# Future of D&D Miniatures



## MerricB (Apr 7, 2010)

I'm feeling very out of touch; I managed to miss some major announcements about the future of D&D and the D&D Miniatures line. Oh well, I'm catching up now.

Source: Wizards, through the coverage of their seminar by Living Dice:

Later in 2010, the *Lords of Madness* miniature set will be released.  It won't have a visible miniature in it, instead being fully random, and consisting of 1 Huge miniature plus 5 other miniatures per pack. 

The big feature of this set is it will be the *only* set of (random) D&D Minis in 2010, and they'll be going forward with the one set/year from now on - or until they change their minds.

Of course, they're doing other non-random sets for specific customers, such as the gargantuan Orcus miniature ($75) which will be released to hobby shops only; and there's also the Beholder pack release coming up (not mentioned in the seminar, but talked about by Bill Slavicsek in his Ampersand column).

Cheers!


----------



## Nikosandros (Apr 7, 2010)

Also, with less miniatures being produced, WotC won't provide any more minis with demo packages. Both the last Game Day and the D&D Encounters' kit have tokens for PCs and monsters.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 7, 2010)

As long as it's a huge set, I'm good with one set/year.

I have plenty from previous sets, so all I'm looking for are monsters that haven't been done yet.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 7, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> As long as it's a huge set, I'm good with one set/year.
> 
> I have plenty from previous sets, so all I'm looking for are monsters that haven't been done yet.




The same. Unfortunately, with one set/year, it's likely it'll be full of ones that *have* been done before - goblins, kobolds, orcs. Those sorts of things - because there'll be no always-in-print introductory set.

What they're doing for the Dungeon Tiles is really nice: master sets which are always in print, and then limited releases of speciality tiles.

Cheers!


----------



## darjr (Apr 7, 2010)

A master set of miniatures would be cool. Now only if I could decide what would be nice to have in such a set.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Apr 7, 2010)

darjr said:


> A master set of miniatures would be cool. Now only if I could decide what would be nice to have in such a set.



There's an opportunity to tie in with the _D&D Essentials_ line - provide miniatures for all of the "classic" monsters included in the _Monster Vault_ and other such products.

The _Monster Vault_ will already have tokens for them, but still.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 7, 2010)

Perhaps.

I guess that the problem with D&D plastic minis is the same that was experienced with lead and pewter minis generally in past decades.

These products last a long time - *they don't just "go away".* And they often get resold.

At a certain point, the market becomes so saturated, it is difficult to get people excited about them. They have enough and when they want more - they go to resellers for their plastic, not boosters and cases. 

I expect the mini market will come back again at some point. But it will be a while.

For now, I'm buying _Star Wars_ minis in the secondary market and enjoying them for use during RPG play. Great product.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Apr 7, 2010)

I'm just glad I have just about all the minis I need for my D&D game.  I think I have about 2,000 DDM's so I have most of my bases covered when it comes to monsters.

One thing I really hope to see is the remaining 2 Huge Chromatic Dragons.  We still need a Huge Blue and a Huge Black (the one with the rider doesn't count - try using it in your game without your players asking why the Dragon has someone riding them! ).  If one or both of them are in the next Huge set I will be a very happy man.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 7, 2010)

Olaf the Stout said:


> I'm just glad I have just about all the minis I need for my D&D game.  I think I have about 2,000 DDM's so I have most of my bases covered when it comes to monsters.
> 
> One thing I really hope to see is the remaining 2 Huge Chromatic Dragons.  We still need a Huge Blue and a Huge Black (the one with the rider doesn't count - try using it in your game without your players asking why the Dragon has someone riding them! ).  If one or both of them are in the next Huge set I will be a very happy man.
> 
> Olaf the Stout




Agreed on the dragons.

I'm hoping we can see a gargantuan green dragon one day too....


----------



## Sammael (Apr 7, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> Agreed on the dragons.
> 
> I'm hoping we can see a gargantuan green dragon one day too....



It'll be a 4E green dragon, though, and I'd greatly prefer a 3E one.

Perhaps the best "edition free" choice for a gargantuan green dragon would be Cyan Bloodbane from Dragonlance.


----------



## Nebulous (Apr 7, 2010)

Any word on if the Lord of Madness with support monsters from Dark Sun?  I would be very shocked if it did not.  But honestly, i can't remember how "weird" Dark Sun monsters are, or if they are just mild twists on existing monsters.


----------



## TerraDave (Apr 7, 2010)

I am glade to see it I got it right. er, I mean, I am glad the list is correct (in sig), I am actually not that glad with the change.

I have used counters and tokens along with minis for many, many years. Still, while I don't mind getting "official" ones, it does represent a pretty big retreat on their part.

Its funny, DaveMage reminded me that DDM was one thing they were selling that does not depend on edition, and should have the broadest appeal. I even know some of the OSR crowd uses them.

But steel wind is also right, they sure did make a lot. All those posts back in the day, of people buying them by the case, I guess they are paying for that now. 

Its too bad. A master set would be fantastic.


----------



## Tortoise (Apr 7, 2010)

Olaf the Stout said:


> One thing I really hope to see is the remaining 2 Huge Chromatic Dragons.  We still need a Huge Blue and a Huge Black
> 
> (the one with the rider doesn't count - try using it in your game without your players asking why the Dragon has someone riding them! ).
> Olaf the Stout





We're off to negotiate with Ol' Grumblepitch the Tar dragon. Whatever you do, don't stare and don't ask about that thing growing on his back . . .


----------



## avin (Apr 7, 2010)

Nebulous said:


> Any word on if the Lord of Madness with support monsters from Dark Sun?  I would be very shocked if it did not.  But honestly, i can't remember how "weird" Dark Sun monsters are, or if they are just mild twists on existing monsters.




If I record correctly Peter Lee said some time ago that the next set won't have much DS support... but things could have changed.


----------



## Tortoise (Apr 7, 2010)

avin said:


> If I record correctly Peter Lee said some time ago that the next set won't have much DS support... but things could have changed.




I'm hoping that Lords of Madness at least has a fair number of non-rare mind-flayers. 

So far I think most if not all of the mind-flayer minis have been rares.


----------



## Sammael (Apr 7, 2010)

I very much doubt we'll ever see a non-rare mind flayer, because the sculpt needs to be intricate due to tentacles. Plus, I don't really see the point of a non-rare mind flayer, most mind flayer attacks are a single MF + thralls anyway.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 7, 2010)

...Thinking about it, I suspect discontinuing the skirmish game may have killed the line.

It's kind of an evolutionary thing. Collections of traditional minis are driven by evolution relative to the environment only--with the "environment," in this case, being the fantasy world modeled by the game. Buyers will continue to "evolve" their collections by purchasing new minis as long as there are places where their collections are inadequate to model the game world. Eventually, though, they reach a point where their collections are so well "evolved" that further adaptation is not worth pursuing.

The skirmish game, however, added a competitive element, allowing miniatures collections to evolve _relative to each other_. No matter how good your collection is, there's always room to gain a new edge over the next guy's. With a slow but steady drip of power creep, or something like M:tG's non-eternal formats acting as a kind of planned obsolescence, you can drive steady sales more or less forever.

Apparently the skirmish game wasn't popular enough, though, so it got sacked; and now sales are being driven purely by the shrinking pool of collectors who aren't yet content with their sets.

On the plus side, if DDM does die off, there's a good chance 5E will move away from miniature-centric mechanics. A combat system heavily reliant on miniatures is good if you're trying to sell minis, but if you aren't, then miniatures-dependence is just another barrier to entry in a hobby that already has more than its fair share of them.


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 7, 2010)

MerricB said:


> Later in 2010, the *Lords of Madness* miniature set will be released.  It won't have a visible miniature in it, instead being fully random, and consisting of 1 Huge miniature plus 5 other miniatures per pack.



Visible figs only work when figs of comparative desirability are shown on each pack. I have a suspicion retailers were unhappy with the number of Grey dapple Unicorn boxes that sat on shelf.


----------



## Nebulous (Apr 7, 2010)

There's some old Star Wars common and uncommon minis that make excellent mind flayers. I forget what they're called, but they have the squid head. I modded one once with some green stuff and it looked awesome.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 7, 2010)

frankthedm said:


> Visible figs only work when figs of comparative desirability are shown on each pack. I have a suspicion retailers were unhappy with the number of Grey dapple Unicorn boxes that sat on shelf.




Amen to that. Heck, even the good figs were kind of specialized. The Cyclops Crusher is an excellent mini, but if you're trying to build a miniatures collection suitable for general-purpose gaming, cyclopes are going to be quite a ways down your priority list.


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 7, 2010)

Sammael said:


> I very much doubt we'll ever see a non-rare mind flayer, because the sculpt needs to be intricate due to tentacles.



the Star wars quarren Assassin & half Illithid lizard man were uncommon, so it could be done.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Apr 7, 2010)

I'm a little baffled by the DDM product line.

I get that it was designed to be a competitive game and the rarity system works well for that.  This structure makes limited environments interesting, drives sells for those wanting rare minis, and helps the after market thrive on chase rares.  It worked brilliantly for Magic the Gathering.

However, magic isn't a dual use item like DDM (unless you count putting them in your bike wheels to make noise).  The minis game may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I've got little interest in it.  I am interested in getting goblins, kobolds, dragons, horses, drow, and a variety of other minis for my DnD game.  I'm very much baffled by WotC's inability or unwillingness to meet this desire.  I don't care what goblins are in the goblin pack, I care that they are goblins.  Likewise for the Lizardfolk, drow, magical beast, etc.

Give me miniature theme packs and I'll snatch them up!


----------



## Tortoise (Apr 7, 2010)

Sammael said:


> I very much doubt we'll ever see a non-rare mind flayer, because the sculpt needs to be intricate due to tentacles. Plus, I don't really see the point of a non-rare mind flayer, most mind flayer attacks are a single MF + thralls anyway.




As pointed out, the half-illithid lizard man and SW Quarren Assassin (thanks for the name of that, Ebay here I come! ) were uncommon so the tentacles aren't an issue preventing non-rare status.

Also, depending on the adventure/encounter and campaign specifics multiple mind-flayers in one location could well be reasonable.


----------



## Stormonu (Apr 7, 2010)

I think WotC shot itself in the foot canceling the DDM game, and they have now decided that shooting themselves in the head will relieve the pain of the first shot.

Unless they change tactics to follow the release of more battle packs like the beholder set, I expect the entire line will be canceled after the failure of the next set.


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 7, 2010)

Tortoise said:


> (thanks for the name of that, Ebay here I come! )



Google shopping and abPrices.com - Star Wars Miniatures - Quarren Assassin are your friends. Shop around & hunt for free shipping.


----------



## Sammael (Apr 7, 2010)

I haven't seen the Quarren, but Half-Illithid Lizardfolk looks a lot cruder than the Mind Flayer minis I own. Admittedly, I completely skipped the new mind flayers from several recent sets, because they looked really awful.

Mind Flayer Sorcerer from Aberrations remains the best one, IMO.


----------



## MortonStromgal (Apr 7, 2010)

MerricB said:


> I'm feeling very out of touch; I managed to miss some major announcements about the future of D&D and the D&D Miniatures line. Oh well, I'm catching up now.




Hasbro owns Heroscape and D&D minis. The D&D minis line is seen as competition for Heroscape and the D&D minis do not sell as well. D&D minis are currently going onto Heroscape bases and sold as Heroscape minis in a trial period. If its a success with the Heroscape people D&D minis will be no more and the models will be made for Heroscape. Which adds a new question of will D&D 5e move to hexes because Heroscape is in hexes or will Heroscape move to squares. My guess is D&D will be altered to fit more inline with Heroscape come 5e.


----------



## Tortoise (Apr 7, 2010)

frankthedm said:


> Google shopping and abPrices.com - Star Wars Miniatures - Quarren Assassin are your friends. Shop around & hunt for free shipping.




Awesome Frank, thanks!


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 7, 2010)

MortonStromgal said:


> Hasbro owns Heroscape and D&D minis. The D&D minis line is seen as competition for Heroscape and the D&D minis do not sell as well. D&D minis are currently going onto Heroscape bases and sold as Heroscape minis in a trial period. If its a success with the Heroscape people D&D minis will be no more and the models will be made for Heroscape.




Is this speculation, or can you link us to a source? (Or are you, yourself, the source?)


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 7, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Is this speculation, or can you link us to a source? (Or are you, yourself, the source?)



Heroscape _is_ part of the wotc line up. Wotc _has_ discontinued product lines for being too similar to another line. Wotc *is* cannibalizing DDM sculpts for the 3rd Heroscape base set and an upcoming expansion.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 7, 2010)

frankthedm said:


> Heroscape _is_ part of the wotc line up. Wotc _has_ discontinued product lines for being too similar to another line. Wotc *is* cannibalizing DDM sculpts for the 3rd Heroscape base set and an upcoming expansion.




So, speculation with supporting evidence?


----------



## avin (Apr 7, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> So, speculation with supporting evidence?




Which part you guys think is speculation?

The Heroscape stuff using DDM resculpts is fairly old news...

As for 5E without minis, only if is heavily focused on tokens, I believe... and this is speculation, of course


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 7, 2010)

avin said:


> Which part you guys think is speculation?
> 
> The Heroscape stuff using DDM resculpts is fairly old news...




Speculation is in bold:

_Hasbro owns Heroscape and D&D minis. *The D&D minis line is seen  as competition for Heroscape and the D&D minis do not sell as well.*  D&D minis are currently going onto Heroscape bases and sold as  Heroscape minis in a trial period. *If its a success with the Heroscape  people D&D minis will be no more and the models will be made for  Heroscape.*_

I mean, regardless of the futures of the respective lines, using DDM sculpts for Heroscape is just good business sense. If you have a critter you want to make for Heroscape that resembles an existing one in DDM, it's silly to pay for a new sculpt and molds.

[Edit: Removed paragraph doubting whether the mythos of D&D could work with Heroscape, since apparently there is a full-scale crossover planned... still, doesn't mean one line will be killed off outright.]



avin said:


> As for 5E without minis, only if is heavily focused on tokens, I believe... and this is speculation, of course




Anything about 5E is speculation at this point. Even if it comes straight from WotC brass. 

But tokens... mm. Is there really that much profit to be had in selling tokens? If not, then 5E has a strong incentive to support combat without minis. (Not exclusively, mind you. D&D has supported battlemat combat since before it was D&D and probably always will. But a game that can be played with or without battlemat is a different beast from a game that essentailly demands one.)


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Apr 7, 2010)

avin said:


> As for 5E without minis, only if is heavily focused on tokens, I believe... and this is speculation, of course




5E will be token driven?  So I'll have to play it at the local arcade?  Boy, 5E sounds way too video-gamey for my taste....

*Ducks*


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 7, 2010)

5Ed will be token driven?

We black gamers will *finally* be getting the respect we deserve!

_*tap tap*_

What?

_*whisper whisper*_

Oh...not _THAT_ kind of token?

Nevermind.


In all seriousness, even if DDM dies off and HeroScape becomes the sole source of D&D minis, I'm fine with that...as long as you can still buy them separately.

I'd hope that they'd still include DDM/D&D stat cards with them though.


----------



## MortonStromgal (Apr 7, 2010)

Does this help?

