# WotC changes how D&D mini's are going to be sold.



## darjr (Oct 21, 2008)

Wizards anounces D&D miniatures Hero's
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20081021
 
The hero's packs will contain three miniatures and new powers.

The monster packs will contain semi random themed packs of monsters right from the MM and MM2.

This will mark the end of the current way D&D mini's are sold.


----------



## Wraith101 (Oct 21, 2008)

I must admit I am impressed! I can see myself buying more miniatures using this format. 

I do wonder about the MM minis though. 1 visible mini? will this be a random common or a showpiece figure?

The supply of commons is also likely to dry up, with only 2-3 per box. People won't have to buy as many boxes to get all the rares etc. 

I think the renewed focus on MM minis will also improve the sets. When I did buy DnD minis I was forever getting creatures that were looked at first glance like something recognisable but inevitably turned out to be something weird I had never heard of.


----------



## darjr (Oct 21, 2008)

I agree. For me, breaking out the character mini's is the best part. I'd prefer less randomness in the MM mini's, but supplementing from the secondary market, I'd be just fine.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 21, 2008)

Anyone care to do the math to estimate how much you'll need to spend to get a full set, and how that compares to the randomized set-up?

No more cheap PC minis in the secondary market, I guess. They're all going to cost about $3.67.


----------



## SlyFlourish (Oct 21, 2008)

*Wild*

I don't quite know what to make of this so far but its pretty wild. I just love seeing big changes, I guess.

I've been buying minis for about four years now. I have quite a few hundred and probably spend about $400 or $500 a year on minis. That's quite a lot more than I want to admit, but there it is.

I buy minis strictly for roleplaying, although I sometimes write scenarios using D&D mini rules. Normally I buy minis on the secondary market, picking out the ones I want.

The new MSRP equals less minis for more bucks but it might end up being cheaper for me to buy this way than the way I have done so in the past. We'll have to see.

The other side of it is that there is a level of miniature saturation. I have nearly every class, race, and sex combo for PC minis and there are only so many monsters I need to run a good game. I find myself buying less minis each set that comes out, until I get a new adventure and need to pick up more (stupid Trolls!).

Anyway, interesting times to be a D&D player!


----------



## Simplicity (Oct 21, 2008)

I like the 1 visible figure.  Makes it more likely that you'll get at least SOMETHING you're interested in.  However, I can imagine a horrible future where FLGS's are overflowing with Wrackspawn visible monster packs...

The one thing that kind of made me choke though...  $10.99 for THREE PC figures?  Am I reading it wrong?  And they're going to put new powers in there just to anger us RPG completionists?  Well, I want to make a wizard, but let me flip through my two books and sixteen powercards before I figure out the optimal build...


----------



## SteveC (Oct 21, 2008)

Oh. My. God.

They really have decided to take D&D to the next level of Warhammer Quest. Oh, and before anything thinks that's a slam: I loves me my Warhammer Quest.

(For those of you who don't know, Warhammer Quest released boxes with a character + miniature + power cards).

This is awesome news from a serious perspective, since it will let me actually get some miniatures I want to play a character.

--Steve


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 21, 2008)

I don't need PC types, so those sets are out.

And, for the monsters, now instead of 8 minis for $14.99, we're getting 5 minis for $14.99.   



Well, at least the secondary market will still be there....


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 21, 2008)

Simplicity said:


> The one thing that kind of made me choke though...  $10.99 for THREE PC figures?  Am I reading it wrong?



Check the price point for other non-randomized plastic minis. It's about right. Merric's Law and all that.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 21, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Check the price point for other non-randomized plastic minis. It's about right. Merric's Law and all that.




Could you provide some links/set names for those other products? I'd like to take a look around for comparison.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 21, 2008)

Reaper's Legendary Encounters is a good place to start.

Reaper Miniatures :: LegendaryEncounters

PC-type minis appear to be $4.49 each. And the selection is quite small.

I like to use Heroscape figures as well.

http://www.hasbrotoyshop.com/ProductsByBrand.htm?BR=746

Looks like they're a bit cheaper on a per-figure basis, but be warned a lot of the figs aren't really useful for D&D. But they have some great figures.


----------



## Knight Otu (Oct 21, 2008)

I'm reading that correctly? "Brand new class powers?" They're really going to try that? 

Maybe if they aren't randomized (since only the monster packs say anything about randomization, I guess the power cards aren't randomized), it might work. It sure helps their viability they're packaged with minis, though.
[sblock=Rant]I've previously argued that there are things that don't work with a randomized distribution. Miniatures work for several reasons, including the time of painting and occasionally assembling other miniatures, and the fact that it is a bit hard creating your own miniatures if you don't want simple tokens. Quest cards wouldn't work - not only can you easily create your own quest cards, but most random quest cards would be unusable in a campaign unless horribly generic (and then you could create them yourself easier and cheaper). Power cards for new powers aren't quite that simple (you need to create new powers, which isn't something everyone is adapt at or would want to do), but they are much closer to the quest card end of the scale than the miniature end of the scale. [/]

I'll also add that a full set of power cards is something else that not everyone would want to create themselves, but would be wanted. While not randomized, such a product is closer to the miniatures end of the scale. Here, we're talking about a small number of cards.[/sblock]


----------



## MerricB (Oct 21, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Check the price point for other non-randomized plastic minis. It's about right. Merric's Law and all that.




I expect the PC minis will be well painted; that puts them in the uncommon/rare quality, which does cost more than the commons which have generally reduced the cost per mini.

_Dangerous Delves_ is interesting. Taking a guess at the rarities is very interesting. If we have 8 visible, 8 common, 8 uncommon and 16 rare figures, that would make the 40 figures in the set.

After buying 16 packs (and getting perfect distribution) you'd get:
1 of each rare
2 of each uncommon
2 of each visible (well, whatever you liked!)
4 of each common.

Hmm. That doesn't look quite right, but it'll do as a starting point.

Cheers!


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 21, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> And, for the monsters, now instead of 8 minis for $14.99, we're getting 5 minis for $14.99.



You'll be getting 1 rare mini in 5, rather than 1 in 8.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Oct 22, 2008)

Welcome to the 5E market research. Make rules needed to play the game available only on cards bundled with minis and see how well they sell.

Once the idea takes hold more supplements can be card based.

5E the cards and minis edition coming to a game store near you by 2011-12.


----------



## Waylander the Slayer (Oct 22, 2008)

Wasn't this what Erik Noah had heard as a rumor back in the day which everyone seemed to discredit at the time?


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 22, 2008)

Knight Otu said:


> Maybe if they aren't randomized (since only the monster packs say anything about randomization, I guess the power cards aren't randomized), it might work. It sure helps their viability they're packaged with minis, though.



That's what I gathered from reading it. Each pack is themed (Arcane, Martial, Divine, Primal), and would have powers of the appropriate type included.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 22, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Welcome to the 5E market research. Make rules needed to play the game available only on cards bundled with minis and see how well they sell.
> 
> Once the idea takes hold more supplements can be card based.
> 
> 5E the cards and minis edition coming to a game store near you by 2011-12.




Good call!


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 22, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Once the idea takes hold more supplements can be card based.
> 
> 5E the cards and minis edition coming to a game store near you by 2011-12.



