKids is making minis that are Pathfinder branded. Pathfinder can shrivel up and die.* WizKids is forever!† 8o)
* Have I mentioned lately that D&D 3.x is the only trpg I won't play?
† I kept our HeroClix tournaments going not only after our store closed, but even while WizKids was out of business thanks to the incompetence of Topps. We're even planning to start holding Mage Knight tournaments soon. Anybody wanna guess what my favorite game company is? 8o)
Paper is cheaper than plastic or pewter.
Tell that to the Rocky Mountain Spotted Owl.
Paper is cheaper than plastic or pewter.
Tell that to the Rocky Mountain Spotted Owl.
I was unaware they played D&D. **** tongue firmly placed in cheek ***
And here I was thinking that this was going to be an Alanis Morissette thread.
Ironically, I had the same thought (Come at me, English professors).
That would not be ironic, that would be coincidental. There, I bit ;)
And here I was thinking that this was going to be an Alanis Morissette thread.
Ironically, I had the same thought (Come at me, English professors).
www.youtube.com/watch?v=flcXZATyz1w
There, I bit ;)
:33
AD&D 2nd tried really hard to pretend to be more of a setting-heavy 'storytelling' game when that was popular in the mid 90s,
In my experience it happened in the latter 80s/early 90s: never saw a mini/grid (hexagon etc) in sight, now I want to go back and play AD&D (best vibe, IMO) and see what all the old school wargaming is about.
AD&D 2nd tried really hard to pretend to be more of a setting-heavy 'storytelling' game when that was popular in the mid 90s,
In my experience it happened in the latter 80s/early 90s: never saw a mini/grid (hexagon etc) in sight, now I want to go back and play AD&D (best vibe, IMO) and see what all the old school wargaming is about.
hehe, really depends on who you play with. We always used minis and a map, though if it was a fairly trivial fight it often wasn't really necessary to get all technical about it. Still, it was pretty much considered a faux pas in our neck of the woods not to have a figure for your character. Of course that was a pretty hard-core bunch. Couple 100 TT wargamers hung at the club we were playing at back in those days.
That would not be ironic, that would be coincidental. There, I bit ;)
Coincidentally, the only non-self-referencing definition provided in the dictionary for ironic is:
"3. coincidental; unexpected: It was ironic that I was seated next to my ex-husband at the dinner."
4.0 is not based on miniatures usage
Well... PHB p.6: "the D&D game uses dice and miniatures"
PHB p.9: "Each player needs a miniature to represent his or her character, and the DM needs minis for monsters."
PHB p.266: "The rules also assume that you use D&D Miniatures to represent the adventurers and the enemies they face."
The tactical diagrams in the original books all used miniatures
etc. seem to indicate that 4e was technically built with miniatures in mind. That said; I agree with your sentiment, and I do not agree with the OP's.
4.0 is not based on miniatures usage
Well... PHB p.6: "the D&D game uses dice and miniatures"
PHB p.9: "Each player needs a miniature to represent his or her character, and the DM needs minis for monsters."
PHB p.266: "The rules also assume that you use D&D Miniatures to represent the adventurers and the enemies they face."
The tactical diagrams in the original books all used miniatures
etc. seem to indicate that 4e was technically built with miniatures in mind. That said; I agree with your sentiment, and I do not agree with the OP's.
The game requires a representation of each character (whether "P" or "NP"), which is why I said th game is based on grid usage. And, yes, they wanted people to buy the minis, and now they want them to collect the tokens. So clearly, the game doesn't depend on mini usage, no matter what they said. It does depend on grids though. That hasn't been replaced.
the game doesn't depend on mini usage
Right. But he said it was 'based' on mini usage. I was merely indicating that semantically, that was a viable statement.
Paper is cheaper than plastic or pewter.
Tell that to the Rocky Mountain Spotted Owl.
More detailed post edited out, but as far as the birds in question are concerned it would be wonderful for the loggers to come back and resume operations. It still wouldn't address either of the two major threats to this portion of a population of a subspecies, but at least there would be more prime nesting ground.