[fact]Hasbro owns Heroscape and D&D minis. The D&D minis line is seen as competition for Heroscape and the D&D minis do not sell as well. D&D minis are currently going onto Heroscape bases and sold as Heroscape minis [end fact] [pretty solid rumor]in a trial period. If its a success with the Heroscape people D&D minis will be no more and the models will be made for Heroscape.[end pretty solid rumor] [speculation]Which adds a new question of will D&D 5e move to hexes because Heroscape is in hexes or will Heroscape move to squares. My guess is D&D will be altered to fit more inline with Heroscape come 5e.[end speculation]

[edit] 5e will almost certainly use minis, Heroscape minis. The finantual benifits from combining D&D and Heroscape are too tempting to pass up. The more you can make D&D into an "advanced" Heroscape, the more you will sell of both with less resources used on both.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 7, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Apparently the skirmish game wasn't popular enough, though, so it got sacked; and now sales are being driven purely by the shrinking pool of collectors who aren't yet content with their sets.



A couple of observations:

One, DDM is, AFAIK, still clinging feebly to life.  WotC licensed the administration and design of the game to the DDM Guild.  (I'm sure you can still get more information at Hordelings: Miniatures Enthusiasts -- Forums.)

Two, the game was very popular until WotC rolled out the new version, at which point many players -- even fairly hardcore players, like myself -- said, "No, thanks."  _That_ was actually the beginning of the end ... but the end isn't (quite) here yet.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 7, 2010)

Jeff, you forgot the community schism, poor timing and execution of the revised rules rollout and the Dreamblade siphoning of players.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 7, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Jeff, you forgot the community schism, poor timing and execution of the revised rules rollout and the Dreamblade siphoning of players.



I honestly don't think the first and third mattered.  (I barely remember the first, honestly.)  Dreamblade was pretty much over, and the game was still healthy (though it did lose some players), when DDM 2.0 was released.

And I'm really not sure that the timing of the rules release mattered, either.  (It didn't for me.)  But maybe.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 7, 2010)

I think the effects were aggregate. None alone were enough but together they just kept whittling away.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 7, 2010)

deleted


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 7, 2010)

Hell, the inability of WoTC to roll out core races as part of their non-randomized hero line and rely on repaint jobs of miniatures no one wanted in the first place was the big signal that people weren't paying attention to what players wanted and just kept putting product out to have product out.

And Heroscape? Isn't that a dead board game? Wasn't there some shake up about Target and Toys R Us essentially busting on Hasbro for massive discounts and it wound up in hobby land game stores? Not that those are bad, but the sales volume ain't there. Doing a quick search on Heroscape on Target and Toys R Us and it's the big '0'.


----------



## MortonStromgal (Apr 7, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> And Heroscape? Isn't that a dead board game? Wasn't there some shake up about Target and Toys R Us essentially busting on Hasbro for massive discounts and it wound up in hobby land game stores? Not that those are bad, but the sales volume ain't there. Doing a quick search on Heroscape on Target and Toys R Us and it's the big '0'.




Yes and no, I don't have all the information but basically there were some profit margin problems with the line for both Target and Toys R Us and thus it was shuffled out from under Milton Bradly to WOTC.


----------



## Stormonu (Apr 8, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Two, the game was very popular until WotC rolled out the new version, at which point many players -- even fairly hardcore players, like myself -- said, "No, thanks."  _That_ was actually the beginning of the end ... but the end isn't (quite) here yet.




Almost the same exact thing happened with Wizkids when they came out with _mageknight 2.0_ and made major changes to the mechwarrior line (with the Age of Destruction makeover).  You would think WotC would have paid attention considering how well Wizkids is doing now (i.e., out of business).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 8, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> 5E will be a LARP edition, and DDM will produce lifesize monster props made of cheese...
> 
> (*not speculation*)




And Wisconsin's unemployment rate will drop to zero after they make the Tarrasque.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 8, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And Wisconsin's unemployment rate will drop to zero after they make the Tarrasque.




Well, yeah. They'll make the Tarrasque, it will lay waste to Wisconsin, and the survivors will be too busy hiding to look for work, so they won't count toward the government unemployment metric...

...oh, did you mean they'd make a Tarrasque _mini_?


----------



## MerricB (Apr 8, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> Almost the same exact thing happened with Wizkids when they came out with _mageknight 2.0_ and made major changes to the mechwarrior line (with the Age of Destruction makeover).  You would think WotC would have paid attention considering how well Wizkids is doing now (i.e., out of business).




To be fair, MageKnight had its share of problems _before_ 2.0. It's a salutary lesson in how not to run a CMG. Yes, Balance is important... and if the Limited Edition figures you get for winning tournaments are better than the regular figures... well, then you get a vicious cycle.

The property that was much better handled was HeroClix, and that continues today with another company.

My own feeling is that D&D Miniatures Skirmish was in decline before DDM2. The game worked very well within a certain range of point values, but when smaller or bigger point-value figures needed to be made (due ot the correspondence with D&D 3E), then problems emerged. However. DDM2 didn't help.

However, any problems with the Skirmish side were - to my mind - a minor part of the problem with DDM; the Skirmish game was a nice addition to the minis, but the chief purpose was for the D&D RPG. So, when the D&D RPGers slowed down their purchases, the entire line suffered.

I know that towards the end of my major days of buying DDM, I was approaching saturation level, and I was getting very irritated at some of the rarity decisions that were being made; I was extremely annoyed when new (important) minis appeared in the huge packs at the uncommon levels. The cost get a "play set" was just too much. Then there were the problems with scale...

However, all of those problems were minor when compared to one big fact: the cost of DDM packs had gone up significantly. Harbinger was extremely reasonable; unsustainably so, I expect. However, it was what we judged new packs by.

Cheers!


----------



## Sammael (Apr 8, 2010)

MerricB said:


> Harbinger was extremely reasonable; unsustainably so, I expect. However, it was what we judged new packs by.



16 minis for $20. Bliss.


----------



## Stormonu (Apr 8, 2010)

MerricB said:


> However, any problems with the Skirmish side were - to my mind - a minor part of the problem with DDM; the Skirmish game was a nice addition to the minis, but the chief purpose was for the D&D RPG. So, when the D&D RPGers slowed down their purchases, the entire line suffered.




Odd, from my readings on the WotC site, I had the impression that the DDMers were the big consumers and the acquisition by roleplayers a much smaller chunk.  In fact, this seemed to be borne out in my area in that the other DMs/players tended to refrain from using the minis due to rarity or quality of figures and would often use proxies or tokens instead of minis.  DDMer's on the other hand, would preorder by the case and couldn't use proxies in their warbands.  Our "F"LGS owner indicated the split at the store was about 80%/20% between DDMers/TRPG users, respectively.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 8, 2010)

MerricB said:


> To be fair, MageKnight had its share of problems _before_ 2.0.
> 
> ...
> 
> My own feeling is that D&D Miniatures Skirmish was in decline before DDM2.



From a business perspective, a revamping to 2.0 is likely to be a response to a decline in the product line. If they're still selling great guns, then they won't mess with it. When it starts to slip, though, a common reaction is to start tweaking it, hoping to gives sales a boost.

So a decline and the revamping will occur around the same time, but don't mix up which is the cause and which is the effect.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 8, 2010)

Sammael said:


> 16 minis for $20. Bliss.



That's not extremely reasonable, to use MerricB's term; that's a loss leader.

(Can one be _extremely_ reasonable, btw?)


----------



## Sammael (Apr 8, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> That's not extremely reasonable, to use MerricB's term; that's a loss leader.
> 
> (Can one be _extremely_ reasonable, btw?)



I'm not so sure about that. Harbinger starters got a second print run at some point (after Dragoneye, IIRC), and they were priced the same, despite the fact that they were preparing a price change. If it was a loss leader, how come they didn't wait for the Archfiends' price increase to re-release the starter at $22 or something?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 8, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> Odd, from my readings on the WotC site, I had the impression that the DDMers were the big consumers and the acquisition by roleplayers a much smaller chunk.



"Per buyer," that's definitely true.  In absolute volume, though, RPGer DDM purchasers swamped out "pure" DDMers.  (IME, many, maybe most, DDMers were also RPGers.)



Fifth Element said:


> From a business perspective, a revamping to 2.0 is likely to be a response to a decline in the product line.



In most situations like this, that might be true.  In this particular situation, WotC was ramping up toward the release of 4E, and wanted the skirmish game and the RPG to use the same rules.  DDM players had the first play experience with 4E's combat rules.

Again, as a fairly hardcore DDM player, IMO the game was still healthy immediately prior to 2.0's release.  It wasn't at its peak, for reasons mentioned upthread, but we were still getting tournaments together pretty easily.  That changed pretty fast after DDM 2.0 was released; as far as I'm aware, there hasn't been a tournament or organized DDM league day in the Bay Area (once a hotbed of DDM hardcore players) in many months.


----------



## Stormonu (Apr 8, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Again, as a fairly hardcore DDM player, IMO the game was still healthy immediately prior to 2.0's release.  It wasn't at its peak, for reasons mentioned upthread, but we were still getting tournaments together pretty easily.  That changed pretty fast after DDM 2.0 was released; as far as I'm aware, there hasn't been a tournament or organized DDM league day in the Bay Area (once a hotbed of DDM hardcore players) in many months.




I'm sure that the sudden invalidation of 10(?) sets didn't help matters much for DDM.  I did not follow the game other than some of my friends comments, but I seem to recall it took a month or two just to get the previous set recarded ... and I'm not sure they ever recarded the sets all the way back to harbinger.


----------



## Shazman (Apr 8, 2010)

Constantly increasing price while decreasing quality of minis + market saturation = fail!


----------



## Herschel (Apr 8, 2010)

The Twin Cities used to be a great hotbed of DDM players but once WotC pulled the plug, we couldn't even get a four-person tournament together. A number of us are doing 4E RPGA stuff and some of us are in regular campaigns together now too.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 8, 2010)

Shazman said:


> Constantly increasing price while decreasing quality of minis + market saturation = fail!





Constantly increasing? The $15 price point has been around quite a while. As for minis quality, there were a couple of bad sets (Demonweb and the first visible set) but the last two were outstanding as was Desert of Desolation. The decrease in minis/box with the coming of teh visibles that so many clamored for was a bit disappointing when opening even though what was "lost" was not a rare.


----------



## Sammael (Apr 8, 2010)

Decreasing the number of minis while keeping the price the same is, effectively, a price increase. 

I didn't mind the visible sets (except the first one, which was beyond terrible). But, then again, I buy all my minis online as singles.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 8, 2010)

deleted


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 8, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> In most situations like this, that might be true.  In this particular situation, WotC was ramping up toward the release of 4E, and wanted the skirmish game and the RPG to use the same rules.



Good point.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 9, 2010)

This is both speculative and unverifiable, but from my viewpoint, reasonable: I think the DDM2 was a big miss on several levels. It with with DDM2 that they started making sure each mini had a cute or distinctive way of playing, often inventing new abilities or coming up with strange stats (Orc Savage springs to mind.... 5 hp, +30 or something if it hits an opponent?). When this idea was applied to later Monster Manuals, and later to 4e encounter design in general, it was a hit, but with DDM, I think it was a flop. First, as mentioned above, whole sets were obsolesced. Second, I think the miniatures market was mostly older players, probably people more attracted to AD&D/3e/Pathfinder/etc. than to 4e, not universally, but enough that the demographic was misidentified in terms of what they wanted. Third, the direction of the line messed with the hardcore minis fans. Okay, a lot of people hated morale. Well, guess what? If you don't like morale, you're probably less likely to be a long-time minis gamer in the first place. The Miniatures Handbook introduced a lot of simpler, mid-CR monsters that marked, I think, an improvement in house design. But the more eccentric designs that came with later mini sets, and with various products that presaged 4e, probably turned off people who liked the original product, who liked some of the ideas in the Miniatures Handbook and so forth. So the minis base was split, at least twice, before 4e came along and split it further in terms of RPG buyers. Fourth, Wizards couldn't figure out how to price and sell designs. They constantly complained about "keeping costs down" but time and again we saw the secondary market was willing to pay a couple of dollars more for minis people actually wanted. Fewer sets, higher quality miniatures, more consciously designed distribution (in both the random and non-random versions) might have diminishes sales and raw profits somewhat but I think would have led to a healthier line and a more enthusiastic fanbase. In the beginning, people were excited to see what was coming down the pipe. By the end, people lined up to the first to mock the new miniatures. The quality just did not stay up, the designs were out to lunch, and the best minis were largely traded on the secondary market because it was much cheaper than trying to score one by luck.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 9, 2010)

frankthedm said:


> Visible figs only work when figs of comparative desirability are shown on each pack. I have a suspicion retailers were unhappy with the number of Grey dapple Unicorn boxes that sat on shelf.




Were? They still are!


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 9, 2010)

Sammael said:


> I haven't seen the Quarren, but Half-Illithid Lizardfolk looks a lot cruder than the Mind Flayer minis I own. Admittedly, I completely skipped the new mind flayers from several recent sets, because they looked really awful.
> 
> Mind Flayer Sorcerer from Aberrations remains the best one, IMO.




I went this way. Unlimited, non-random mind flayers that look awesome for $5 apiece:

Reaper Miniatures :: Miniatures


----------



## Longtooth Studios (Apr 9, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I went this way. Unlimited, non-random mind flayers that look awesome for $5 apiece:
> 
> Reaper Miniatures :: Miniatures




You will normally like the paint job better too! Can you buy that color? Call it flayer juice!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 9, 2010)

> El Mahdi:
> Why am I suddenly hearing Blue Oyster Cult in my head singin "Godzilla"... ;-)




Because you're receiving the psychic ripples emanating from my mind from when I posted the quip about the Cheese Tarrasque!


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 9, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> [Head-'sploding wall of text.]



Dude, white-spacify that, and I promise to read it.


----------



## Thraug (Apr 9, 2010)

I don't believe anyone has mentioned it here, but the new set (Lords of Madness) will contain Very Rares, similar to MtG.  I'm not happy about this.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 9, 2010)

Thraug said:


> I don't believe anyone has mentioned it here, but the new set (Lords of Madness) will contain Very Rares, similar to MtG.  I'm not happy about this.



I get where you're coming from, and I'm just glad they waited as long as they did.  Now that I'm buying only singles from Auggie's, my outrage is both muted and vicarious.


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 9, 2010)

Thraug said:


> I don't believe anyone has mentioned it here, but the new set (Lords of Madness) will contain Very Rares, similar to MtG.  I'm not happy about this.



Not happy at all either, but Huge rares already were Very Rare since they did not show up one per pack.


----------



## jasonbostwick (Apr 10, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Now that I'm buying only singles from Auggie's, my outrage is both muted and vicarious.




Won't that hurt your wallet more if the very-rares are minis you want? Even if you're not a set completionist, I'm sure eventually one will catch your fancy.

A look at the Star Wars line puts recently released very-rares at $20 and up on the secondary market - I can't find any in-print DDM minis worth that much.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 10, 2010)

I too am only buying singles from Auggies so I'm not woried about the "very rare" ones.

It will result in me buying 0 more booster packs...

If I can't get the "very rare" - oh, well.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 10, 2010)

jasonbostwick said:


> Won't that hurt your wallet more if the very-rares are minis you want? Even if you're not a set completionist, I'm sure eventually one will catch your fancy.



Because I'm not a completist any longer (my last complete set was 14, I think), even if I buy a VR or two my total outlay will still be significantly less than buying the two or three cases I used to buy.