You might find more takers for this hypothesis if _the very same thing_ hadn't been said about 4E before it came out.


----------



## FriarRosing (Oct 22, 2008)

I don't know if I should be mad or not. Should I be mad?
New Power Cards? Seriously? How balanced are they going to be? 
Keeping track of those suckers is going to be a pain.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 22, 2008)

Sandwich said:


> New Power Cards? Seriously? How balanced are they going to be?



Presumably as balanced as any other powers published by WotC.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 22, 2008)

Sandwich said:


> I don't know if I should be mad or not. Should I be mad?
> New Power Cards? Seriously? How balanced are they going to be?
> Keeping track of those suckers is going to be a pain.




If they add them to the D&D Compendium, I'll be fine with it.

I am - how shall I put it - apprehensive at how well the _D&D Heroes_ series will go. It's going to be difficult for smaller game stores to stock them, and the distribution and retailing of them is going to be tricky.

Still, players have been clamouring for these non-random figures for a long while now and I rather like how they've divided up the packs. Let's hope they're successful.

Cheers!


----------



## Masquerade (Oct 22, 2008)

All the powers introduced on cards will be collected and posted online within a day of the set's release, if not earlier, so I don't think the completionists have too much to worry about.

edit - Or, like Merric suggests, they could be in the Compendium.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 22, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Make rules needed to play the game available only on cards bundled with minis and see how well they sell.




Except for the fact that there is zero indication that the powers included are necessary to play the game. In fact, since we already have the books that have all the rules necessary to play the game, this theory is dead on arrival.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 22, 2008)

Sandwich said:


> I don't know if I should be mad or not. Should I be mad?
> New Power Cards? Seriously? How balanced are they going to be?
> Keeping track of those suckers is going to be a pain.



[cynic]Well, that's why you have the D&D compendium from the DDI[/cynic]

Hmm... I'm not that sure I'm happy about that. PC miniatures get a lot more expensive, and I usually use metal miniatures for PCs. This just makes it worse for my NPCs. The monster packs are also more expensive, but not too much. Though I fear that it makes the commons on the secondary market more expensive.

And not too sure what impact that will have on the skirmish game.

On the other hand, it does sound very appealing to be able to just buy packs of PCs. I reckon I'll have to wait to see how this will turn out.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Oct 22, 2008)

I like this a lot.


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 22, 2008)

Masquerade said:


> edit - Or, like Merric suggests, they could be in the Compendium.



I would be surprised if they are not included in the Compendium.


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Oct 22, 2008)

Is it just me or are they not talking about the minis game? New minis, new 4E power cards, but no mention of actual stat cards for DDM...

AR


----------



## catsclaw227 (Oct 22, 2008)

Yea, I'm digging this, too.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Oct 22, 2008)

Monsters are still going to be randomized; $14.99.


----------



## mlund (Oct 22, 2008)

_Political content removed. -- Henry_


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 22, 2008)

I suggest no one respond to the above political post. It has been reported to the mods and will just be deleted anyway.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 22, 2008)

Well, for 5E they can just publish a "basic deck" of power cards with the rulebook and you get spiffier ones when you buy the Hero Packs. Of course you have to have the power card to use the power!

The Hero minis don't have to be randomized if the power cards are. "Wow... I got the Super Rare Ultrafoil 'fireball' power. It does 10d12 damage and it's a 3rd level Encounter Power. W00t!"

Or "Man, I'll trade you one of my spare Scorching Rays for a Great Cleave. I really want to build a Fighter."


----------



## justanobody (Oct 22, 2008)

"unique power cards"

Does this invalidate DDM 2.0 and the release of future sets converted to DDM 2.0 rules by starting with a new game?


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 22, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Does this invalidate DDM 2.0 and the release of future sets converted to DDM 2.0 rules by starting with a new game?



I'm curious as to what this means for the skirmish game as well.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 22, 2008)

Simplicity said:


> I like the 1 visible figure.  Makes it more likely that you'll get at least SOMETHING you're interested in.  However, I can imagine a horrible future where FLGS's are overflowing with Wrackspawn visible monster packs...
> 
> The one thing that kind of made me choke though...  $10.99 for THREE PC figures?  Am I reading it wrong?  And they're going to put new powers in there just to anger us RPG completionists?  Well, I want to make a wizard, but let me flip through my two books and sixteen powercards before I figure out the optimal build...





Yep, makes me happier with my metal Reaper figures all the more. Plus I get to see all of the ones I am going to buy, before I pay.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 22, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> Of course you have to have the power card to use the power!



This is another place this hypothesis falls apart. Who's going to enforce this? At a official tournament, maybe. But at any reasonable DM's table, a power is a power.


----------



## Henry (Oct 22, 2008)

Good for those who love it -- YUCK for me. Not that it makes a difference - I stopped being able to afford them when they shot up over $12.99 per booster pack a year or so ago, so it's not like they're losing me; however, they're DEFINITELY not regaining me with this tactic, either. I'd rather have the random packs; at least I could treat myself every three or four months to another pack or so. But three minis in a pack? Just not worth it.


----------



## Qwillion (Oct 22, 2008)

Sweet I can finally buy what i want to buy, lol

Oh wait I can do that on ebay.


----------



## mlund (Oct 22, 2008)

_Political Contents removed. -- Henry_

When Hasbro adjusts its practices to picks its vendors with more discretion they'll have my interest in their miniatures lines again.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 22, 2008)

The reasons for excluding politics from the board are well-known, and you agreed to the policy when you joined ENWorld. Simple as that. Want to change the policy? Discuss it with Morrus and the mods.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 22, 2008)

Treebore said:


> Yep, makes me happier with my metal Reaper figures all the more. Plus I get to see all of the ones I am going to buy, before I pay.




Metal minis are cool. (Errr in that cool if you're a dork like me way...)  but I no longer have the time needed to paint them up.

Plastic prepainted minis would fill that gap except for the problem Henry mentioend... They're too dang expensive.

I will continue using my Counter Collection Gold!

If they produced sets of reasonably pricedMonster Tokens akin to what's in the new beginner boxed set, however...

(Here that Scott???? You wouldn't even need to put them in a box to tempt me!)


----------



## Henry (Oct 22, 2008)

Ladies and Gents, I've banned Mlund from this thread for future reference; let's let the political issue and any comments toward him drop off, please. I'd rather this didn't become a politics flamefest, as there are other places to discuss such, including a certain Circvs.

Thanks.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Oct 22, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Except for the fact that there is zero indication that the powers included are necessary to play the game. In fact, since we already have the books that have all the rules necessary to play the game, this theory is dead on arrival.




For 4th Edition you are right on the money. Everything you "need" is in the core books. 5E?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Oct 22, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> You might find more takers for this hypothesis if _the very same thing_ hadn't been said about 4E before it came out.




Gotta turn the heat up slowly if you want to boil the frog. A blatant replacement of 3E straight to cards would be like dropping the sucker in boiling water. Using 4E as a bridging edition to get everyone more comfortable with the medium is the way to go.