The tactical diagrams in the original books all used miniatures etc. seem to indicate that 4e was technically built with miniatures in mind. That said; I agree with your sentiment, and I do not agree with the OP's.
3rd ed was build with minis in mind too.
I'm not saying that to be contrary; I (literally) dusted off my 3.5 PHB, flipped to page 5, and saw:
"WHAT YOU NEED TO PLAY:
Your group needs these items to play D&D.
- The Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Mo0nster Manual revised core rulebooks. (All players might want to have their own copies of the books.)
- A copy of the character sheet at the back of this book for each player.
- A battle grid. The Dungeon Master's Guide contains one.
- Miniatures to represent each character and the monsteers that challenge them.
- A set of dice for each player. A set of dice includes at least one four-sided die (d4), four six-sided die (d6), one eight-sided die (d8), two ten-sided die (d10), one twelve-sided die (d12), and one twenty-sided die (d20).
- Pencils, scrap paper, and graph paper to keep notes and to map the locations your characters will explore."
Emphasis mine, of course. Now, I just stopped at that one passage, but I'm sure that there is a recurring theme of the necessity of minis throughout the book. I'm just too lazy to find each instance where the 3.5 PHB references minis or the battle grid.
That would not be ironic, that would be coincidental. There, I bit ;)
Coincidentally, the only non-self-referencing definition provided in the dictionary for ironic is:
"3. coincidental; unexpected: It was ironic that I was seated next to my ex-husband at the dinner."
Or would that actually be ironic? Technically, irony pretty much exclusively refers to the phenomenon of something occurring that is the opposite of what you would expect from the context. The usage of ironic as a synonym for coincidental is very colloquial, and grammatically suspect. I've only seen that definition on dictionary.com, which does contain some colloquial additions.
Other examples of mainstream misuage of words and phrases -
"I couldn't care less", not "I could care less". The latter indicates that you do care
"Mischievous", not "Mischievious". Notice the lack of an "i" - Miss-cha-vus
"Seriously", not "literally" - the latter is severely overused
And, thanks in part to WoW's inept dev team, "shamans", not "shaman" for the plural.
And don't even get me started on the double negatives and mis-conjugations/declensions in the more rural parts of the country, but I suppose that's common.
"Seriously", not "literally" - the latter is severely overused
I know literally is misused literally all the time (:33), but is there any real difference between the two?
"My head literally exploded" - I miraculously survived my own cranium shattering into chunks to tell the tale.
"My head exploded, seriously." - I am being 100% sincere when I tell you that my cranium shattered into chunks.
"I literally punched a baby" - I applied my fist to an infant at high speeds.
"I seriously punched a baby." I applied my fist to an infant at high speeds. I'm not kidding.
"Seriously", not "literally" - the latter is severely overused
I know literally is misused literally all the time (:33), but is there any real difference between the two?
"My head literally exploded" - I miraculously survived my own cranium shattering into chunks to tell the tale.
"My head exploded, seriously." - I am being 100% sincere when I tell you that my cranium shattered into chunks.
"I literally punched a baby" - I applied my fist to an infant at high speeds.
"I seriously punched a baby." I applied my fist to an infant at high speeds. I'm not kidding.
Well, usually if 'literally' is appropriate to use, 'seriously' is also, but the opposite isn't true.
The main problem occurs when people apply 'literally' in a context where what they are saying would not normally be interpreted figuratively, which is 90% of the time when someone uses the word. "Literal" is meant only to indicate that a statement isn't figurative, not simply that something is the truth or isn't being embellished.
example - "I literally played the game for 4 hours straight last night". Even if it's an embellishment, that statement stands little chance of being interpreted figuratively, so using the word "literally" is inappropriate. "Seriously" wouldn't be, however.
Einlanzer, the editor in me is (bromantically) in love with you.
Hah hah, nice.
Other examples of mainstream misuage of words and phrases -
"I couldn't care less", not "I could care less". The latter indicates that you do care
I append an implicit "but I would have to try.... really really really hard and its just not the effort"
to the latter so that its meaning comes closer in line with the intent.