> A look at the Star Wars line puts recently released very-rares at $20 and up on the secondary market



I simply won't pay that much.  Once upon a time, but not any more.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 10, 2010)

jasonbostwick said:


> Won't that hurt your wallet more if the very-rares are minis you want? Even if you're not a set completionist, I'm sure eventually one will catch your fancy.




As another singles buyer, there are a lot of high-priced minis out there that have caught my fancy, like Aspect of Tiamat. Doesn't mean I'm gonna buy 'em. Past a certain price point - around $4-5 for a Medium or $10-12 for a Large - I stop buying DDM and get Reaper instead. The only time I'll drop a wad of cash on a single DDM mini is for the iconics, like the Colossal Red Dragon or the upcoming Gargantuan Orcus.

The essential economics of DDM is that the super-expensive rares subsidize the cheap commons. However, the consequence of this is that the rares are _more_ expensive on the aftermarket than if they were being sold direct as singles from the manufacturer. Therefore, buyers have an incentive to buy only commons from DDM and get equivalent rares elsewhere.

This is where the skirmish game came in handy. Wizards could exclude all but their own minis from the skirmish game, which provided a reason to chase those rares instead of looking for alternatives. Skirmish players got their game, tabletop gamers like me got our minis for cheap, Wizards sold lots of boosters, everybody won.

Without the skirmish game, I don't think the economics are really there for a Very Rare category. Maybe I'm wrong, but... the "chase factor" is much less when you're just buying minis for your D&D game than if you're prepping for a tournament or something.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 10, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Without the skirmish game, I don't think the economics are really there for a Very Rare category. Maybe I'm wrong, but... the "chase factor" is much less when you're just buying minis for your D&D game than if you're prepping for a tournament or something.




I feel that the economics may be unsustainable for the current prices for non-skirmish pieces, but that just means that the very rares will be lower in price than you might expect. There's no magic formula that says "an ultra-rare must be this price". 

The existence of very rares doesn't affect Wizards much; they don't benefit from the secondary market. The line will mostly depend on the commons and uncommons and (to some extent) on the rares. If the very rares are extremely desirable for some reason or another, then you do get people who buy more as part of the chase factor.

Cheers!


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 12, 2010)

MerricB said:


> I feel that the economics may be unsustainable for the current prices for non-skirmish pieces, but that just means that the very rares will be lower in price than you might expect. There's no magic formula that says "an ultra-rare must be this price".




No, but there is a cost to each figure included in a set. You have to pay for the sculpt and the production line of that figure. I'm fairly sure that's a substantial overhead.

To recoup that cost requires balancing supply against demand. For rare figs, you want them rare enough that people will buy a bunch of packs "chasing" them, but not so rare that people throw up their hands and don't bother.

That means you have to consider how much motivation buyers have to chase  the Very Rares. If there's not enough motivation, then you've expended  all that overhead adding the Very Rare figure to the mix, but you  haven't gained the benefit in terms of increased sales.

The skirmish game was a big motivator for chasing. With that gone, I'm not convinced there's enough  chaseability left to justify a Very Rare category.



> The existence of very rares doesn't affect Wizards much; they don't benefit from the secondary market.!




Not directly, but I'm fairly certain there are a lot of online retailers that buy cases of each release, open them, and sell the singles. If secondary market sales decline, those retailers won't buy as many cases next time around.


----------



## Shazman (Apr 13, 2010)

I don't like the addition of very rare figures either.  Even if they look good, they will be too expensive on the secondary market for most gamers to bother with.  Buying lots of booster packs to chase them is even more cost prohibitive.  Without the minis game, what's the point of having very rares or even rares?  The product line seems to be on it's last legs.  D&D minis was a successful product, but now it has been pwned by WotC's mishandling of the line.


----------



## amysrevenge (Apr 13, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> price point - around $4-5 for a Medium or $10-12 for a Large




Whew!

Someone's got a higher price point than me.  lol  Mine is more like $1-2M and $3-4L, which would explain why I don't have many DDMs I suppose.

I save that kind of cash for minis I have to paint myself.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 13, 2010)

amysrevenge said:
			
		

> I save that kind of cash for minis I have to paint myself.




I know, right? It's kind of funny, when you think about it.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 13, 2010)

amysrevenge said:


> Whew!
> 
> Someone's got a higher price point than me.  lol  Mine is more like $1-2M and $3-4L, which would explain why I don't have many DDMs I suppose.
> 
> I save that kind of cash for minis I have to paint myself.




Well, those are the maximums. It's rare that I'll go that high for a DDM piece; it has to be something I really want and it has to look really good. Usually I expect to pay $1-3 for medium and $3-6 for large.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Apr 13, 2010)

It seems to me that WOTC is tying to attract the game-centered user now, though I do not see that being very successful.

In my case, I consider myself a game-centered user, and  bought about 10 packs of miniatures total, of the last 5-7 sets, and then bought a bunch of loose miniatures online to a) give me more miniatures that could be used for player characters, and b)give me more large and huge miniatures. 

So ten packs, and maybe 40 online loose miniatures, plus a game shop visit that gave me another 30 or so. 

The last set I bought one booster, and got lucky with the single uncommon I wanted, so I only got one booster.

The next set might be much the same. One booster for fun, and if I like enough pieces, an online order of a few specific things.

I also bought the Blue Dragon, but have no need or Orcus (never much liked him anyway) or the Beholder set.  

If they are gonna try to go with a user like me, it is not gonna be pretty.


----------



## Pour (Apr 13, 2010)

I would be willing to spend good money for well-made iconics and D&D staples, though how much good money I'm not really sure. I won't be picking up Orcus, but it's more because he's not as interesting to me as say a $75 Demogorgon, Lloth or Torog (especially Torog hehe). 

I did buy a Beholder, the Ultimate Tyrant, in the secondary market and just love the size, paint and quality. That said, I won't be picking up the Beholder pack just so I can preserve my Tyrant's 'cool' factor in my collection (and it's been said before just how many times someone is going to be using any kind of Beholder in their game, cool as they are).

I've become something of a mini fiend with my discovering of Troll and Toad, though, and I will be making more purchases for bulk commons and choice singles, as well as purchasing several boosters of Lords of Madness. Summers  are kind of my live game season, as I run three groups from May-August. And after purchasing Fat Dragon 3D Tiles, I need more 3D characters to fill them! 

If I had to speculate about the future of DDM, I think Lords of Madness will be the last true set and it'll end up a lot like how people have been wanting, packs specifically based on various common monsters like orcs, goblins, kobolds, drow, etc and then higher-priced packs centered around more obscure but desired monsters like illithids, liches, demons, devils, and the like. It just seems the natural evolution given what we're seeing.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 13, 2010)

deleted


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Apr 13, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> That's what I don't understand about this upcoming Orcus mini. The way they are releasing it ensures that demand will far exceed supply...but doesn't that mean that you are not selling to (and not making money from) a significant amount of people who want to buy it?
> 
> It just doesn't make sense to me.  (Although I guess all of the above would mean having to completely ditch the random model - which to me just seems self limiting.)




So, here is my latest story.  From this thread I learned of the Colossal Red Dragon (obviously, I behind the times when it comes to minis).  Cool, I'd like to have that to go along with my gargantuan Black Dragon.  So I charge amazon only to discover that it's going for $350 on the secondary markets.  YIKES.  I could see paying MSRP for ($80 or so), but $350!  Sorry, I'll pass.

So I'm not sure what the WotC strategy is on their minis.  What's the cost in keeping something like that in production.  Wouldn't an iconic item such as that continue selling?  Whatever the plan is, it confuses the heck out of me.


----------



## amysrevenge (Apr 13, 2010)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> So I'm not sure what the WotC strategy is on their minis.  What's the cost in keeping something like that in production.  Wouldn't an iconic item such as that continue selling?  Whatever the plan is, it confuses the heck out of me.





Yeah, if WotC was actively involved in the secondary market I could see it, and I can even see that if you blindly applied the MtG model to DDM then it makes a kind of sense, but surely even a cursory evaluation would determine that the collectible natures of cards and minis (especially with the skirmish game framework removed from the minis) are different enough to warrant different marketing strategies.  C-U-R-VR works fine for cards, but isn't suited to minis.

The only way that they could get me to buy new minis directly from a store would be to have them in small-ish open packs (like the PH series) or even in individual blisters.  I'm sure thay they could do some sort of market research/testing to get a reasonable guess of how many of each mini to put out there to prevent a shelf full of unicorns turning stale...


----------



## jasonbostwick (Apr 13, 2010)

I'm not in the toy business - this is mostly speculation based on snippets of what I've heard from Wizard's reps a few years back when they spoke more candidly about how miniature production worked.

 I imagine that keeping minis in stock after the first run sells out is much like keeping a book in print. To bring the cost per unit down to a point where they make a decent profit on each mini sold, they need to produce a large number of figures per run. 

The demand on a niche item like Orcus minis isn't the same as something like an iPad, where there is a factory constantly churning out new iPads to keep up with demand. Wizard's contracts out some factories in China to make a run of their minis, basing the size of the run on data from their previous sales figures (from the glut of Player's Handbook Series minis, evidently sometimes they overestimate). Once that run finishes, the molds and paint step routines are packed up and the factory is retooled to make something else. In all likelihood that 'something else' isn't even another line of minis - its Happy Meal toys or Kinderegg surprises. 


This process finishes months before the minis are released to distributors. 
(This is why suggestions that they produce mini packs that match up directly to a published adventure don't work - their mini production works on a much longer time frame than their book production). 


Any sales feedback they recieve from the set can help them adjust print run sizes for the next set down the line, but can't help them if they've made too large or too small of a run. In a few cases (the Harbinger and Deathknell DDM sets, I believe, and one of the Star War's sets) WotC saw financial reasons to do a full reprint of the set, but these were large-scale reprints in response to a very high demand. 

Selling out of a particular set of minis is exactly what Wizards wants to do to stay profitable. If they reprint a line and there isn't as much demand as they anticipated, they get stuck with a massive overstock that they can't get rid of and they lose money. (See TSR's Dragon Dice for an extreme example.) 

I imagine that this was happening towards the end of the ICONS line - I picked up my Gargantuan Blue Dragon significantly reduced from MSRP three years after it had been released. Hell, you can still get them on Amazon.

With that sales data in mind, Wizard's is intelligent to limit the production of Orcus. Remember, Orcus almost didn't get produced at all because of the dwindling sales of the ICONS line. Orcus is a very niche figure - I'm a minis fan with a very large collection, right in their target audience, and I'm not really that interested in it.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Apr 13, 2010)

amysrevenge said:


> The only way that they could get me to buy new minis directly from a store would be to have them in small-ish open packs (like the PH series) or even in individual blisters.  I'm sure thay they could do some sort of market research/testing to get a reasonable guess of how many of each mini to put out there to prevent a shelf full of unicorns turning stale...




The real puzzling thing is this though, these minis are beyond edition neutral, they are game neutral (assuming some sort of fantasy RPG).  Play 1st, here some minis.  Play 3rd, here are some minis.  PF, no problem, buy the D&D minis.  Want to get back some of that Lapsed DnD Player money (from an estimated 22.5 million possible players), here is a perfect opportunity.

There must be something behind this that my small mind just can't grasp.
Edit:  Jason makes some interesting points...
Edit 2:  Orcus holds very little interest for me (unlike the dragons).  Does the WotC HPE module line end with an Orcus battle?


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 13, 2010)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> So, here is my latest story.  From this thread I learned of the Colossal Red Dragon (obviously, I behind the times when it comes to minis).  Cool, I'd like to have that to go along with my gargantuan Black Dragon.  So I charge amazon only to discover that it's going for $350 on the secondary markets.  YIKES.  I could see paying MSRP for ($80 or so), but $350!  Sorry, I'll pass.



 Don't make assumptions on the secondary market based on Amazon & Ebay speculators.  Those yahoos just spout prices at 2-4 times the going rate in hopes of finding someone desperate.

Here are the recent completed ebay auctions. Solid prices but that dragon is only $400 for the fool soon parted with his money.

16 Bids	$165.00 	4/11/2010 21:23	
19 Bids	$160.00 	4/11/2010 19:10	
1 Bid		$150.00 	4/7/2010 16:22		
20 Bids	$137.50 	4/1/2010 19:31
23 Bids	$180.00 	3/30/2010 19:11
Buy It Now  $160.00 	3/30/2010 12:40
35 Bids	$172.38 	4/7/2010 10:15

Those who want one, I think Games Plus still has one in stock.


----------



## jasonbostwick (Apr 13, 2010)

There are a few reasons that individually packaged minis aren't a good fit for Wizards.

With individually packaged minis WotC can't leverage the retail market beyond very specialized game stores - I can't imagine Barnes and Noble (or even the comic book shop where I used to buy my minis cases) wanting to stock a rack of  dozens of seperate UPCs of minis. In the downtown area of my city, there are 4 hobby stores within walking distance of eachother that sell D&D books and D&D mini boosters, plus a chain bookstore that has a limited selection. Only one of these has the shelf space to stock larger lines of minis in the format Reaper uses.

The PHB Heroes sets and the last three forays into visible minis (with a randomized element) were able to get into stores because each set was one UPC - the retailer ordered a case and got one booster of each visible mini. To get individually packaged minis into most stores would probably require the same process. 

Most retailers don't want to have to think about how many white dragon minis they should order and how many hobgoblin chiefs they should order. Unless the store owner is familiar with the game, they have no idea. 

Beyond the retailer, Wizard's can't operate under the model that Reaper uses because of the differences in economies of scale that plastic models use vs. metal models. The mold for a metal miniature is fairly cheap, and you can do a fairly limited run of figures to pay back the cost of the cast. The steel mold used for plastic miniatures is a significantly larger expense, so print runs need to be much higher, as I alluded to in my previous post. 

You can't make niche minis in plastic. The only way 'niche' minis got made in the randomized model was by subsidizing them with cheaper commons produced in bulk. The rarity model seems like it is a way to milk consumers into 'chasing' their most wanted figures, but it also reflects the differences in production cost per miniature. An orc grunt is one piece of plastic that has at max four steps of paint slapped on it. A Large Grey Dragon is four seperate pieces and a significantly more complex paint job.

A good example of the difference in materials necessitating a change in business model is Privateer Press. The Hordes/Warmachine line is a traditional metal miniatures line, with minis being sold individually. For their monsterpocalypse line of prepainted plastics, they went with the randomized booster model just because of the financial realities of having plastic shipped over from China vs. casting pewter minis in their warehouse.


----------



## amysrevenge (Apr 13, 2010)

I can certainly see where you're coming from, jasonbostwick.  Seems like they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 13, 2010)

deleted


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 13, 2010)

frankthedm said:


> Don't make assumptions on the secondary market based on Amazon & Ebay speculators.  Those yahoos just spout prices at 2-4 times the going rate in hopes of finding someone desperate.
> 
> Here are the recent completed ebay auctions. Solid prices but that dragon is only $400 for the fool soon parted with his money.
> 
> ...




I now feel a bit less silly about shelling out $75 retail for mine...