Test the next edition with the current one has worked so far, so why abandon it? 3.5 PHB2 tested aggro mechanics and so it became part of 4E. 4E tests power cards which will become the norm for 5E. Its the nature of the marketing beast.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Oct 22, 2008)

Altamont Ravenard said:


> Is it just me or are they not talking about the minis game? New minis, new 4E power cards, but no mention of actual stat cards for DDM...




[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Delve-4th-Supplement-Adventure/dp/0786951397/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224634931&sr=8-2"]This[/ame] will be the new D&D Minis game. As long as the singles are of higher quality, I think this is a great change. The power cards are a neat idea, I just worry about trying to keep track of everything. As long as its added to the D&D Compendium it should be fine. The semi random monsters I'm not so sure about. Seems odd. It'll probably make more sense in the coming months.


----------



## mhensley (Oct 22, 2008)

Altamont Ravenard said:


> Is it just me or are they not talking about the minis game? New minis, new 4E power cards, but no mention of actual stat cards for DDM...
> 
> AR




This is probably a sign that the ddm game is dying out.  This is just the sort of thing wizkids did with the mechwarrior game.  If ddm was still selling really well, they certainly wouldn't be making changes to the format.


----------



## El Mahdi (Oct 22, 2008)

Very optimistic news to me.


18 PC minis per set, way more than current sets.

Price comparable to or better than Reaper prepainted minis, and most WoTC minis are better painted (IMO).

Non-randomized PC minis, very nice.


Only down side I see is that with 58 figures per set, and 18 of them being PC's, there will be less monster figs per set.  But that's only a downside if all you're looking for is monsters.


I'm looking forward to these.  However, it does mean no more $.50 common PC minis on the secondary market.  It's a very good price, but at $3.67 per minis, I'll definitely want the overall quality of their paint jobs increased a bit.  The three color Fisher Price look would be a deal breaker.  However, for my money, still a better deal than Reapers pre-painted minis.

Overall, I think it will be good for the secondary market also.  Prices will probably be a little higher than the $.50 or lower you see for some minis.  Now the only ones with variable prices will be the monsters, at an overall higher price by average.

My only question is if older sets will begin to be sold like this also, or will they just continue selling them in the same randomized manner as before?  Or will they just cease making the older sets (I know they don't make all of them anymore but the last few sets I think they still do)?


Overall, it sounds very cool!


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Oct 22, 2008)

The one thing I want to see done for Mini's is to have encounter themed packs.

Examples:  

Level 4 Kobold encounter containing X Minions, 2-3 Skirmishers, 1-3 Slingers, 1-3 Dragonshields, and  maybe a Kobold Wyrmpriest.

When I typically run encounters with Goblins, Kobolds, Orcs, etc, I like to use a bunch of them.  With the current set up, and probably the new set up, it is very difficult to get 10 Kobold figures to use as Minions.

I would be willing to pay more to get a guaranteed set of Kobolds.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## justanobody (Oct 22, 2008)

Henry said:


> Good for those who love it -- YUCK for me. Not that it makes a difference - I stopped being able to afford them when they shot up over $12.99 per booster pack a year or so ago, so it's not like they're losing me; however, they're DEFINITELY not regaining me with this tactic, either. I'd rather have the random packs; at least I could treat myself every three or four months to another pack or so. But three minis in a pack? Just not worth it.




Yeah, while I like the concept of knowing what you are getting, the loss of 2 minis for only $2 cheaper is not something I care for that much. These are not paladium/raladium/pewter/lead minis that cost that much, so the price hike is outrageous.

They will have to be some damn near perfect paint jobs and sculpts to be worth $3+ each when I can still get visible minis to scale for cheaper and more of them....HeroScape I think is the name of the game.

They tried the idea, but still are not getting the point many people were trying to tell them about the price meeting the needs. Maybe it will be used as an excuse to claim that people didn't really want visible minis? But I think the direction taken was at fault if it happens and sales are not spectacular because of the price point and quantity.

I am not so sure about the monster packs though. That all might depend on the "visible" mini distribution. If it is the same in every pack, then that will be just as bad as completely random packs.

DM Jeff: Hey today you are going to be fighting a nation of goblins!
Players: What? 
DM Jeff: Well I got another monster pack to finish the set and have about 100 goblins from it and the older minis packs, so I need to make use of them somehow.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Oct 22, 2008)

mhensley said:


> This is probably a sign that the ddm game is dying out. This is just the sort of thing wizkids did with the mechwarrior game. If ddm was still selling really well, they certainly wouldn't be making changes to the format.




With D&D becoming the the new DDM they don't really need two identical games out there.


----------



## humble minion (Oct 22, 2008)

I'm a big fan of the monster packs idea, but on the PC side of things I'm a fair bit more leery.

From a DMs point of view, where does this leave me mini-wise when I want to run evil members of PC races as bad guys?  My campaign so far has had bad guy human rogues, a torturer, samurai, ninjas, swashbucklers, pirates of three different varieties, female dwarf clerics, bards, half-orc barbarians, and monks.  Are there going to be generic 'bad guy' humans etc in the monster manual packs, or will the only minis of PC races be in the Heroes line?  Hopefully the latter (there are 'human berserker' etc entries in the MM afer all), because otherwise it'd be damn near impossible to populate a large encounter with evil human minions etc without buying a dozen PC packs...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Oct 22, 2008)

humble minion said:


> I'm a big fan of the monster packs idea, but on the PC side of things I'm a fair bit more leery.
> 
> From a DMs point of view, where does this leave me mini-wise when I want to run evil members of PC races as bad guys? My campaign so far has had bad guy human rogues, a torturer, samurai, ninjas, swashbucklers, pirates of three different varieties, female dwarf clerics, bards, half-orc barbarians, and monks. Are there going to be generic 'bad guy' humans etc in the monster manual packs, or will the only minis of PC races be in the Heroes line? Hopefully the latter (there are 'human berserker' etc entries in the MM afer all), because otherwise it'd be damn near impossible to populate a large encounter with evil human minions etc without buying a dozen PC packs...




I don't think thats a problem. The MM has entries and powers for "monster humans" so they will have thier own stat cards and minis (at least they should).


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 22, 2008)

Count me as cautiously optimistic...

It will really depend on the monster and PC choices. Of course, the current Demonweb set is 6 PC-types, the rest is all monsters, so I think this is kinda been telegraphed.

Still, count me in on the separation of PCs and monsters. The specifics...


----------



## Shroomy (Oct 22, 2008)

All I care about is that the new powers are in the Compendium....and maybe finding a decent eladrin mini for my character.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 22, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> This is another place this hypothesis falls apart. Who's going to enforce this? At a official tournament, maybe. But at any reasonable DM's table, a power is a power.




I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it a hypothesis... I mean, it's in a hypothetical mode but I'm not seriously advancing it as a claim to what 5E would be like. Though if it were like that, that would be terrible.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 22, 2008)

Wow.

I didn't think they'd go this far. I figured they'd keep the "powers" away from the "collectability" angle, if only to shield against the accusation that "D&D IS A CCG BLARGHLE FLARGHLE!!!!!"

Now...um...D&D has some strong CCG similarities. 

D&D Minis! Gotta catch 'em all! 

Ew on a stick.