----------



## Kunimatyu (Apr 13, 2010)

For those just looking for a decent big dragon, the Gargantuan Blue Dragon is still cheaply available - I got mine on Amazon for $26 last week with free shipping.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 13, 2010)

For those looking for a big(ish) dragon- _without_ the $100+ price tag- take a look in your local toy stores.  Schleich and McFarlane toys make certain models that would work just fine, as does Safari Ltd. and other companies do as well.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 14, 2010)

The Orcus mini is a no sale for me because Orcus is size Large in the edition I play.  (I probably could have gone for Huge as that how it is in the Tome of Horrors, but Gargantuan? Forget it!)


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 14, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> For those looking for a big(ish) dragon- _without_ the $100+ price tag- [...] Schleich and McFarlane toys make certain models that would work just fine



I bought four McFarlane dragons for about $12 each a couple of years ago, and I've so far used two in a couple of the most memorable encounters of my last campaign.  (By contrast, I haven't used any of my WotC Icon dragons yet, though my buddy did use the blue and black dragons for his Age of Worms campaign.)


----------



## coyote6 (Apr 14, 2010)

I wrapped up my campaign with a fight against Ashardalon, so I definitely got to use my colossal red dragon. The players' reactions when I put it on the table were rather amusing. 

I've also used the gargantuan black dragon (a couple of times) and the gargantuan white; I didn't get the blue one until not too long ago, so I haven't had a chance.

I have some McFarlane dragons, too; a coworker was briefly running an Internet collectibles store, so I got a good discount on 'em. 

Hmm, all of a sudden i'm thinking the superheroes in my M&M game need to face a whole flight of dragons one of these days . . .


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 14, 2010)

My WotC dragons are still in their boxes.

Personally, I'm definitely not above using toys- besides some McFarlane, Schleich and Safari critters, I've even got a Chtulhu plushie that may someday find its way to the hex-map.

PS: you guys who want some unusual "giant sized" critters may REALLY want to look at McFarlane's Warriors of the Zodiac series- I bought Taurus- or even certain anime minis.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Apr 14, 2010)

Yeah, Warriors of the Zodiac are pretty rad, particularly Ares and Taurus - great devil and Baphomet stand-ins, respectively.

The "Nightmares of HP Lovecraft" Dagon figure is also amazing for this, but a leetle hard to find....


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Apr 14, 2010)

I would say the number of minis that you bought is quite small (only a hundred or so by the looks of it).  If WotC are trying to target that sort of gamer with their DDM's I think that they are going to fail as the sales numbers will just be too low.

So I would say that you are not in their target market for DDM.

Olaf the Stout



Dice4Hire said:


> It seems to me that WOTC is tying to attract the game-centered user now, though I do not see that being very successful.
> 
> In my case, I consider myself a game-centered user, and  bought about 10 packs of miniatures total, of the last 5-7 sets, and then bought a bunch of loose miniatures online to a) give me more miniatures that could be used for player characters, and b)give me more large and huge miniatures.
> 
> ...


----------



## thalmin (Apr 14, 2010)

frankthedm said:


> Those who want one, I think Games Plus still has one in stock.



 Sorry, it's gone.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 14, 2010)

Olaf the Stout said:


> I would say the number of minis that you bought is quite small (only a hundred or so by the looks of it).  If WotC are trying to target that sort of gamer with their DDM's I think that they are going to fail as the sales numbers will just be too low.
> 
> So I would say that you are not in their target market for DDM.
> 
> Olaf the Stout




Actually, he sort of is - it's just that he's part of a very large group of people who buy only one or two packs from a set. You can make a nice profit from those people.

The point is with DDM is that it caters for quite a large array of people; who it _doesn't_ cater for are those who want to know exactly what they're getting. 

Cheers!


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Apr 14, 2010)

MerricB said:


> Actually, he sort of is - it's just that he's part of a very large group of people who buy only one or two packs from a set. You can make a nice profit from those people.
> 
> The point is with DDM is that it caters for quite a large array of people; who it _doesn't_ cater for are those who want to know exactly what they're getting.
> 
> Cheers!




You need a lot of those types of people to equal the type of person that buys the minis by the case though.  And the case buyer is more likely to consistently buy a case (or sometimes more) of each set, compared to the casual buyer who may go several sets without buying a single booster.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Nebulous (Apr 14, 2010)

i've recently been using McFarlane dragons to great effect. Two were actually representing a titanic fight between a cobalt dragon and a kraken. I didn't have a huge kraken, but the two headed dragon worked well enough. Another i used was an old Dagon mini i picked up years ago at a comic shop that represented a gargantuan kraken carrying a medusa head.  Yeah, it scared the pee out of the PCs, rightfully so


----------



## MerricB (Apr 14, 2010)

Olaf the Stout said:


> You need a lot of those types of people to equal the type of person that buys the minis by the case though.  And the case buyer is more likely to consistently buy a case (or sometimes more) of each set, compared to the casual buyer who may go several sets without buying a single booster.
> 
> Olaf the Stout




You do - but I'm pretty sure the line did.

Cheers!


----------



## Shazman (Apr 14, 2010)

At least, it used to.  When the line started, you had people that bought minis for the minis game, people that bought minis for the RPG game, and some who bought them for both.  When they ruined the minis game with the 2.0 changes and then had to discontinue it, they eliminated a good portion of their customers.  The steady increase in price (even if it was just paying more for each mini), and inconsistant quality of the sets seemed to push many of the RPG collectors away as well.  Of course, some people probably eventually had most of the minis they wanted and/or they no longer had the disposable income to fuel their mini habit.  All things considered, it doesn't look really good for the future of the line.  Let's hope they come through with some awesome looking figures at a good value with Lords of Madness to prop it up for a while longer.


----------



## jasonbostwick (Apr 14, 2010)

Well, if past sets are any indication, we should get some early previews of Lords of Madness when the factory leaks start popping up on taobao.com  next month.


----------



## WotC_Trevor (Apr 14, 2010)

Looking over a few things at the start of this thread, I thought I'd pop  in and give my two coppers.

An Essential's line of miniatures that is evergreen and includes a lot  of classic monsters wouldn't be really cost effective if we sold it all  as one package (like the tile sets will be). But it might be something  we could do in theme like packs. The Beholder set is a good example of  this I suppose, though it's very specialized and uber rare.

Assuming the beholder pack does well I wouldn't be surprised to see us branch out in similar non-randomized mini packs, some with high rarity like beholders, some with more common usage - like an orc or undead pack. But at this point, that's pure speculation with Beholders being the only non-randomized item on the books.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 15, 2010)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> So, here is my latest story.  From this thread I learned of the Colossal Red Dragon (obviously, I behind the times when it comes to minis).  Cool, I'd like to have that to go along with my gargantuan Black Dragon.  So I charge amazon only to discover that it's going for $350 on the secondary markets.  YIKES.  I could see paying MSRP for ($80 or so), but $350!  Sorry, I'll pass.




Check out all of your local toy and hobby stores, not so much for alternate purchases (McFarlane dragons, etc) . . . but for the actual Gargantuan Red Dragon itself!!!  There's a decent chance you'll find it at MSRP or possibly even cheaper.  It's been a while since I walked into my local HobbyTown USA, but they always seemed to have all the big WotC dragons in stock, long after the speculator crooks on Amazon started asking ridiculous prices.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 15, 2010)

WotC_Trevor said:


> Assuming the beholder pack does well I wouldn't be surprised to see us branch out in similar non-randomized mini packs, some with high rarity like beholders, some with more common usage - like an orc or undead pack. But at this point, that's pure speculation with Beholders being the only non-randomized item on the books.




Trevor, just some feedback from my perspective.  While I love the idea of a Huge Orcus and a pack of Beholders . . . . I've had bad luck with the M:tG "limited" releases such as the "From the Vault" series, and I'm not optimistic about my chances of picking up either miniature release at MSRP in the fall.

While I understand that WotC doesn't want to flood the market with too many packs of Beholders that might gather dust on shelves, I hope the limited release doesn't end up meaning "No Beholders for Dire Bare!"


----------



## WotC_Trevor (Apr 15, 2010)

Well, the Beholder pack is going to be pretty rare - on par with the From the Vaults from Magic, so you might be disappointed if you're not on the ball this time around. We running that delicate balance of trying to get it into a lot of people's hands while making it a must have/slightly hard to find item.

Just for gathering info and random speculation - what would people feel about a slightly less rare pack once a year? Like an orc pack one year, an undead pack the next, etc. In my mind this would be alongside the yearly randomly packed release. A lot of us have a crap-ton of minis already, but would you be interested in some of these more mundane packs?


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 15, 2010)

WotC_Trevor said:


> Well, the Beholder pack is going to be pretty rare - on par with the From the Vaults from Magic, so you might be disappointed if you're not on the ball this time around. We running that delicate balance of trying to get it into a lot of people's hands while making it a must have/slightly hard to find item.
> 
> Just for gathering info and random speculation - what would people feel about a slightly less rare pack once a year? Like an orc pack one year, an undead pack the next, etc. In my mind this would be alongside the yearly randomly packed release. A lot of us have a crap-ton of minis already, but would you be interested in some of these more mundane packs?




Yes. Absolutely.  Utility monsters: Low level Undead, Orcs and Wolves (oh my!) are always welcome.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 15, 2010)

WotC_Trevor said:


> Looking over a few things at the start of this thread, I thought I'd pop  in and give my two coppers.
> 
> An Essential's line of miniatures that is evergreen and includes a lot  of classic monsters wouldn't be really cost effective if we sold it all  as one package (like the tile sets will be).




Note that there's nothing saying an Essential line has to be non-random.

I wonder how much the one/year set looks like an essential set in any case.

Cheers!


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Apr 15, 2010)

WotC_Trevor said:


> Well, the Beholder pack is going to be pretty rare - on par with the From the Vaults from Magic, so you might be disappointed if you're not on the ball this time around. We running that delicate balance of trying to get it into a lot of people's hands while making it a must have/slightly hard to find item.
> 
> Just for gathering info and random speculation - what would people feel about a slightly less rare pack once a year? Like an orc pack one year, an undead pack the next, etc. In my mind this would be alongside the yearly randomly packed release. A lot of us have a crap-ton of minis already, but would you be interested in some of these more mundane packs?




I probably wouldn't if it was things like Orcs and general Undead minis like Skeletons or Zombies.  I have over 2,000 DDM's so I generally have 5+ different Orc sculpts and multiple Skeleton and Zombie sculpts.  An Orc archer mini would be nice though.  I don't think we've had one since one of the first couple of sets.

The Beholder set would have enticed me if I didn't already have all but one of each of the Beholders released so far (I'm just missing the most recent sculpt but it looks very similar to the Deathknell Beholder so I probably won't buy one).

However, unlike most other people that I have read posts from, I am actually using my Beholder minis.  I am currently running the Shackled City AP where the BBEG is a Beholder.  Even better, partway through the campaign he gains a template so I get a reason to bust out a different Beholder mini for him.  I can't remember exactly but I think he comes back a third time once he is killed by the PC's, this time as an Undead version so I get to use the Undead Beholder mini! 

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Stormonu (Apr 15, 2010)

Hmm...perhaps instead of Gargantuan Orcus a more appealing set would have been Large versions (Aspects?) and new sculpts of Orcus, Lolth, Asmodeus, Demogorgon, Bane, Graz'zt and Tiamit in a single set (kind of like the Star Wars Legacy/Evolution figure sets).


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 15, 2010)

WotC_Trevor said:


> Well, the Beholder pack is going to be pretty rare - on par with the From the Vaults from Magic, so you might be disappointed if you're not on the ball this time around. We running that delicate balance of trying to get it into a lot of people's hands while making it a must have/slightly hard to find item.




I found out about the first "From the Vault" product roughly a week after it's release.  My local stores were out of the few they were able to order and every online source I found was price inflated into over a hundred dollars.  No idea if the subsequent "Vault" products were equally as limited, but I was able to get myself the more recent limited Sliver deck (and my FLGS still has one copy left).

So . . . first "From the Vault" (dragons?) equals bad.  Limted ed Sliver deck equals okay.  For me.  IMO.



> Just for gathering info and random speculation - what would people feel about a slightly less rare pack once a year? Like an orc pack one year, an undead pack the next, etc. In my mind this would be alongside the yearly randomly packed release. A lot of us have a crap-ton of minis already, but would you be interested in some of these more mundane packs?




I would love an themed pack like this.  With the obvious caveat, "depending on how it's done".  Just a pack of skeleton mooks or orc mooks?  Nah, I'd probably pass.  But an interesting themed "encounter" pack would be cool.  Maybe a variety of visually different skeleton and/or zombie types, with a few "mid-tier" types, perhaps with one or two "boss" monsters.  Maybe with the "boss" or solo monster being large or better yet huge.

And if you guys can figure out how to do regular releases of colossal characters . . . more dragons, giants, other big baddies . . . that would be cool!  Even without straying too far into the weird and unsellable (Rainbow Dragons anyone?) you have PLENTY of concepts in the D&D IP library!  I'd love to see an Ashardalon rather than a generic Colossal Red Dragon.  Or a Dragotha rather than a Colossal Dracolich.  A Dragotha mini might not look much different than yer standard Dracolich, but it'd please the longtime fans, give the mini a personality, and opens up the possibility of another Dracolich (or whatever) down the road.  McFarlane manages it somehow . . . hopefully WotC/Hasbro can figure it out profitably!  My vote for the first release (after Orcus) would be DEMODRAGON!!!!  

_Edit:  I think I meant "gargantuan" instead of "colossal".  Whichever size is the smaller of the two._

Oh, and BTW, thanks for sharing in the discussion with us Trevor!


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 15, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> Hmm...perhaps instead of Gargantuan Orcus a more appealing set would have been Large versions (Aspects?) and new sculpts of Orcus, Lolth, Asmodeus, Demogorgon, Bane, Graz'zt and Tiamit in a single set (kind of like the Star Wars Legacy/Evolution figure sets).




I would love to get my hands on the Gargantuan Orcus, and also on Large versions of everyone you mention!

However, I would think that if WotC is going to try and release Gargantuan or themed sets of cool monsters (like beholders), they would have to appeal to as wide a base as possible.  For the gargantuans, I'm thinking the only characters that would work would be various dragons, titans (giants), and obviously demonic demons (Orcus).  For sets non-mook monsters, beholders work well.  A "set" of demon prince or archdevil larges just might work too!!


----------



## Connorsrpg (Apr 15, 2010)

Now that someone from Wizards is here, I will repeat my visions for the DDM line.

I am all for 'Skirmish Packs': Nothing like being able to buy a bunch of the types of minis you need. Recently gave the eg of several cycloses needed for a Wizards adv, but the minis were hard to get (bar that last visible cyclops). OK, so cyclopses may be too narrow for one set (but aren't beholders - which I have never used), so make it Fewild or a Fomorian/Cyclops set (could inc slaves, etc).

All sets of common humanoids, set of animals, etc. These I would certainly buy.

OR, to get those cyclopses it would have been nice to be able to buy the minis for the module.

I would love if Wizards put out mini sets that cater to the modules. I realise the scheduling would be hard and not every creature in module needs to be in the set(s). But some overlap would be good. Even have them for a series of adventures or AP, such as Scales of War sets.

Both the skirmish and 'adventure focused' sets can still have a random element to them (I don't mind - I love randomness). Simply create a lot of the minis, but box them up randomly, so maybe some boss types are rarer than the many minions of the adventures.

In the skirmish packs you can have all sorts of related minis too. Imagine, for an orc set, you did enough sculpts for a whole tribe - diff types of warriors, artillery, leader, spellcaster and then you could even include their pets/allies (wolves, mounted boar-rider, etc).