----------



## Duncan Haldane (Oct 22, 2008)

18 PC minis.

I realise this is just a first set, but it doens't seem very many to me.
With all the races and classes and both genders, I would have thought there would be a lot more common types just to address right up front.

I guess if you take an unusual combination of race & class for your character you will have to wait.

Duncan


----------



## Richards (Oct 22, 2008)

Cool, so I can buy a set of monster minis and only get monsters, not a bunch of PCs?  Excellent!  I may actually be tempted to start buying these suckers.

Wait, $14.99 for 5 monsters?

Never mind.

Johnathan


----------



## Jasperak (Oct 22, 2008)

My only problem with this collectible power card business: is some dipshut tournament DM not going to let use a 10' pole unless I have it's card?


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 22, 2008)

cross-posted

Right now, WotC has plenty of competition on the "PC" side of minis. More importantly, most players only need to "buy" one mini for every PC they play. That means PC packs are going to move slower (compared to DMs who gobble up monsters like Valiums) 

The Unique PC card is to sweeten the deal: "Yeah, you might have a custom-painted Reaper Mini, but I got Battle Strike Tactics with mine." 

Moreso, the PC packs are the non-random element; Martial Pack 1 will have the same three minis and the same three power-cards. Nothing random about it. 

The only M:TG element is that the powers will be published on cards, not in books. That, is where the cards deviate from earlier D&D.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 22, 2008)

8 classes form the PHB.
8 races form the PHB.
2 sexes.

8*8=64*2=128
18 per set*5 set=90 minis

So there are going to be 90 PC minis made before the end of 2010. There are 128 possible combinations in the PHB.

Plus there will somehow be the PHB2 races and classes included in this.

128-90=38 missing combinations from PHB, and likely all possible combinations form PHB2 will be missing.

The math isn't adding up. Some players are screwed no matter what they do even JUST using the existing PHB races and classes.

I also just noticed the 2 male, 1 female per pack. I don't like that. I never play females, so why not make all male packs and all female packs, because I know plenty of people that play only males and don't want the extra appendages....

DM's could then buy packs based on the sex they need for NPCs as well rather than being stuck with the wrong ones or extra ones.

Still got the CMG built into the packaging scheme. Gonna have to trade off the the sexes to get what you might need.

Girl gamers will have to buy twice as many packs to play with if they want female PCs represented, or male gamers that only play females. People playing male PCs get the good life.


Remathilis said:


> The only M:TG element is that the powers will be published on cards, not in books. That, is where the cards deviate from earlier D&D.




No that is the Clix minis games element. Every power a mini has is listed on a card with the mini. Check out Hero Clix, Halo Clix, [insert brand name here] Clix.


----------



## doctorhook (Oct 22, 2008)

Jasperak said:


> My only problem with this collectible power card business: is some dipshut tournament DM not going to let use a 10' pole unless I have it's card?



I'm not sure I understand your question. Items have power cards now?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 22, 2008)

Remalthis said:
			
		

> The only M:TG element is that the powers will be published on cards, not in books. That, is where the cards deviate from earlier D&D.




Actually, the CCG element I was thinking of was the "collectability" of powers.

Before, powers were always purchased in sort of "all-at-once" sourcebooks, usually with overreaching themes or classes or whatnot. You might call these pre-constructed "decks" of powers. You might use a power, but you would get 30 of them at once, many related somehow. Everyone who bought the book got the same thing, and while some people might not get a particular book, it was fairly easy to keep up with the "collectible" aspect of the game. One purchase per month in 3e basically had you covered.

Now, you get, what, 3 powers that no one else does? For the price of some plastic?

Now, you have created "elite"  D&D players who splurge on minis in order to collect the powers (I'd be surprised if people played 3 different characters in a given year). 

"Gotta Catch 'em All!" applies to this nature of hunting down individual powers in order to collect them. 

"Wow! My character is a swashbucker! I already have the Martial Power book with the swashbuckler build, but now this new pack of minis has a new swashbuckler piece of plastic with a new swashbuckler power! GOTTA CATCH 'EM ALL!"

I dunno, that might be incoherent, I'm sick.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Oct 22, 2008)

You know, this kinda makes my current collection (2,000 - 3,000 strong) much more useful. In future I likely won't be able to buy gobs of commons for cheap and selectively purchase large numbers of uncommons for reasonable prices. So now I'll be more selective in future and rely upon the minis I've already got.

I agree that the glory days of DDM are over. I think it will become a niche market, sort of like _Dungeon Tiles_.


----------



## Jasperak (Oct 22, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> I'm not sure I understand your question. Items have power cards now?




Actions or exploits have power cards, as in "I use my implement to find a trap" or " I use my implement to trip the bad orc with pie as he runs past me" 

If pressed I bet we could come up with 100 powers that use a 10' pole as an implement.


----------



## FriarRosing (Oct 22, 2008)

I'm mainly sad because I just started getting into the skirmish game as something to do when my friends and I are bored. But now it's not going to be that so much? Is that what this means?

Also I feel like they're pressuring us to buy more stuff or play a less enriched game. ...Of course they are. They have to make money. It just makes me sad. :-(


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Oct 22, 2008)

*To complete a set*
Cost for all 18 PC minis: $66
Cost for all 40 Monster minis (assuming no repeats): $120

Total cost to complete a set (again assuming no repeats): $186


----------



## justanobody (Oct 22, 2008)

Semi-random monsters I think means completely random non-visible monsters, so repeats are probably a given. The visible mini will play a key factor in that as well.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 22, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Now, you have created "elite"  D&D players who splurge on minis in order to collect the powers (I'd be surprised if people played 3 different characters in a given year).



Actually, you have created a very few who will splurge like that, and a whole lot more who will wait for the spoilers list of powers to appear on the internet, and make their own power cards...or books...or lists...whatever.

And as for the other nonsense:

*I so move the following; do I have a seconder?
*Any DM in any situation including tournaments that bans a power* for the sole reason that the player doesn't have the original card shall forthwith burn their DMG in front of their players and resign from DMing.

* - banning a power because it's broken, or because it sucks, or because it doesn't fit the game, etc., is of course still in play. 

Lanefan


----------



## DCJedi (Oct 22, 2008)

I guess WotC needs to let Amazon know [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786950250"]Feywild [/ame]is cancelled.  Kinda wish I'd used it as filler for free shipping on more Gold Box Quick Picks now.


----------



## RefinedBean (Oct 22, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Now, you get, what, 3 powers that no one else does? For the price of some plastic?
> 
> Now, you have created "elite"  D&D players who splurge on minis in order to collect the powers (I'd be surprised if people played 3 different characters in a given year).




Not sure what you're getting at here.  Are these people going to be showing up at other people's games, plopping down, and saying "CHECK OUT _THIS_ INSANITY!" and whip out some kind of power card?  They'd be laughed away.

I mean, these are going to be in the D&D Compendium.  They may as well be, since someone's going to collect all the power cards at a convention, type them up, and post them somewhere.

Either your DM is buying a subscription to DDI and will allow them in the campaign, or you buy the minis yourself so that you have a fun figure to represent you, and you expand your group's power choice option by 1.

If your prediction of having an Elite Mini-Buying Power-Collecting D&D Fanbase is true, we finally have a solid way of outing these people, and can beat the tar out of them with sticks.