I would certainly collect more sets that had a purpose.

C


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 15, 2010)

Olaf the Stout said:


> I am currently running the Shackled City AP where the BBEG is a Beholder.  Even better, partway through the campaign he gains a template so I get a reason to bust out a different Beholder mini for him.  I can't remember exactly but I think he comes back a third time once he is killed by the PC's, this time as an Undead version so I get to use the Undead Beholder mini!



I'm pretty sure his final appearance has him as Huge, so it's time to bust out the Eye Tyrant!


----------



## wedgeski (Apr 15, 2010)

WotC_Trevor said:


> Just for gathering info and random speculation - what would people feel about a slightly less rare pack once a year? Like an orc pack one year, an undead pack the next, etc. In my mind this would be alongside the yearly randomly packed release. A lot of us have a crap-ton of minis already, but would you be interested in some of these more mundane packs?



Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! Goblinoid, undead, human, demon, devil... I would snap them up immediately. I own about 500 DDM minis, if that statistic is of any use alongside my answer.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 15, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> The Orcus mini is a no sale for me because Orcus is size Large in the edition I play.  (I probably could have gone for Huge as that how it is in the Tome of Horrors, but Gargantuan? Forget it!)




That's an interesting perspective. One of the greatest powers in virtually any edition of the game has to conform to its printed stats exactly in terms of size or its a no-sale?

I can see bashing the paint job, the price, etc... but to me, and this is just to me, as I can tell your opinion is different, the actual scale of the model isn't necessarily the most important aspect. If it's a solid sculpt, I can find a use for it.


----------



## avin (Apr 15, 2010)

A pack of zombies: men, women, commoners or warriors, I think that would sell very well.

But that would force you guys to abandon the mania of pushing minis into MM's art...


----------



## Craith (Apr 15, 2010)

WotC_Trevor said:


> <snip>
> Just for gathering info and random speculation - what would people feel about a slightly less rare pack once a year? Like an orc pack one year, an undead pack the next, etc. In my mind this would be alongside the yearly randomly packed release. A lot of us have a crap-ton of minis already, but would you be interested in some of these more mundane packs?




I had to stop lurking and answer this question with a loud YES ... I own one or two thousand miniatures, but I'd buy themed packs of orcs, undeads, kobolds, human/dwarven/elven soldiers ...


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 15, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> One of the greatest powers in virtually any edition of the game has to conform to its printed stats exactly in terms of size or its a no-sale?




At $75?  Absolutely.

I don't buy minis just to look at.  I buy them to use in game.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 15, 2010)

The point is 'then use him regardless of printed scale because he's so freakin' cool'. You have talked in many threads about how you love the flexibility 3E gives you yet you're completely inflexible on the scale of the penultimate BBEG?


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Apr 15, 2010)

WotC_Trevor said:


> An Essential's line of miniatures that is evergreen and includes a lot  of classic monsters wouldn't be really cost effective if we sold it all  as one package (like the tile sets will be). But it might be something  we could do in theme like packs. The Beholder set is a good example of  this I suppose, though it's very specialized and uber rare.






WotC_Trevor said:


> Just for gathering info and random speculation - what would people feel about a slightly less rare pack once a year? Like an orc pack one year, an undead pack the next, etc. In my mind this would be alongside the yearly randomly packed release. A lot of us have a crap-ton of minis already, but would you be interested in some of these more mundane packs?




I'd vote yes with my wallet for Random Essentials line, so long as I had some idea what to expect when opening the box.  DDM Essentials: Orcs would be a dream product.  I know roughly what I'm getting (orcs! or various undead, or various gobliniods) and the amount.

Also, it's always cool to hear from WotC on the stuff that's concerning gamers.  Thanks for taking the time to respond and blue sky solutions with us.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 15, 2010)

Themed packs would be a good thing if their price, or value remains reasonable.  I'm an avid gamer and I purchase quite a bit on a monthly basis.  However, over the past few years the price of the packs has gone in a direction where I find it hard to justify their purchase.  I don't find value in them.

If a themed pack was 6-8 miniatures with a themed encounter and a few dungeon tiles, the price could be in the mid $20 and I'd find value in them.  Right now the price of the packs seems high for their value.

For example an Undead pack might have 8 miniatures, a Vampire, a Lich, a couple of ghouls and the rest as skeletons.  If that pack sold for 20+ dollars I would not buy it.  Add a short encounter and a couple of dungeon tiles and now that price is not unreasonable in my opinion.  Heck they could even make it so that there are different encounters and tiles on each pack.

It is just a matter of perceived value.  At the present prices the value seems very low.  An exclusive to retailers $75 Orcus is extremely expensive for the value IMO.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 15, 2010)

WotC_Trevor said:


> Just for gathering info and random speculation - what would people feel about a slightly less rare pack once a year? Like an orc pack one year, an undead pack the next, etc. In my mind this would be alongside the yearly randomly packed release. A lot of us have a crap-ton of minis already, but would you be interested in some of these more mundane packs?




I would be quite interested in this, although to some extent it would depend on the content. I'm one of those people with a huge collection, so I don't really need a bunch of random orc grunts. On the other hand, there are a lot of niches I could stand to fill out. As someone else mentioned, orc archers would be nice. I don't have much in the way of shamans or other caster-types. Some type of orc cavalry would be cool--right now the only option there is the Banebreak Rider from Night Below, which is awesome but expensive and somewhat specialized. And if the set had wyvern-riders, I would be all over that.


----------



## underthumb (Apr 15, 2010)

WotC_Trevor said:


> Well, the Beholder pack is going to be pretty rare - on par with the From the Vaults from Magic, so you might be disappointed if you're not on the ball this time around. We running that delicate balance of trying to get it into a lot of people's hands while making it a must have/slightly hard to find item.
> 
> Just for gathering info and random speculation - what would people feel about a slightly less rare pack once a year? Like an orc pack one year, an undead pack the next, etc. In my mind this would be alongside the yearly randomly packed release. A lot of us have a crap-ton of minis already, but would you be interested in some of these more mundane packs?




I feel like the D&D lines have had plenty of orcs and undead. So I'm not sure that they would be a good product for me. But more themed packs along the lines of the beholder one sound great. For instance, a pack of demons/devils and a pack of angels/devas or whatever. Call the products Heaven and Hell and promote them with themed adventures in Dragon.


----------



## Primal (Apr 15, 2010)

WotC_Trevor said:


> Just for gathering info and random speculation - what would people feel about a slightly less rare pack once a year? Like an orc pack one year, an undead pack the next, etc. In my mind this would be alongside the yearly randomly packed release. A lot of us have a crap-ton of minis already, but would you be interested in some of these more mundane packs?




Not all of us have a lot of minis -- we have never relied on them in my group. I have started using and buying them only recently (I saw a bunch of WoTC minis at a friend's house, and it was love at first sight; now I use them on every session in my campaign). Needless to say, there's a huge bunch of minis that I'd need, but it seems I missed out on them by a couple of years. And the only option is to buy them online (often for outrageous prices, mainly due to shipping costs). Having said that, I realize it's not possible for you guys to reproduce old sets, but I don't think I'm the only one who would pay good money for, say, Harbringer or Dragoneye minis. 

The same happened to me with Dungeon Tiles -- I saw a thread here concerning them on EnWorld and decided to try them out. Pretty soon I realized that I had missed some really cool sets, for example 'Streets of Shadow' and 'Ruins of the Wild'. In this case, however, you guys *ARE* going to release similar sets this year, which makes me really, REALLY happy!  

As for the theme packs -- HELL YEAH! You can never have too many "common" monsters, such as ghouls or zombies. A concrete example: a couple of sessions ago I ran a combat involving 60+ orcs of 6 different types... if I only could have done it, I'd have gladly bought several orc theme packs (enough to get all the needed minis). I ended up using a motley assortment of minis, and it was a pain to remember which minis represented which type. On the next session I'd need 10 zombies, but I only have three. Give us the zombie theme pack, and I'll rather buy it than use a bunch of, for example, goblins or skeletons.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 15, 2010)

Primal said:


> You can never have too many "common" monsters, such as ghouls or zombies.



Trust me, you can.  I currently have at least 80 orcs, of at least 20 different poses, and I've sold a _lot_ of my Common minis, including dozens of orcs.  A new collector may not have enough -- or may want more -- but -- again, trust me -- if you've been buying by the case since Harbinger, you can have "too many" common monsters.


----------



## kaomera (Apr 15, 2010)

WotC_Trevor said:


> Just for gathering info and random speculation - what would people feel about a slightly less rare pack once a year? Like an orc pack one year, an undead pack the next, etc. In my mind this would be alongside the yearly randomly packed release. A lot of us have a crap-ton of minis already, but would you be interested in some of these more mundane packs?



If they look good, and especially if they are thematically linked, I'd buy them. I have a bunch of Orc DDMs, but few of them look particularly good (IMO some are hard to recognize as Orcs) and they in no way look like a unified tribe / gang. They're still fine for marking what is where, but so is any other vaguely-humanoid mini.


----------



## Primal (Apr 16, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Trust me, you can.  I currently have at least 80 orcs, of at least 20 different poses, and I've sold a _lot_ of my Common minis, including dozens of orcs.  A new collector may not have enough -- or may want more -- but -- again, trust me -- if you've been buying by the case since Harbinger, you can have "too many" common monsters.




I don't know how many packs you've purchased, but that afore-mentioned friend of mine has hundreds of minis and even his collection wouldn't cover some of the encounters I typically run. Or maybe he has just been lucky with his purchases, as he doesn't have a lot of the same ones? I don't know. But 80 orcs? I would buy them any time -- as I said, I would have wanted at least 60 orcs a couple of sessions ago, and preferably of at least 6 different poses. My next session will feature 10 zombies, rogues and monks of several different races, gargoyles, direguards and assassin vines. After that, I'll be running a *huge* battle against orcs and goblins, and I'd once again need several dozens of each. At some point of time I know I'll be needing a similar number of lizardfolk (again, preferably of different poses). I like to use a variety of monsters in an adventure, but quite often I also use groups of the same monster -- therefore I'd need at least a couple of each mini, and occasionally a large number of the most common/iconic monsters.


----------



## buddhafrog (Apr 16, 2010)

WotC_Trevor said:


> Well, the Beholder pack is going to be pretty rare - on par with the From the Vaults from Magic, so you might be disappointed if you're not on the ball this time around. We running that delicate balance of trying to get it into a lot of people's hands while making it a must have/slightly hard to find item.
> 
> Just for gathering info and random speculation - what would people feel about a slightly less rare pack once a year? Like an orc pack one year, an undead pack the next, etc. In my mind this would be alongside the yearly randomly packed release. A lot of us have a crap-ton of minis already, but would you be interested in some of these more mundane packs?




ABSOLUTELY.  I'm a reborn D&D'er, DM'ing after a 20 year layoff.  I've bought a couple hundred mostly cheaper mini's this year all by the single on the 2nd hand market.  This indirectly helps WotC.  For the amount I spent, if I were to have bought the boosters I would've ended up with so little of what I needed compared to what I ended up getting.

Now that I have most of my essentials filled, I will buy one or two of most new boosters just for the fun factor.  However, it just isn't too cost effective to buy the boosters.  While I did buy Icingdeath on the 2nd hand market, most specialty minis like the beholders set are just far too costly to be practical.  Fun and cool, yes, but unpractical.

However, if WotC put together a yearly theme set, much more common than the beholders, this would certainly be considered by me.  If my budget were limited, I would likely buy this set before any booster.  For example, an Orc set that presented the Orcs from a single tribe would be awesome, with one leader/sorcerer, one leader/fighter, 1 archer, 1 spy/thief, four grunts.  Undead, goblins, drow, elf tribe, city guards, paladin temple knights, etc.  I'd probably need the minis, and if not, if they were cool and a collective tribe/group, I'd certainly find a fun way to add it to one of my campaigns.

... side note here, imo the Player Handbook Heroes packs are generally much less usable/interesting and poorer designed than the PC minis of the earlier sets.  I haven't seen other people mention this, but do you all agree?


----------



## Wayside (Apr 16, 2010)

WotC_Trevor said:


> Just for gathering info and random speculation - what would people feel about a slightly less rare pack once a year? Like an orc pack one year, an undead pack the next, etc. In my mind this would be alongside the yearly randomly packed release. A lot of us have a crap-ton of minis already, but would you be interested in some of these more mundane packs?



I've never bought minis of any kind for any game, but I would buy these. Well, not orcs, but zombies, demons, etc.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 16, 2010)

buddhafrog said:


> ... side note here, imo the Player Handbook Heroes packs are generally much less usable/interesting and poorer designed than the PC minis of the earlier sets.  I haven't seen other people mention this, but do you all agree?




One of my FLGSs has been trying to sell off their 4Ed minis, so I got a decent look at them.

The PHB ones? NOT impressive_ at all._


----------



## Stormonu (Apr 16, 2010)

I was taking a trip down memory lane last night when I (finally) ran across some pictures of the first two sets of (metal) miniatures I ever had.  It was the Grenadier 5004 Tome of Spells (2nd version) and the Grenadier 5003 Woodland Adventurer's set.  Both sets had about 20 minis in it.

If WotC could present a mixed set of monsters (and possibly heroes) like this, where the monsters are visible, perhaps - and of modern miniature quality prepainted plastic,  I'd really love it.  I think it would make a great "starter set", as that was essentially what it turned out to be for me.

Now, if I could find the (Revel?) D&D model sets, I'd be in heaven.  There were two model sets - one an above ground castle under siege and the second a multi-room dungeon filled with creatures (the dungeon reminded me of the layout in Descent into the Depths, with a big central area and many side caverns.  I think it the castle was supposed to represent the upper works of Castle Greyhawk).  The two connected to create a pretty big diorama.  It had scads of plastic "model" minis and was great as a diorama/play set/mini set.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Apr 16, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Trust me, you can.  I currently have at least 80 orcs, of at least 20 different poses, and I've sold a _lot_ of my Common minis, including dozens of orcs.  A new collector may not have enough -- or may want more -- but -- again, trust me -- if you've been buying by the case since Harbinger, you can have "too many" common monsters.




Oh my yes.  Last year I sold over 1000 miniatures for about $2000 and the vast bulk of them were commons of staple monsters like this.  I still have about 2000 minis left but still buy the occasional single online.  I've been in it since Harbinger and getting rid of those minis really helped get my collection to a manageable size.

As far as theme sets go I would love to see something like smaller packs of Dragonborn, Goliaths and some of the other 'out there' PC races.  Call it the 'misfits' and put in a DB, Goliath, Tiefling, Shardmind and Wilden!


----------



## Shadowslayer (Apr 16, 2010)

Sell em unpainted. Or with one or 2 drybrush steps to bring the details out. Then sell them by the bag.

I was down at the LFGS and I saw bags of Zombies, bags of Clowns and bags of Wolves for the Zombies!! boardgame. 100 of them for 10 bucks. I thought if this company can do that, why can't WOTC do that with bags of 20 or so Kobolds, Orcs, Gnolls etc

That way the guys who like to paint can paint them, and the guys who can't be bothered can use them as is. 

Even this way it still beats tokens.

Just thinking outside the box. WOTC has molds for umpteen sets already, why not still use them...just differently.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 16, 2010)

Alternatively, go to sale of individual minis of their entire line, over the 20 or so sets of them.