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 22, 2008)

This hobby has come a long way from just a couple of paperbacks, some dice, and a few sheets of graph paper, hasn't it?

This is awesome news for those who collect minis and cards.  For those of us who don't, it is just another product with "D&D" stamped on it.  I'm not judging, just observing.


----------



## Ondo (Oct 22, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:


> *To complete a set*
> Cost for all 18 PC minis: $66
> Cost for all 40 Monster minis (assuming no repeats): $120
> 
> Total cost to complete a set (again assuming no repeats): $186



That would only work if there were 8 rares, 8 uncommons, 8 visible, and 16 commons in the set; since that would make all the pieces equally rare there's no chance of that.  The actual cost will depend on the number of rares in the set.

Of course, to get a complete set of Underdark (assuming no repeats) would require 24 boosters, as there are 24 rares.  So $15 * 24 = $360.  The new way will be cheaper unless at least 20 of the 40 minis are rare.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 22, 2008)

CleverNickName said:


> This hobby has come a long way from just a couple of paperbacks, some dice, and a few sheets of graph paper, hasn't it?
> 
> This is awesome news for those who collect minis and cards.  For those of us who don't, it is just another product with "D&D" stamped on it.  I'm not judging, just observing.




You observation skills served you well in this case.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 22, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Test the next edition with the current one has worked so far, so why abandon it? 3.5 PHB2 tested aggro mechanics and so it became part of 4E.



In a completely different form, sure. That seems to be a bad example.

Now if you had mentioned warlocks and reserve feats testing at-will magic powers, you might have a point.


----------



## El Mahdi (Oct 22, 2008)

Duncan Haldane said:


> I guess if you take an unusual combination of race & class for your character you will have to wait.




Or you can modify them.  I know that's not for everybody though, and defeats the convenience factor, but, rare combos have always been harder to find in mini form.  Sometimes your only alternative is to make it yourself.  There was a really good series of articles on the WoTC Star Wars page on how to modifiy the prepainted plastic minis.  It's really not as hard as it may seem, but again, it's not everybodys cup of tea.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 22, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> There was a really good series of articles on the WoTC Star Wars page on how to modifiy the prepainted plastic minis.




Where?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Oct 22, 2008)

mhensley said:


> This is probably a sign that the ddm game is dying out.



Unfortunately, it's not like DDM died a natural death after a long, happy life.  DDM was trapped in the rubble when 3.5 was demolished, and has been slowly suffocating since.  Right now it's gasping its last breaths of air.


----------



## Agamon (Oct 22, 2008)

Huh, not sure what to make of this.  Maybe it's a good time to ween off the plastic crack.


----------



## Orius (Oct 22, 2008)

Simplicity said:


> The one thing that kind of made me choke though...  $10.99 for THREE PC figures?  Am I reading it wrong?  And they're going to put new powers in there just to anger us RPG completionists?  Well, I want to make a wizard, but let me flip through my two books and sixteen powercards before I figure out the optimal build...




Yup, it's official!

Giant In the Playground Games

I jest though, the hero packs sound non-random, so probably each individual pack will have thte same figures and cards.



mhensley said:


> This is probably a sign that the ddm game is dying out.  This is just the sort of thing wizkids did with the mechwarrior game.  If ddm was still selling really well, they certainly wouldn't be making changes to the format.




I suspect the same thing too.  



justanobody said:


> I also just noticed the 2 male, 1 female per pack. I don't like that. I never play females, so why not make all male packs and all female packs, because I know plenty of people that play only males and don't want the extra appendages....




Same here.  How does this help build up a female player base?



Lanefan said:


> *I so move the following; do I have a seconder?
> *Any DM in any situation including tournaments that bans a power* for the sole reason that the player doesn't have the original card shall forthwith burn their DMG in front of their players and resign from DMing.




Sounds cool to me, but the RPGA might not agree.  They might very well agree that a player needs all the cards to legally play or some such.  But then I don't play D&D tournaments so I don't care.  

I don't really care one way or other about the hero minis since PC figures can be acquired just about anywhere.  The monsters don't sound too bad, the price might be higher, but then the randomness helps them push stuff that they won't be able to sell individually but are still useful for DMs anyway.  And I think the visible monsters will probably be stuff that players are going to want to buy in the first place.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 22, 2008)

Orius said:


> Same here.  How does this help build up a female player base?




No idea. I got so sick and tired of defending the miniatures to female gamers decades ago when they were barely dressed, now it just seems they don't get minis dressed or no. I guess I no longer have to argue about the lack of clothing since there is a lack of females? Maybe it means the female minis now will have enough clothes to go around.

I hate insomnia.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 22, 2008)

CleverNickName said:


> This hobby has come a long way from just a couple of paperbacks, some dice, and a few sheets of graph paper, hasn't it?




Well, I'd say it has _gone_ a long way from that.

In the sense that Ashley Simpson is a long way from Allegri's _Miserere_. And yes, I am biased... look at my avatar, for Pete's sake!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 22, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> In a completely different form, sure. That seems to be a bad example.
> 
> Now if you had mentioned warlocks and reserve feats testing at-will magic powers, you might have a point.




It's an interesting example still, I think. They tested one type of "Aggro" mechanic and found it didn't work out in play-tests and feedback. So they created a different mechanic.

So maybe they are testing this Mini/Card combo, and see if it works and if they have to change it.

But let's be clear about one thing: Whether they can sell these is not a "proof" that they can sell an entire new edition using this model. That is actually very doubtful. The barrier to entry seems far too high if you base everything about mini + cards. 
I can't see a 5E existing without the "core rulebook" paradigm. Considering that DDM itself doesn't seem a resounding success, it seems likely that stripping down D&D to a boards/mini game just won't work. 

No, I think they are really just testing how they can sell their minis more effectively. The Randomized minis worked, but maybe they believed to have identified the portion that made it work - or they learned that it no longer works as well, since the market is satiated and its demands are changing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 22, 2008)

justanobody said:


> No idea. I got so sick and tired of defending the miniatures to female gamers decades ago when they were barely dressed, now it just seems they don't get minis dressed or no. I guess I no longer have to argue about the lack of clothing since there is a lack of females? Maybe it means the female minis now will have enough clothes to go around.
> 
> I hate insomnia.




Well, 1 female on 2 male figures isn't lack of female minis. If you split them in "all-male" and "all-female" packs, the likelihood that a newly starting female gamer doesn't get any fitting mini when she starts the game in an existing group is high. This looks better to me.

I wouldn't be surprised if this ratio would actually be better then the original ratio in the old boxes...


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 22, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Girl gamers will have to buy twice as many packs to play with if they want female PCs represented . . .




I don't understand your logic here. Female gamers will have one-half the options that male gamers have. But they "have to buy" exactly as many packs of minis as male gamers: The one pack that contains their preferred mini for their character.


----------



## Khaalis (Oct 22, 2008)

Personally, I think the male/female aspect of the setup makes no sense from a product marketing standpoint. 

Why 3 minis with a split of 2 male and 1 female?  This is a very odd setup and combination. Not to mention it definitely means there will be lots of possible combinations ignored.