How could a store possibly sell such minis? Nobody could afford to stock and keep track of that many units! No store could ever do it.

True. Only one "store" could do that. WotC's online store.  One central warehouse ships individual minis in a bundle of arbitrary size upon request. $1 for small/medium - $2 for a large - $3 for a huge.  You can't make money at that price? I doubt that highly. Or #1 a common, $1.50-2.50 for UC, 3-5 for rare. Whatever. Don't get greedy - and provided the existing mftring assets can be utilized on a not quite as aggressive scale as done to date? You'll make money.

This does go hard against some primal elements in what has made WotC its fortune: distro through retail and random packaging. But that model only works to a point -- and it appears that point has been reached.  

Selling individually binned minis directly to the customer allows WotC to have perfect information over inventory, allows WotC to sell directly and make all profits concerned, and actually leverages the internet directly to WotC's advantage in terms of sales.  And you can't pirate miniautres very easily, can you? 

You could tie the ability to order directly as a perk to being a DND insider subscriber.  That also allows you to leverage that information database as part of your computerized ordering system. My guess is that will get you more than a few subscribers all of a sudden, too.

If collectors complain - remedy that with this simple "free" step: don't sell the cards - just the minis.

What? WotC's distribution and retail partners are going to become upset? Upset WotC is leveraging existing moulds and mftring capability selling a product directly that they can't stock anyways? I doubt that.

Selling direct hasn't hurt Michael Dell.

I expect there are a tens of thousands of hardcore gamers, regardless of versions of the game they play, that can be enticed to part with multiple hindreds of dollars without any difficulty to purchase such a product in that manner.

Something to think about.


----------



## Mark (Apr 16, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> I would love an themed pack like this.  With the obvious caveat, "depending on how it's done".






Don't forget cost.  The best way to screw up this concept would be to overprice it and then claim it doesn't work because no one bought it at the high prce point.  Piles of orcs (etc.) has been something people have screamed for since day one (check older DDM threads on EN World going back for half a dozen years or more) but if it is overpriced it would be better to not bother rather than to blame the market for a pricing snafu.  Currently, I am using Bag O' Zombies (Skeletons, etc.) for tons of undead and SW minis for old school orcs in quantity.

Picasa Web Albums - CreativeMountain - 2010-02-27_ch...


----------



## Dimitris (Apr 16, 2010)

Definetely I'd buy themed packs of orcs, goblinoids, undeads, human soldiers, knights etc. Ans also packs of villagers, common folks.


----------



## dogoftheunderworld (Apr 16, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> ... Some type of orc cavalry would be cool--right now the only option there is the Banebreak Rider from Night Below, which is awesome but expensive and somewhat specialized. And if the set had wyvern-riders, I would be all over that.




Just a side thought, regarding mounted minis:  What about separating the mounts and riders into different packages?  Orc Calvary set: just riders.  Then pick up the mounts you want for them: horses, boars, wyverns - each a separate (or mixed) set.  All riders/mounts using the same inter-lock system.   This could also go with a "Leveled PC" set (mentioned somewhere).  Fighter set: lvl 1, lvl 5, lvl 10, lvl 20 + same models in rider form.  (okay, maybe not  )

In any case, themed encounter sets seem like the next step.  What about randomizing just one "Rare" mini in each set:
.. Orc set: includes two spearmen, 2 axes, 2 bowmen + one random leader: (Shaman, high level fighter, chief, drummer, etc.)
.. Undead set: 2 zombies, two skeletons, 2 ghouls + one high level (lich, vampire, ghost, evil cleric, necromancer, death knight)
.. etc.

I have several hundred minis, but I still keep an eye out for different sculps and holes in my collection.  I have been mostly in the singles secondary market the last 2-3 sets.  However, I would buy themed (mostly visible) sets (if the quality can stay up -- I can get plenty of cheap, low quality stand-ins but there is just nothing like having the perfect piece for your character or encounter).


----------



## Mad Mac (Apr 16, 2010)

I'd defnitely go for theme packs. I have a lot of orcs, sure, but most of them are seriously ugly and clash with each other in terms of style. _Good_ orc mini's have always been a tough buy on the secondary market. 

Goblins and Hobgoblins now, I'm pretty much set. 

I've been collecting mini's for a while, and there's always odd holes resulting from certain poses or skulpts being much older/rarer then others. It's been a while since we've gotten Kobolds with spears, for instance, or Orcs with bows.


----------



## Quantum (Apr 16, 2010)

I'm sick and tired of random monster set minis. I never get the minis I need. For example, if I need ten Kobolds I should just be able to buy the Kobolds.

However, what I would accept is paclages that have some randomness to it. For example, have a set with five miniatures, three of them being set and two of them bein random. For example, one set should have three Kobolds and then an Umber Hulk and a Mimic.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 16, 2010)

buddhafrog said:


> ... side note here, imo the Player Handbook Heroes packs are generally much less usable/interesting and poorer designed than the PC minis of the earlier sets.  I haven't seen other people mention this, but do you all agree?




Since at least half of them are repaints--meaning they're the exact same mini with a different paint job--I can't say I really agree, no.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 16, 2010)

Quantum said:


> I'm sick and tired of random monster set minis. I never get the minis I need. For example, if I need ten Kobolds I should just be able to buy the Kobolds.




Amazing, isn't it, that so many minis companies used that business model successfully.



Dausuul said:


> Since at least half of them are repaints--meaning they're the exact same mini with a different paint job--I can't say I really agree, no.




Yeah, but the repaints I've seen have been, in a word, crappy.  I don't paint my minis, and I could do a better job.


----------



## buddhafrog (Apr 17, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Since at least half of them are repaints--meaning they're the exact same mini with a different paint job--I can't say I really agree, no.




Yes, understood.  But after buying about 20~30 minis usable for PC's on the singles market, I found that I bought *zero* Player's Handbook Heroes minis.  Agreed, maybe I didn't buy their earlier original painted versions from the boosters sets either, but there were still many great PC minis in those boosters to give me a nice handful.  Not one from the PH minis - to me they appeared either more stiff or cartoonish.  But that might just be me.


----------



## Moorcrys (Apr 17, 2010)

I'm sure it's not cost effective, but is it too much to ask to get a few minis of each of the new character races that Wizards puts out in their PHBs? Shardminds, Wildens? Devas?  Goliaths? I feel like they should be covered by a few minis either before or soon after they are made available as character races.


----------



## Glyfair (Apr 17, 2010)

Quantum said:
			
		

> I'm sick and tired of random monster set minis. I never get the minis I need. For example, if I need ten Kobolds I should just be able to buy the Kobolds.





Dannyalcatraz said:


> Amazing, isn't it, that so many minis companies used that business model successfully.




However, I don't know any that did it with pre-painted plastic miniatures.  The differences in production costs change the affordability of that business model.  

The closest to attempt it was WizKids with some of their Mage Knight line.  None of those attempts were very successful within the line.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 18, 2010)

Reaper is slowly and steadily expanding their pre-painted plastics line.


----------



## Shazman (Apr 18, 2010)

Yeah, but way too slowly for my taste.  I like the line, but I pretty much already have everything from the line as a DDM mini already.  The only ones I may be interested in are the one that looks like an illithid and the female ranger.   The line has been out for about three years and has way less minis than one set of DDM.  Come on Reaper.  If you make them, I will buy them.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 18, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Reaper is slowly and steadily expanding their pre-painted plastics line.




I bought a bunch of their skeleton archers and spearmen recently and was not impressed. Very poor quality IMO--the sculpts were fine, but the plastic was so soft they could hardly stand up, and the paint job was below even DDM common standards (I plan to drybrush 'em with white to make them look a little less flat, but most people buying prepainted plastics don't have that option).

Reaper's metal minis are second to none, but they have yet to master prepainted plastic. DDM, on the other hand, has been getting much better of late... for example, they seem to have licked the "floppy weapons syndrome" that plagued earlier sets.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 18, 2010)

No more floppy weapons here!  Smiling Bob's a man with a firm grip on his 2 handed sword!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn36KqWoi7s&feature=related]YouTube - Enzyte Commercial Theme Song With Smiling Bob (short version)[/ame]


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 18, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> At $75?  Absolutely.
> 
> I don't buy minis just to look at.  I buy them to use in game.




Right. and in the imaginary game we play, it's impossible to go, "Yeah guys, Orcus is this big" and slam the mini out on the table? I will NEVER be that confined to any edition that it stops me from using something in the game. Hell, next you'll tell me you can't use the McFarline dragons because they don't  confirm to some size in the book or aren't in the game.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 18, 2010)

1. Quality control. This isn't necessarily getting the best paint job or necessarily the best sculpt but making sure that figures are of at least a similiar quality to each other and that SCALE is enforced from head to toe. No one wonders if that's a fat crouching human instead of a dwarf, the goblin's head isn't bigger than another goblins' body, etc...

2. Tied into existing product/product as it comes out. PHB3 just came out at least one freak race. WoTC has been slipping the minotaurs into the DM's packs for a while but those crystal suckers? Not a one there. Same problem with the Dragonborn. No one knew those were going to be in the PHB? It literarlly took like a year to get 2 non-random figures, and one of them an extremely niche? 

3. Reoffering the popular figs as collectors sets: Some of the older sets had draconians, demons, devils, etc... that are still popular and could easily be put into themed packs like the beholder pack coming out. There's a huge library of figures and not using that is baffling.

4. Legends pack. Drizzt was one of the most expensive figures for its time. Taking characters out of the new york times best sellers list and making figures out of them as opposed to generic figures? Go specific and if the sculpts are good enough, people will want to use them for their own characters anyway.

5. If using visible figures, let the retailers tell you which ones they want as opposed to suffering a random order. I don't have a ton of gaming stores around me, but they all discounted the grey dappled pony, I mean unicorn. It'll be a great way to insure that whoever screws up the visibles the first time isn't the same person making the selections the next time.

6. Stop explaining why things can't be done. Stop talking about lead time. Stop talking about bad sculpts. Stop talking about the steps in the process. This is WoTC, not Bob's Friendly Figures. Some of the figures from the Heroscape line are of much more intricate detail and use and were cheaper. Just stop. If it's a question that keeps coming up the head of the department needs to find out WHY is can't be done.

7. Dungeon boardgame. Why WoTC hasn't done this old boardgame with prepainted plastics, or even plastics that aren't painted, is beyond me. For god's sake, there was an old version of Dungeon with Ral Partha figures in it. This should be a no-brainer, especially if they're willing to go the $60+ route as they are with the Ravenloft game.

I'm sure there are some other things I'm missing but those are the things I'd focus on as head of the line.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 18, 2010)

*In Defence of Random Packaging*

Ok. Now, I hate random packaging as much as anybody, but I do have to admit that sometimes, it really does serve my purposes.

I'm currently GMing _Star Wars:SE set in the Old Republic _ (awesome system for _Star Wars_, btw) and so that's been the thrust of my mini mania for the past three months or so. In that time, I've picked up two complete sets of the earliest mini lines, and about 600 or so others. And I have bought probably 10 or so KotOR boosters at retail. 

Last night, I found a link to a cheap mini source and I went to town on a shopping spree. There were TONS of cheap commons and uncommons on this website and I stocked up, big time. Admittedly, _Star Wars_ perhaps suits the repurposing of minis far more easily than does D&D, but the point is - I grabbed encounter after encounter after encounter. 10 or 15 of the same common and uncommon minis here there and everywhere. This was the third time I had done this when buying minis for Star Wars - so I was really filling in the gaps with my purchases.

By the time I was done, I had dropped about $150 and bought 350 minis. Add in shipping at $50 (I'm in Canada and it was a big package of minis =  higher shipping cost), and I was in for about $200.  At just north of 50 cents a piece for a CRAP LOAD of minis that I wanted in numbers that make them highly usable in play - that's a price for a product that just can't be beat. 

Moreover, for those of you who have looked at WotC's Star Wars mnis and compared them to DDM  -  you'll have to agree the for the most part, Lucas' Licensing's power to reject minis for sale by WotC that do not meet Lucas quality requirements has meant that SW minis are of *significantly *higher quality than most of the D&D minis are, overall. 

So, would that shopping spree have been possible in a world of specific non-random packaged minis? No. I have to admit - it wouldn't be. 

I bought 90% of the 600 or so DDMs that I have by the case. In comparison, I have bought more than 90% of the 1,000 SW minis that I have by the lot on ebay - or as singles online. And I've still paid less for the SW minis _because of random packaging. _

Part of this benefit is that SW common minis seem to sell  for a helluva lot cheaper than DDMs (many are 10 to 25 cents a piece!) but whatever the case, I do have to say that sometimes this method of retailing and distribution in the primary market has served me well when purchasing in the secondary market. 

Seems only fair to acknowledge the good with the bad.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 18, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Amazing, isn't it, that so many minis companies used that business model successfully.
> 
> 
> .




But have ANY of those lines been as cheap as the DDM line were?


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 18, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I bought a bunch of their skeleton archers and spearmen recently and was not impressed. Very poor quality IMO--the sculpts were fine, but the plastic was so soft they could hardly stand up,




Haven't had that problem.



> and the paint job was below even DDM common standards (I plan to drybrush 'em with white to make them look a little less flat, but most people buying prepainted plastics don't have that option).




Not even. I mean, your opinion is your opinion, but I think the Reaper stuff tends to be quite adequate, compared to the schmear jobs on some of the DDMs. I used to own a drow cleric that looked like one of her rival divas threw a bucket of water on her face.



> Reaper's metal minis are second to none, but they have yet to master prepainted plastic. DDM, on the other hand, has been getting much better of late... for example, they seem to have licked the "floppy weapons syndrome" that plagued earlier sets.




Master, no. Demonstrate they can produce quality at a good price point, yes. And my impression is that the Reaper stuff has few or no floppy weapon problems, whereas the mounted character in one of the last DDM sets looked like he was going to run around hitting people with a rubber banana.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 18, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> But have ANY of those lines been as cheap as the DDM line were?




Eight figures at $15 works out to $1.88 per figure for Demonweb.

Reaper:
Three goblins $2.99
Werewolf $3.99
Three skeleton archers $5.79
Evil human warrior $4.49

$17.26 /  8 = $2.15 per figure.

So I'm going to say yes, it's been done.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 18, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I bought a bunch of their skeleton archers and spearmen recently and was not impressed. Very poor quality IMO--the sculpts were fine, but the plastic was so soft they could hardly stand up, and the paint job was below even DDM common standards (I plan to drybrush 'em with white to make them look a little less flat, but most people buying prepainted plastics don't have that option).



I rebase all the Reaper plastics I buy - you have to for some of them to even be able to stand up on their own (minotaur, for instance).


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 18, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Eight figures at $15 works out to $1.88 per figure for Demonweb.
> 
> Reaper:
> Three goblins $2.99
> ...



According to Reaper's website, 3 goblins are $5.99, not $2.99. So that's already up to $2.53 per figure.

And if you count every figure in the line listed on the website (assuming you buy 3-packs when offered), it works out to $124.66 for 38 figures, or $3.28 per figure, which is 50% higher than your selective sample, and 74% higher than the Demonweb figure you provided.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 18, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Right. and in the imaginary game we play, it's impossible to go, "Yeah guys, Orcus is this big" and slam the mini out on the table? I will NEVER be that confined to any edition that it stops me from using something in the game. Hell, next you'll tell me you can't use the McFarline dragons because they don't  confirm to some size in the book or aren't in the game.




Joe - you completely missed my point.  Look at the first thing you quoted.

$75!

Sure I can use other figures (like the McFarline dragons).  But they don't cost $75!

If this was a $5 mini, then it's really not an issue.  The issue is that I'm not going to spend 75 dollars on a Dungeons & Dragons mini that doesn't match the Dungeons and Dragons game I'm playing.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 18, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> According to Reaper's website, 3 goblins are $5.99, not $2.99. So that's already up to $2.53 per figure.




My bad. Still in the same ballpark.



> And if you count every figure in the line listed on the website (assuming you buy 3-packs when offered), it works out to $124.66 for 38 figures, or $3.28 per figure, which is 50% higher than your selective sample, and 74% higher than the Demonweb figure you provided.




I purposefully averaged in a couple of more expensive figures to simulate getting uncommons and rares. Averaging every single figure is an unfair comparison; that would be like going onto Ebay and averaging the cost of every single figure in the Demonwebs set. 

But let's let your math stand. $3.28 per figure, and I can have whatever I want? Yeah, I'll take _that_. As much as people complained about Farmer Brown from Harbinger, at least he could be a druid or a something or could get chopped up for conversions; I have no idea what to do with a half dozen dwarf skeletons or orc brutes.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 18, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> Joe - you completely missed my point.  Look at the first thing you quoted.
> 
> $75!
> 
> ...




Well that reply, just to me mind you, indicates that it's actually the price tag because 'the Dungeons and Dragons game" you're playing, isn't set in godly stone and requires you to use only a very specific Orcus.

Not at $75 in your case if I'm reading it correctly.

To me, it's a cool looking figure and the figurel ooks worth $75 'regardless' of what edtion I'm playing. If I'm playing Rolemaster and want to pop the figure down, I'm not worried that ICE police will break down my door screaming that I'm playing it wrong because I'm using the Orcus mini.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 18, 2010)

The issue isn't the game police. It's that, for many purposes, the figure is too big.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 18, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> To me, it's a cool looking figure and the figurel ooks worth $75 'regardless' of what edtion I'm playing.




Enjoy!


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 18, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I purposefully averaged in a couple of more expensive figures to simulate getting uncommons and rares. Averaging every single figure is an unfair comparison; that would be like going onto Ebay and averaging the cost of every single figure in the Demonwebs set.



My calculations included commons as well - since I figured in buying three of each figure that comes in a 3-pack (the "commons"). So you get multiples of these figures and singles of the others.

I agree that $3.28 is still relatively cheap, and I've bought a fair number of Reaper prepaints. But a 74% difference in price is not something that can be ignored completely.


----------



## Amator (Apr 19, 2010)

Well, I've been reading since page 8, and since I haven't seen it yet, I think it's a good time to quote Merric's Law of Minatures: Non-Random Packaging, Cheap Prices, and a Large Range of Figures: Choose two.

Now, the idea another poster had about WotC reissuing all old(say more than 1 year out of circulation) miniatures individually for $1 commons, $2-3 Uncommons, and $4-5 Rares seems like it might have the possibility of breaking Merric's Law.  You'd want to use a slightly different paint scheme, the bases would not have the collector's information, and there would be no card, but I can easily see them do something like this and have it open for DDI customers like the original poster suggested.  That way there's no competition with what is currently on retailer shelves, WotC gets to use the molds they've squirreled away, and collector's value goes down a bit.  Hell, it's already gone down, I have lots of Harbinger-GoL minis and except for the rare Huges, most of them have gone down in value greatly.  I remember when Umber Hulks were $60 on eBay and now they go for $20.  

What I would like to stress to Trevor is that when you're assigning rarities, please make sure to follow MM creature guildelines.  We need uncommon fire and frost giants as well as cyclopses.  We need at least two uncommon dragonborn sculpts. 

I also like the idea of a yearly (or twice a year) non-random set of minis.  Make it $30, include around 12 minis, 2 sheets of dungeon tiles, and a 3-encounter delve.


----------



## ehren37 (Apr 19, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Eight figures at $15 works out to $1.88 per figure for Demonweb.
> 
> Reaper:
> Three goblins $2.99
> ...




Generally the pieces chosen as legendary encounters are stuff that's obtainable as DDM commons/uncommons though. The line doesn't have nearly the same breadth of unusual options and never will. Oddball minis get produced in random sets because they are subsidized. When sculpts have to justify themselves through individual sale, the only things that get made are the most basic ones. I greatly prefer the random with buying singles online. Its in the end cheaper than legendary encounters and offers a diversity of options that just blows reaper's offerings away.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 19, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> The issue isn't the game police. It's that, for many purposes, the figure is too big.




I'm trying not to beat a dead horse here but can you name some of these 'many purposes'?

The only purpose I've seen so far is that it matches one official version of his size in one version of the game.

Which to me would seem at a counter purpose if I wanted to use the figure and thought the figure was a good  value. For example, I bought the Great Cthulhu fig for Horror Clix even though I don't play that game. Does that base match Cthulhu's 'official' WoTC d20 stats or does it matter if it matches? I go with the latter. It's a good fig with potential multiple uses.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 19, 2010)

ehren37 said:


> Generally the pieces chosen as legendary encounters are stuff that's obtainable as DDM commons/uncommons though. The line doesn't have nearly the same breadth of unusual options and never will. Oddball minis get produced in random sets because they are subsidized. When sculpts have to justify themselves through individual sale, the only things that get made are the most basic ones. I greatly prefer the random with buying singles online. Its in the end cheaper than legendary encounters and offers a diversity of options that just blows reaper's offerings away.




Human Blackguard -> Evil Human Fighter
Mind Flayer Telepath -> Bathalian
Large Red Dragon -> Young Dragon

Unless you are talking about buying a case at a time, Legendary Encounters is way cheaper.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 19, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> My calculations included commons as well - since I figured in buying three of each figure that comes in a 3-pack (the "commons"). So you get multiples of these figures and singles of the others.
> 
> I agree that $3.28 is still relatively cheap, and I've bought a fair number of Reaper prepaints. But a 74% difference in price is not something that can be ignored completely.




Time spent selling junk on Ebay can't be ignored completely, either.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 19, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> I'm trying not to beat a dead horse here but can you name some of these 'many purposes'?




It's a subset of "all purposes" that does not include the situations where you actually want an Orcus the size of King Kong. Not that I'm knocking that.  I'm just sayin'.


----------



## Nebulous (Apr 19, 2010)

I just can't justify buying a $75 mini of Orcus that i'll never use unless i happened to be using him as the BBEG. I would plop that mini down on the table to invoke utter terror in PCs of any level, heroic through epic, and it would be a tremendously effectively set piece, but for that amount of money i can buy more useful minis that cover a far wider range of encounters.  And i could probably find a generic toy demon monster somewhere for less money if i really wanted to go that route. 

And i just want to add that the DDM line has really done great with the see-through plastic effects, especially with fire based monsters.  They look really cool. 

All i really want to see in the future is themed sets that come with a battlemap and 3D terrain pieces.


----------



## avin (Apr 19, 2010)

Most people will buy Orcus just to have it at a desk, not for using in their games.


----------



## Sammael (Apr 19, 2010)

avin said:


> Most people will buy Orcus just to have it at a desk, not for using in their games.



And I'd do that if that thing looked remotely like Orcus. But it doesn't.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Apr 19, 2010)

I don't see myself buying Orcus.

Mainly because I don't even LIKE Orcus.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Apr 19, 2010)

What kind of gargantuan or Colossal creatures would everyone like to see?

I cold go for more dragons, especially a metallic or two. 

Not sure what I would pay 50.00 plus for

I got the Gargantuan Blue just a month or so ago, and like it a lot.


----------



## Sammael (Apr 19, 2010)

I'd like a 3.x style Gargantuan Green Dragon.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 19, 2010)

Sammael said:


> I'd like a 3.x style Gargantuan Green Dragon.




*sigh*


----------



## Sammael (Apr 19, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> *sigh*



I know I'm not going to get it, but I can still express my desires, no?


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 19, 2010)

Sammael said:


> I know I'm not going to get it, but I can still express my desires, no?




To dreeeeeam the imposssible dreeeeeam....


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Apr 19, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> I got the Gargantuan Blue just a month or so ago, and like it a lot.




Got my Gargantuan Blue this weekend and I love it, especially the menacing pose (though the ear flaps are really odd).  I'll probably pass on the White one though (unless I get it just to have it).


----------



## kaomera (Apr 20, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> What kind of gargantuan or Colossal creatures would everyone like to see?



Owlbears!


----------



## smetzger (Apr 20, 2010)

1) I think DDM really went downhill with the 2.0 rules and the 4e monsters.  It alienated two groups of people the DDM players and the people who have stuck with 3.5.

2) The PH minis failed because there were very few race/armor/weapon combos that were new.  Most had been done before.  There was only 1 new combo that I didn't have.

This is what I would like to see...
1) New race/armor/weapon combos.  Go through the races and weapons.  I want each race with each weapon with both armor + shield, armor only, and cloak only, in both male and female forms.  I don't need another human sword and board, elf with a bow, or dwarf with an axe.

2) Monsters from 3.5 that have not been done.  Sorry I really don't care for any 4e specific monsters unless they are very good stand ins for 3.5 monsters.

I have bought very few of the most recent sets because they didn't have anything new that I could use.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 20, 2010)

smetzger said:


> 1) I think DDM really went downhill with the 2.0 rules and the 4e monsters.  It alienated two groups of people the DDM players and the people who have stuck with 3.5.



Both of these may have been factors. Another (imho more important) factor was the decline in quality in addition to increasing prices.


smetzger said:


> 2) The PH minis failed because there were very few race/armor/weapon combos that were new.  Most had been done before.  There was only 1 new combo that I didn't have.



Not really. Imho, the real problem is that you get three minis at once. I don't know any player interested in getting anything but a single mini for her current pc. That's it. And the line was meant to be for players. I, as the DM bought some of them, but there weren't many which included at least two minis I was interested in.


smetzger said:


> I want each race with each weapon with both armor + shield, armor only, and cloak only, in both male and female forms.  I don't need another human sword and board, elf with a bow, or dwarf with an axe.



While I agree about the overabundance of generic dwarves, humans, and (dark) elves, you'd need billions of minis for every combination which simply isn't feasible. A producer simply has to concentrate on the most common tropes.


----------



## Mark (Apr 20, 2010)

smetzger said:


> 1) I think DDM really went downhill with the 2.0 rules and the 4e monsters.  It alienated two groups of people the DDM players and the people who have stuck with 3.5.





I wonder how much sales have dropped off on miniatures and if current D&D players are buying as many as D&D players of past years (setting aside sales to DDM players or lack thereof since dropping that game).  It would seem that the most recent rules engender use of minis at least as much as past games.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 20, 2010)

Ah heck.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 21, 2010)

Mark said:


> I wonder how much sales have dropped off on miniatures and if current D&D players are buying as many as D&D players of past years (setting aside sales to DDM players or lack thereof since dropping that game). It would seem that the most recent rules engender use of minis at least as much as past games.




Well - we do know that there was a general reduction in miniature buying regardless of rules versions for pre-painted minis. 

We know this because there was a significant reduction in _Star Wars_ miniatures sales that lead to a scaling back of the SW minis lines to 40 minis per set.  That happened despite the fact that the Rules stayed the same in SW Minis and were not changed with the release of SW: Saga Edition. This also happened even though the Star Wars miniatures game was always more popular (as a game) than DDMs (as a game) was.

Please appreciate that I am not saying that SW Minis were a more popular product in terms of overall sales over DDM. They may have been - they may not have been. I really have no hard data on that at all - but retail pricing in my city suggests that there remains a large inventory of SW minis available for sale in both the primary and secondary markets.  

I do know that every game store owner I ever spoke with believes that a much larger percentage of purchasers of SW minis were buying them to play the SW minis game (or simply to collect them) in contrast to DDMs, which were always primarily purchased by people to play D&D with - not to play D&D minis with.

So despite that fact that:



 the minis game for Star Wars was far better supported, with boxed started sets and hard cardboard maps;
 the SW minis game had vastly more maps and even had independent scenario books; and
 the SW minis, overall, had a higher quality to the models and especially the paint jobs because of Lucas Licensing acting as a Quality Control referee under the license,


the Star Wars minis still proved to not be profitable enough so that the lines were scaled back and ultimately, did not make enough money in order to encourage WotC to renew the Star Wars license, which expires 10 days from now, in fact.

I can also report that when it comes to availability of supposed "out of print" miniatures, boosters going back all the way to _Rebel Storm _are still available for sale in my city for about $10 CDN. DDM boosters are also available, but the product availability of primary boosters only goes back to about _War of the Dragon Queen_.

So what can we guess from all of this? I infer that there was a general reduction in demand across both lines of WotC pre painted miniatures that was attributable to a few factors:

*1 - Consumer Fatigue: *You can only sell people random stuff in boxes by the case for so long. At a certain point, the value in use of an additional pre-painted minis declines in proportion to the number of existing pre-painted minis in a consumer's individual collection. This was not restricted to DDM or SW minis, either. We saw the same with MageKnight, Clix and with WoW miniatures too. People can get fatigued with the whole product concept.  

*2 - Economic Downturn:* I expect that this had some effect on demand, though it is easy to overstate this. The economic downturn had no effect at all on M:TG - indeed, their sales were up about 70% last year. For the most part, a bad economy hurts people who lose their jobs. It doesn’t tend to hurt the people who don't lose their jobs (though many incomes can still decrease even among the employed, especially those whose jobs are commission based) 

It undoubtedly had some effect - but not as big as many might prefer to believe.

*3- Random Minis as an Inferior Good:* The sale of vast numbers of minis over 20+ sets for DDM and 16 sets for SW Minis created ... a lot of miniatures. Like the lead minis put out by Ral Partha, RAFM and Grenadier in the Golden age of AD&D - those minis never really vanished. As a hard good, they endured as an "installed base" in the marketplace.

Indeed, there were millions of pre-painted minis created and dumped into the market in about a 6 year period. Some were thrown out and put in boxes and forgotten - but the large majority were used while others were re-sold.

While the eBay market was (and remains) expensive in terms of transaction costs +shipping, there are a large number of eStores that are far more economical to purchase from. 

So we've seen vast numbers of commons and uncommons on sale for pretty cheap prices. Indeed, when it comes to Star Wars minis, where the value-in-use for RPG purposes was always a far significantly lower percentage of the aftermarket demand than demand for use as part of the SW minis game, we've seen this effect clearly. Star Wars minis, at least for common and uncommon minis were (and are) DIRT CHEAP. Like 10 cents to 50 cents a piece cheap, and available in large numbers. 

Why are they so cheap? Because supply is high and demand is low. The market has became over-saturated.

*4- Oversaturation: *In short, at a tipping point, the mftr begins to compete against its own previously sold products, no longer randomly packaged,  and which in many cases are sold for less (sometimes MUCH less) per mini than WotC's new random minis are sold for. When that economics starts to kick in, inventories rise of random boosters and soon enough - it's game over.

That's what I really think has happened in the case of both SW minis and DDM.  The market became saturated to where WotC was competing against its own previously released products.