Why not simply follow the example laid out in the PHB and have 4 minis per pack 2 of each race male and female?

As an example, you could have a pack of say Eladrin and Elf Rangers.
* 1 Elf Male Ranger
* 1 Elf Female Ranger
* 1 Eladrin Male Ranger
* 1 Eladrin Female Ranger

Seems much more simple and well balanced.  I really sit and scratch my head at times wondering what "thought process" goes into some of WotC's marketing plans. I honestly think at times that their idea of a marketing strategy involves a big dartboard, some darts and a blindfold...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 22, 2008)

Khaalis said:


> Personally, I think the male/female aspect of the setup makes no sense from a product marketing standpoint.
> 
> Why 3 minis with a split of 2 male and 1 female?  This is a very odd setup and combination. Not to mention it definitely means there will be lots of possible combinations ignored.
> 
> ...




I think the thought process goes along these lines: 
- We still have less female players then male players. Most players play their own gender. If we put out a pack with an equal split, half of the pack is useless to most of our clients. Now female players would still be disappointed in what they can get - but they might be the least likely to buy minis on their own anyway. But taking away their chance to find a fitting mini in another plays mini collection doesn't seem like a good idea.
- People are only interested in a fitting mini for their actual character. If the pack is too large, he might find he's paying for 3 minis he doesn't really want. (And in a 2:2 scenario, he pays for 2 he will probably never consider using)

Ultimately, it's balancing "realistic expectations" with "trying to have something for everone".


----------



## justanobody (Oct 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, 1 female on 2 male figures isn't lack of female minis. If you split them in "all-male" and "all-female" packs, the likelihood that a newly starting female gamer doesn't get any fitting mini when she starts the game in an existing group is high. This looks better to me.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if this ratio would actually be better then the original ratio in the old boxes...




As it stands with 64 male and 64 female variants from PHB alone, not counting PHB2 at all, there is going to be 90 total minis through 2010 as earlier presented.

That means there will be 30 female minis. Less than half to handle the race and class combinations in the PHB alone, not counting those present in PHB2.

While male minis could be lack just 4 combinations from the PHB itself with the 60 minis they get in this product series.

When you think that the pool of races and classes is from both PHB and PHB2, you have to wonder what will be missing. Is there an off chance they have looked at EVERY existing mini for race/class/sex combinations and will NOT be including them in this series to provide those that are missing?

So only the newer race/class combinations get minis?

At least giving male packs and female packs or a split packs 2x2 then you get a better chance of getting what you could use.

I find the number of sit-ins wouldn't be a problem as they would just take what they are given or a character would be written for an existing mini. The problem is the long term players that may have a favorite character and get left out in the minis.



CharlesRyan said:


> I don't understand your logic here. Female gamers will have one-half the options that male gamers have. But they "have to buy" exactly as many packs of minis as male gamers: The one pack that contains their preferred mini for their character.




Also considering what I just said, if a player only plays female characters they pay $12 give or take on tax, for a single mini, and if they happen to have several characters to represent they have to buy a whole pack for each (if available) and still only get one mini for their effort.

Sure they could be traded one for one since they cost the same across the board, but the odds of trading for fixed minis is low as someone won't really need someone else;s spares as there wont be that many spares.

So making packs with three of each sex or split packs it offers both real world sexes, or PC sex choices better options.

This is the first time I have ever seen anything like this. White metal minis were in packs of males or females. When you had a mixed pack I always got one of each. Drow for example have one male and one female. While you could get a progressive pack of female mages from low, medium, and high level variants, same for a pack of males.

AD&D Blister Packs

So your 1 pack doesn't really fit as the Martial pack could have both types the male may play in one pack, while the female will need to buy both Martial packs to get what she wants. Female gamer/PC whatever.

If you only ever want 1 PC mini then yes everyone needs only buy the one pack.....IF that mini combination is made.

Why bother with specific minis for a race and class if you don't want the race and class you are going to play? This counts out people that don't care about the specific race and class, but come on...some people do care. You won't get the post you want unless you make it yourself or mod it, but the least that can be done is provide the combinations of races and classes in the PHB for each sex.

For those that missed the math the first time through.
PHB
8 races
8 classes
64 combinations

Sexes
2

64*2=128

18 minis per set in the Heroes series.
5 sets scheduled through 2010 (This isn't even soon for most of the sets.)

18*5=90

We don't even know what from PHB2 will get thrown into the mix, so this is all coming up very short to begin with.

I would be very curious to see what they deem worthy of playing and making a mini for for class/race/sex combinations, as it says anyone playing something else isn't playing the right ones. I don't like that attitude or the sexist one of the packs either.

Too bad they still don't have Linae around to correct them on that. hope she is working with those mice she mentioned the last post I read from her around here.

Yes. I am a mini collector and lover, and don't take kindly to people making offensive decisions with them that is sexist in nature.



[/rant]


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 22, 2008)

Reveille said:


> Monsters are still going to be randomized; $14.99.




Semi-random one is in a visible window remember, and no 'hero character' figures.

So old randomised. $14.99 for 8 mix of everything.

New, 3 heroes (+3 unique power cards) 10.99 + 5 monsters 14.99 semi random = 8 miniatures for $25.98 

*I make that over a 73% price increase. * 

Even if you were *only *interested in monsters.

8 monsters for 14.99 down to 5 monsters for 14.99 

*That's a 60% price increase.* 

I know they said none random would cost more but really (and these are still semi-random)?


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 22, 2008)

Qwillion said:


> Sweet I can finally buy what i want to buy, lol




I just can't afford it any more....


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 22, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> The monster packs are also more expensive, but not too much.




60% price rise is not too much?


----------



## avin (Oct 22, 2008)

Unless it goes like:
1 male race A class A
1 female race A class A
1 elminster / drizzt / entreri
per package...

Two heroes and one icon...


----------



## Nebulous (Oct 22, 2008)

I don't think this will change anything for me.  I'll still buy them on the secondary market after retailers open the boxes. Although i am glad the size of the sets are smaller.  60 models a set is a TON! Hopefully it means the quality of some will be higher.


----------



## avin (Oct 22, 2008)

I guess Ebay prices are gonna go upp, because retailers will be paying more for them...


----------



## xechnao (Oct 22, 2008)

CleverNickName said:


> This hobby has come a long way from just a couple of paperbacks, some dice, and a few sheets of graph paper, hasn't it?
> 
> just observing.




My observation: It is not just the hobby that drives itself ahead but it is mostly business.

Wotc will try to create a synthesis of trends or niches that help it exploit all possible market areas of geek fantasy territory in the most profitable way (today their model sells tomes, periodic subscriptions, miniature and card collections). So it seems they think or know this sort of combination is the most profitable one at the time being. The question I want to know the answer of is how much brand recognition is important as a factor in their model to work (not only for them but mostly for trends or niches relevant to the consumers).


----------



## Nebulous (Oct 22, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> The Unique PC card is to sweeten the deal: "Yeah, you might have a custom-painted Reaper Mini, but I got Battle Strike Tactics with mine."




But how many "unique" powers can they come up with that aren't going to be almost like something from a splatbook (or the core book?) There are only so many ways to make push/pull/slide/knock prone look original and cool. And i think they've reached the limit already.