*5 - The Edition Effect:* With DDM, there was also an "edition effect", where in addition to changing the rules for the underlying minis game, the source artwork was changed between 3E and 4E, splitting the market somewhat and further hurting sales. I think when it came to DDM, the ref art issue was far more important thant the change in the rules of the DDM game. 

My guess is that a significant number of 3E players did not look to buy the new 4E ref art inspired minis lines, rather, if they were spending money on minis, they purchased minis in boosters from the 16 or so 3E sets either in the primary market or in the secondary market. I think this was an important issue, as the hardcore 3E players tend to skew older. I don't know what your experience has been, but in terms of miniatures buying, the people I saw who were buying DDMs by the case were not teenagers and college kids, there were hardcore gamers  - men in their late 20s, 30s and 40s with jobs.  The very demographic most likely to stick with 3E.

In any case, we know that the demand for DDMs was reduced to the point where the lines were essentially discontinued. We also know that the Star Wars line has had its final release this past week as well.

*Result:* The days of plastic crack are over. Exactly what went wrong and how to get it right "next time" are unclear. But I wouldn't rule out a new line of collectible DDMs with the Fifth edition of D&D at some vague and uncertain date in the future.

Assuming of course, that the digital equivalent of such miniatures do not replace physical minis by that time - as that remains a distinct possibility. 






​


----------



## MerricB (Apr 21, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> *3- Random Minis as an Inferior Good:* The sale of vast numbers of minis over 20+ sets for DDM and 16 sets for SW Minis created ... a lot of miniatures. Like the lead minis put out by Ral Partha, RAFM and Grenadier in the Golden age of AD&D - those minis never really vanished. As a hard good, they endured as an "installed base" in the marketplace.




Err - this is all about Oversaturation. You don't seem to have a point 3.


----------



## ehren37 (Apr 21, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Human Blackguard -> Evil Human Fighter
> Mind Flayer Telepath -> Bathalian
> Large Red Dragon -> Young Dragon
> 
> Unless you are talking about buying a case at a time, Legendary Encounters is way cheaper.




That's a pretty blatant cherry pick ya got there.

Really? The blackguard? You really couldnt have gone with any of the dozens of sword and shield guys from the multiple sets easily available for 2 bucks or less? Or the male human (anti) paladin from the Players Handbook series, easily available cheaper?

Concord Illithid (rare) is cheaper than the Bathalian

Large red ya got me. 12 bucks vs 6. Though the DDM one is significantly bigger.

So lets look at some others.

Ogre Pulverizer (demonweb) is cheaper than their ogre
Gargoyle (DoD) is cheaper than theirs.
Pretty much any uncommon/common bugbear (lancebreaker, blood ghost berserker etc)is cheaper than theirs, and fits in its space. 
Elf Archer (DoD) is cheaper than their elf archer
Unicorn
Savage Minotaur is cheaper than minotaur of the maze

So find me some elementals. Or ghouls. Or halflings. Or female characters. Large skeletons or zombies? You know... basic stuff I can get for a buck or two in DDM. 

Or better yet... find me a rust monster. Or demons, or anything but the most basic crap?

Because that's pretty much what their line is limited to, since every sculpt has to justify itself in individual unit sales. 

I buy some reaper minis, but they specialize in humanoid and PC models. My games dont. 

Anyone remotely internet savvy can do well in online single sales, and have a wider selection in DDM.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 21, 2010)

MerricB said:


> Err - this is all about Oversaturation. You don't seem to have a point 3.




3 & 4 are the same - but it seemed to flow better that way 

I'll pick apart  your run-on points next time Merrick!

*shakes fist*


----------



## MerricB (Apr 21, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> 3 & 4 are the same - but it seemed to flow better that way
> 
> I'll pick apart  your run-on points next time Merrick!
> 
> *shakes fist*




I don't have run-on points. I ramble instead. 

I do think you have a very good point about how the market now has available to it a very large number of common minis. This is a Good Thing. Not for the D&D Mini line, as you point out, but for gamers in general. I'm isolated from it due to the shipping costs to Australia, but if you live in the States you're going to be able to pick up a lot of minis you need very cheaply.

What happens now, though? It's likely these commons will persist for a few years, but after that the opportunity will come back for another "high" run of figures to get things back to the saturation level. 

It's worth noting that we had about 6 years worth of D&D Minis at a fairly rapid pace; that's a pretty impressive run.

Cheers!


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 21, 2010)

MerricB said:


> It's worth noting that we had about 6 years worth of D&D Minis at a fairly rapid pace; that's a pretty impressive run.




I think the pace is what harmed the lines, ultimately. I am not sure when the Glut hit - though I *am* very sure that someone from Diamond Comic Distributors Inc. could tell you _precisely_ when that moment occurred.

My guess is that the timing was about the same time as the announcement of 4E at Gencon in 2007, though that does not necessarily mean that the 3E to 4E transition was the cause. I think it was more coincidence than anything.

I think that the fact that I can still buy _War of the Dragon Queen _boosters at MSRP tells me that the glut happened about then. WotC would have been better served to have reduced the numbers of minis sold to distributors to ensure that scarcity of the retail boosters continued. That when something went Out of print - it meant "no longer available at retail" not - "no longer available from the manufacturer".

For example, it is nigh impossible to find boosters form the first five sets or so of DDM. Any boosters prior to War of the Dragon Queen are also very hard to find from any source.

But after that point in time? Not so.

Had WotC scaled back the development pace, or alternatively, had reduced the numbers of boosters they released per expansion, they might not have saturated the market as badly as they had and the whole thing might have stumbled on through the release of 4E. 

That said, I expect that there were economies of scale and continuous production issues that militated in favor of the brisk pace they released DDMS at. I can well imagine that the infrastructure and the # of employees involved in designing and arranging for the production of DDM and SW minis became a fixed cost for Wizards, and to get the most value out of those fixed costs, increasing the production numbers and rapidity of product releases seemed a _very_ good idea at the time.

I also expect that production facilities were more cheaply arranged by Hasbro with the promise of more or less uninterrupted production runs, from one set to the next. 

In short - there probably appeared to be very good reasons at the time to release the products in the volumes that they released them in and at the pace they were released at. It was only in hindsight when the oversaturation hit that WotC realized that supply was far outstripping demand more than they had planned. But at that point, I think it became too late to do anything about it when the 3E/4E effect hit them as well.

After that, it was all over but the crying.

On a happier note, having decided to run a _Star Wars: Saga Edition_ campaign since January, I've been buying Star Wars minis at quite a brisk pace. And I assure you, the numbers of Star Wars minis available in the secondary market for RPG use is - in a word - *AWESOME*.

I have amassed a collection of about well over 1,000 minis now in the past three months for... $480? something like that. And less than a 10th of those were bought as randoms. I've bought hundreds and hundreds of commons and uncommons. And seeing as I have had the pick of production across 16 lines, let me assure you - that is a very healthy and EXTREMELY usable selection of minis to play a Star Wars RPG campaign with.

I'm *damned* pleased with my SW minis collection - which is a FAR more usable mini collection for gaming purposes than my DDM collection is. I just wish I could pick up DDMs for as cheap as SW minis. *sigh* I've become spoiled, I fear.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 21, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> I'm *damned* pleased with my SW minis collection - which is a FAR more usable mini collection for gaming purposes than my DDM collection is. I just wish I could pick up DDMs for as cheap as SW minis. *sigh* I've become spoiled, I fear.




You can never have too many stormtroopers. 

I just wish the Star Wars RPG campaign I'm playing on could get back on track. The GM has been terribly ill for the past 3 months, and every time he seems to be getting better, he relapses. It's just too worrying.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 21, 2010)

ehren37 said:


> That's a pretty blatant cherry pick ya got there.




Feel free to elaborate what you mean by "cherry pick," but I just went with the first three I thought of that have frustrated me for a long time. If they would put out the "Eye Creature" in plastic I would be a truly happy kitty...



> Really? The blackguard? You really couldnt have gone with any of the dozens of sword and shield guys from the multiple sets easily available for 2 bucks or less?




I could, but most of them don't have "evil armor."



> Or the male human (anti) paladin from the Players Handbook series, easily available cheaper?




I hate that figure.



> Concord Illithid (rare) is cheaper than the Bathalian




Not with shipping. Also, the Bathalian is a much better looking figure.



> Ogre Pulverizer (demonweb) is cheaper than their ogre




It's also a low quality figure. Whereas the Reaper ogre is actually pretty cool, although I prefer a more bestial looking ogre, like the Harbinger ogre.



> Gargoyle (DoD) is cheaper than theirs.
> Pretty much any uncommon/common bugbear (lancebreaker, blood ghost berserker etc)is cheaper than theirs, and fits in its space.




Sure, sure. I think many of us are already familiar with the bugbear surprlus situation.



> Elf Archer (DoD) is cheaper than their elf archer




I never liked that figure much. I really like the Reaper elf archer, probably better than all but a couple of the DDM ones.



> Unicorn




If you like the My Little Ponycorn. Traditional white is going to cost you.



> Savage Minotaur is cheaper than minotaur of the maze




True.



> So find me some elementals. Or ghouls. Or halflings. Or female characters. Large skeletons or zombies? You know... basic stuff I can get for a buck or two in DDM.
> 
> Or better yet... find me a rust monster. Or demons, or anything but the most basic crap?
> 
> ...




Not a problem for me. I'll buy anything that does the job. The buckets of decent DDM stuff for a $.99 apiece is one of the benefits of the randomized packs, but the price is very stiff. If you want something specific, and it happens to be a rare, the price shoots way up. I sold some of my minis because I didn't feel I could afford _not _to sell singles worth $30 or more.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 21, 2010)

MerricB said:


> You can never have too many stormtroopers.
> 
> I just wish the Star Wars RPG campaign I'm playing on could get back on track. The GM has been terribly ill for the past 3 months, and every time he seems to be getting better, he relapses. It's just too worrying.




Actually, in my case, you can. My campaign is set in the same era as BioWare's _The Old Republic _MMO.

So for me, I can't have too many Sith or Mandalloreans. I also have gone in for Droids in any flavor, in any era, as a potential foe. I've also bought Fringers/aliens in a big way - though my Fringers tend to be more "one of him and him and him and him", as opposed to "10 of those, 10 of those - and twenty of those, too."

Whatever the case, if the players are looking for a "cantina effect" of minis in a bar - "can do" 

Add in the fact that Star Wars inherently accomodates easy repurposing of a miniature with visual verisimilitude preserved nicely (whereas in D&D, a Troll to be a Troll has to, well... be a Troll) and it's just a *Geekgasm of Plastic*. 

Sorry to hear about your SW campaign - and sorrier still that an illness has persisted for so many months. That sounds a lot like illness= new girlfriend/unhappy spouse or, worse, a far more serious illness with life changing/threatening implications. 

Hope your friend is okay and gets well soon.


----------



## jasonbostwick (Apr 21, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> I'm *damned* pleased with my SW minis collection - which is a FAR more usable mini collection for gaming purposes than my DDM collection is. I just wish I could pick up DDMs for as cheap as SW minis. *sigh* I've become spoiled, I fear.




I got lucky and got into DDM in a big way in Spring 2006 - when there seemed to be a huge surplus of commons/uncommons. Looking back over my e-bay receipts from Auggies, I was picking up a ton of of humanoids, animals, and various humans for under $0.40 a figure. I'm not sure if it was the change in distribution model or the pricing increases, but you can't get a common figure from the latest sets for anything below 60 cents.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 21, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> Sorry to hear about your SW campaign - and sorrier still that an illness has persisted for so many months. That sounds a lot like illness= new girlfriend/unhappy spouse or, worse, a far more serious illness with life changing/threatening implications.
> 
> Hope your friend is okay and gets well soon.




I hope so too. He's lost about 14 kg, and he wasn't big to begin with. He's been able to play in our D&D games recently, but hasn't been up to running games.


----------



## ehren37 (Apr 22, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Feel free to elaborate what you mean by "cherry pick," but I just went with the first three I thought of that have frustrated me for a long time. If they would put out the "Eye Creature" in plastic I would be a truly happy kitty...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So its not a matter of economics, as you previously indicated. It seems your argument goes from "its cheaper", to "they're more expensive, but I don't like some of the sculpts". Its moving your goalposts.

As far as the cherry pick argument, I'm pointing out  your choice of  a rare from the first set to compare, when a much more sensible move would have been to pick any of the other evil looking warriors out there (kharsite fighter, anti paladin, etc). 




> Not with shipping. Also, the Bathalian is a much better looking figure.
> [/quote[
> 
> Actually, with shipping. You first have to have a game store in your area with the figure. None of mine do, and frankly even if they did, its faster and cheaper to order online, with 3.50 flat shipping (or free for a $75 order from mini market) than drive across town, and sift through all their disorganized crap. I get my orders within 3 days, shipped to my door. Cheaper, wider selection, and more convenient.
> ...


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 22, 2010)

ehren37 said:


> So its not a matter of economics, as you previously indicated. It seems your argument goes from "its cheaper", to "they're more expensive, but I don't like some of the sculpts". Its moving your goalposts.




No, it's not. For me, Reaper minis are substantially cheaper in many cases. Note that I did not claim every single Reaper mini is cheaper than every single DDM. If anyone is manipulating the goalposts, it's you. I made the most relevant comparisons from my point of view. You are free to make different comparisons.



> As far as the cherry pick argument, I'm pointing out  your choice of  a rare from the first set to compare, when a much more sensible move would have been to pick any of the other evil looking warriors out there (kharsite fighter, anti paladin, etc).




Why not compare it to Farmer Brown, while you're at it? I picked the blackguard because it has a certain look, and because I have experience with trying to acquire the figure without overspending. I like the kharsite fighter, but it's not the same kind of figure. 

I did not specify the anti paladin because I do not consider it equivalent in quality.



> > Not with shipping. Also, the Bathalian is a much better looking figure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, I bought mine at the mall. Piece of cake.



> Skullcrusher ogre is also cheaper, if you prefer a more armored choice.




Hate it.



> I do actually like that figure, and have him painted from metal. If reaper had focused more on things that are getting increasingly impractical to get in metal, I think they would have done better. A metal giant is in the neighborhood of 15-30 bucks now.
> 
> Most of DDM rares are around 4 bucks lately in the online singles area. That's roughly the price of reapers common level grunts.




That's because most DDM rares are not popular figures in the first place. Whereas Reaper grunts cost about the same as Reaper "rares".... in other words, Reaper minis don't get made if they aren't at a certain level of quality. I've already stated the price you pay for this subsidization; any rares worth having are hideously expensive, often several times as expensive as their equally rare but less useful/interesting/attractive/fashionable brethren.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 22, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> That's because most DDM rares are not popular figures in the first place. Whereas Reaper grunts cost about the same as Reaper "rares".... in other words, Reaper minis don't get made if they aren't at a certain level of quality. I've already stated the price you pay for this subsidization; any rares worth having are hideously expensive, often several times as expensive as their equally rare but less useful/interesting/attractive/fashionable brethren.



I disagree.

I also basically stopped using reaper minis once I had accumulated a reasonable base of DDM minis. Imho, DDM minis are generally cheaper, look better and are more practical.


----------



## avin (Apr 22, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I did not specify the anti paladin because I do not consider it equivalent in quality.




I have to agree, it's a very clumsy pose.

This is a better mini for this purpose:







I have a few Reaper miniatures, I like them, but they are fragile to transport and play...


----------