----------



## DanChops (Oct 22, 2008)

justanobody said:


> 8 classes form the PHB.
> 8 races form the PHB.
> 2 sexes.




I think the focus on classes rather misses the point in this instance.  For me, a mini's usefulnes isn't determined by the class it's intended to represent, but rather by the equipment it's carrying.  For instance, a human fighter with heavy-ish armor, a weapon, and a shield could as easily represent a paladin.

While I understand (and to an extent, share) your conernces about the variety of minis available to represent any given character concept, I think I'll wait until I know what the minis will look like before deciding if WotC has done enough to represent a wide-enough variety of characters.


----------



## xechnao (Oct 22, 2008)

Waylander the Slayer said:


> Wasn't this what Erik Noah had heard as a rumor back in the day which everyone seemed to discredit at the time?




Sometimes I do not know whether to amaze myself with the apparent naiveness of some posts or with the possibility of some guerrilla marketing of the industry's leader around here. Or is it perhaps true that edition wars have made people a bit of fanatics?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 22, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Sometimes I do not know whether to amaze myself with the apparent naiveness of some posts or with the possibility of some guerrilla marketing of the industry's leader around here. Or is it perhaps true that edition wars have made people a bit of fanatics?




Fans or fanatics come first. Edition wars happen later


----------



## megamania (Oct 22, 2008)

First the economy then this....


Miniature collecting is coming to a fast end.    siiiigh.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 22, 2008)

DanChops said:


> I think the focus on classes rather misses the point in this instance.  For me, a mini's usefulnes isn't determined by the class it's intended to represent, but rather by the equipment it's carrying.  For instance, a human fighter with heavy-ish armor, a weapon, and a shield could as easily represent a paladin.
> 
> While I understand (and to an extent, share) your conernces about the variety of minis available to represent any given character concept, I think I'll wait until I know what the minis will look like before deciding if WotC has done enough to represent a wide-enough variety of characters.



The classes serve a guideline for what to design. I just did all 128 variations for the Fiery Dragon BattleBox. When a male Fighter got sword + shield, I gave the female a two-handed weapon, and tried to invert that with the Paladins, to cover not only a wide range of classes, but of builds as well.


----------



## darjr (Oct 22, 2008)

The last article about customizing star wars mini's has links to the 11 other articles.

The 12th article is at: Customizing Star Wars Minis 12


----------



## Stormtower (Oct 22, 2008)

Speaking as someone who was an early adopter of DDM, and has at least one of every mini from every set, I'm not pleased by this announcement at all.  My usual buying pattern for a new set is two sealed cases plus singles to fill in the missing ones off the secondary market.  I know that many DMs who primarily buy for RPG utilization have a similar purchasing pattern.

As others have pointed out, this new sales and distribution model carries a significant per-mini price increase which can only be echoed on the secondary market.  That's not good for virtual storefronts like Auggies (which makes me a sad panda), but it does give WotC/Hasbro more control over the market.  

There's another issue here, though.  As a DM, one might be initially pleased at the new semi-random distribution of the proposed MM sets.  Per Merric's Laws of Minis, paying more per mini for a greater likelihood of getting the exact minis one wants is a potential draw.  However, now consider the impact of 4E's emphasis on battles with multiple monsters... with only five monsters per pack, and less commons per purchase, DMs will need many more total purchases of the MM blister packs to achieve WYSIWYG results with minis on their battle maps.

Put another way... on Auggie's I can snag 25 or 30 common goblins or orcs or skellies for $.25 to $.50 per piece, and drop those minions all over my glorious 4E battle maps.  But with the new distribution, the price to get those same mass-numbered mobs of common minis goes up significantly, and this is coupled with an intentional in-game mechanical emphasis on more monsters per encounter.  I consider myself a free spender with DDM but even with my vast collection I find myself using proxies sometimes.  With the price increase and less total common minis floating around on the secondary market, I can't see how this helps new DMs starting in the hobby; nor can I see how this decision creates incentives for existing collectors to keep buying.

The CCG-esque quality of power cards included in the boosters is also an ominous sign for future marketing and sales patterns.  This is the first time I have considered weaning myself off DDM since Harbinger was announced in 2003.  I could be wrong, and this could be the start of something better and more empowering for those (like myself) who primarily buy DDM for the RPG side of things... but my gut tells me this is the beginning of the end for DDM.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Oct 22, 2008)

I think this is a big step forward when it comes to the minis, and I applaud the move. The price seems pretty fair too, so long as the quality improves over what we've seen in the last few sets. 

However, I completely LOATHE the idea of collectible powers now. 

Hopefully anything they do with "unique powers" will end up compiled in future sourcebooks, and not just in the online compendium. 

If D&D as an RPG gradually shifts more towards the "gotta catch 'em all" mentality I'll finally stop buying into new editions! (still not fully sold on 4E, although I'm giving it a fair shake for now)


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 22, 2008)

Lanefan said:


> *I so move the following; do I have a seconder?
> *Any DM in any situation including tournaments that bans a power* for the sole reason that the player doesn't have the original card shall forthwith burn their DMG in front of their players and resign from DMing.
> 
> * - banning a power because it's broken, or because it sucks, or because it doesn't fit the game, etc., is of course still in play.
> ...




I require players to have the power in print in some form if they want to use it at the table.  I don't care if it's on a power card, a printout from the Rules Compendium, or a homebrew power you made up yourself, but I do insist there be a printed reference to consult on the details of what the power does.  When players quote the details of a spell or power from memory (and I include myself in this, it's seldom intentional), limitations and drawbacks always seem to fall by the wayside, and the beneficial effects always seem to get a little better.

But demanding the original power card - yeah, that would be lame.


----------



## Mandor (Oct 22, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> You'll be getting 1 rare mini in 5, rather than 1 in 8.




True, yet completely misleading. I'll still be getting only 1 rare per $15. The big difference is I will be getting only 4 minis in addition to the rare where I used to get 7 minis in addition to the rare. 

As Stormtower pointed out, 4e has increased the number of monsters needed for encounters and the price per monster will increase starting next year. That's a bad combination.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 22, 2008)

Compendium or no, I see a house rule IMC where power have to be in a book or magazine to use.  Power cards in mini packs == distasteful.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 22, 2008)

Khaalis said:


> As an example, you could have a pack of say Eladrin and Elf Rangers.
> * 1 Elf Male Ranger
> * 1 Elf Female Ranger
> * 1 Eladrin Male Ranger
> * 1 Eladrin Female Ranger



Elves and eladrin are a bad example, since they can be made androgynous enough that the male/female split matters little.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 22, 2008)

Nebulous said:


> I don't think this will change anything for me.  I'll still buy them on the secondary market after retailers open the boxes. Although i am glad the size of the sets are smaller.  60 models a set is a TON! Hopefully it means the quality of some will be higher.



18 heroes + 40 monsters = 58 minis in the set. A bit less than 60, technically.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 22, 2008)

Drkfathr1 said:


> However, I completely LOATHE the idea of collectible powers now.



We have no indication that they *are* collectible, though. If the power cards are the same in each set of Martial Heroes 1, for example, they're not collectible because you know what you're getting. You're just paying a higher price per power compared to a splatbook, especially if you're not interested in the minis.

But if you're not interested in the minis and still want the powers there's DDI. I would be shocked if they didn't include these powers in the compendium.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 22, 2008)

Mandor said:


> The big difference is I will be getting only 4 minis in addition to the rare where I used to get 7 minis in addition to the rare.



Yep, that's the price we pay for reduced randomization.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Oct 22, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Yep, that's the price we pay for reduced randomization.




Plus, its important to point out that the price of raw goods probably has a bit to play in that too. I know oil prices have dropped, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that WotC has been carrying some of the added cost on their own for a while and has finally reached a point where they have to pass those increases on to the customer. 

I see it in my industry all the time. It's a double edged sword between nickel and dime increases constantly, or a larger increase all at once. You can't win either way.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 22, 2008)

Bagpuss said:


> 60% price rise is not too much?



Well, if the quality goes up... I have my stock of basic humanoids and things like that (orcs, kobolds, goblins, thugs and so on), so nowadays I usually only get the occasionally interesting uncommon or rare from the secondary market. The new packs will probably drive the common prices up more than the uncommon and rare prices, at least I hope so.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Oct 22, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> We have no indication that they *are* collectible, though. If the power cards are the same in each set of Martial Heroes 1, for example, they're not collectible because you know what you're getting. You're just paying a higher price per power compared to a splatbook, especially if you're not interested in the minis.
> 
> But if you're not interested in the minis and still want the powers there's DDI. I would be shocked if they didn't include these powers in the compendium.




It makes no difference if the powers are in the DDI or not. The point is that the rules for playing the game are effectively subscription based. Pay for the cards that have the powers with the minis or pay per month for access to those rules or both. No matter what, its a constant stream of revenue for Hasbro that doesn't suffer from the cyclical nature of book releases. Its a win-win.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 22, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> It makes no difference if the powers are in the DDI or not. The point is that the rules for playing the game are effectively subscription based. Pay for the cards that have the powers with the minis or pay per month for access to those rules or both. No matter what, its a constant stream of revenue for Hasbro that doesn't suffer from the cyclical nature of book releases. Its a win-win.



I agree. I was objecting to the use of the term "collectible", which implies blind boxes and randomized distribution.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 22, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> It makes no difference if the powers are in the DDI or not. The point is that the rules for playing the game are effectively subscription based. Pay for the cards that have the powers with the minis or pay per month for access to those rules or both. No matter what, its a constant stream of revenue for Hasbro that doesn't suffer from the cyclical nature of book releases. Its a win-win.




About as constant as the revenue from supplements. It's adding another potentially continually stream into it.

And I wonder how successful it can be - just because more products are out there to be bought doesn't mean you sell more - you need people that can buy it all. Maybe 4E market is indeed larger? Or are they cutting back in other areas? (Or are the minis in fact already "cut back" with fewer minis overall?)


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Oct 22, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I agree. I was objecting to the use of the term "collectible", which implies blind boxes and randomized distribution.




And we still don't know exactly how those power cards may be packaged, so they could still end up "collectible". So you may be objecting prematurely. 

As may we all. 

However, the monster packs, containing monster and stat cards, despite showing you 1 mini, will still be blind and randomized. Thus "collectible". Those monster stat cards will no doubt contain unique powers and unique monsters that may not show up in books. I don't care about the DDI, I'm not subscribing to it anyways.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> And I wonder how successful it can be - just because more products are out there to be bought doesn't mean you sell more - you need people that can buy it all.



Indeed. The point may not be increasing the revenue stream, but stabilizing it, making it less susceptible to ups and downs due to book publishing schedules.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Oct 22, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Now...um...D&D has some strong CCG similarities.
> 
> D&D Minis! Gotta catch 'em all!
> 
> Ew on a stick.




Careful, I was flamed and reprimanded for making that comparison just a few short months ago.

I must say, I feel somewhat vindicated after this news.


----------



## Commonblade (Oct 22, 2008)

All I want for Christmas is a box of Orcs. I don't even want new molds. Just a box of common orcs. 5 with Bows, 5 with Spears, 10 with swords, and 10 with Axes. After that, Human guards, thugs, scoundrels. Maybe a box of knights. A box of Goblins. A pack of Gnolls. Skeletons. 

Call it the DM Series. We should be able to get the cannon fodder cheaper. If they did this and then sold the "bosses" a little higher, I would be good. It wouldn't make any money probably. But, it would sure make me happier. As it stands, my group has about 30-40 minis from the first two sets. We make do with that.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 22, 2008)

Drkfathr1 said:


> However, the monster packs, containing monster and stat cards, despite showing you 1 mini, will still be blind and randomized. Thus "collectible". Those monster stat cards will no doubt contain unique powers and unique monsters that may not show up in books.



We were discussing the character power cards. And if the monsters are from the MM which is apparently the case, it seems unlikely they will have unique powers.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 22, 2008)

Commonblade said:


> All I want for Christmas is a box of Orcs. I don't even want new molds. Just a box of common orcs. 5 with Bows, 5 with Spears, 10 with swords, and 10 with Axes. After that, Human guards, thugs, scoundrels. Maybe a box of knights. A box of Goblins. A pack of Gnolls. Skeletons.



You can currently get this, for cheap, on the secondary market. The new distribution model increases secondary market prices, at least for the new sets.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Oct 22, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> We were discussing the character power cards. And if the monsters are from the MM which is apparently the case, it seems unlikely they will have unique powers.




Sorry, I was discussing all of it, not just the character power cards. 

I hope you are correct in saying that its unlikely they'll have anything unique in the monster packs, but I fear that will not be the case.


----------



## darjr (Oct 22, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> You can currently get this, for cheap, on the secondary market. The new distribution model increases secondary market prices, at least for the new sets.




Sombody sells those in a box, each set, or sets like it all in one go? I don't have to browse a whole catalog to pick out what I want? Sure, it isn't a huge deal to do the picking and choosing and browsing, but I would like to skip that.

Who does this? Link please? Please?


----------



## Knight Otu (Oct 22, 2008)

To supplement my earlier rant, I am a firm believer that a collectible card RPG _cannot_ work. D&D going that route would be its unambiguous* death of it as a roleplaying game. I'm sure that one could make a fun game out of something like that, no doubt, really, but it wouldn't be a roleplaying game (who really roleplays as a planeswalker in a game of Magic?). That's not even taking into account just how *risky* collectible games are. The vast majority of C*Gs fail for one reason or another, and Wizards should know that very well. If those hero packs prove a success, I would hope that Wizards has their market research primed on the why. Because even if the unique powers are a factor, doesn't mean that randomized unique powers gather the same enthusiasm.

*As opposed to the more ambiguous deaths with the release of 4th, 3.5, 3E, AD&D, etc.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 22, 2008)

Knight Otu said:


> *As opposed to the more ambiguous deaths with the release of 4th, 3.5, 3E, AD&D, etc.





I don't disagree - at least not until I've seen something that shows me how it can work. I am not interested in a collectible game.


----------



## greatamericanfolkher (Oct 22, 2008)

Semi-random is still random. After my seventh fiendish t-rex our of twelve boxes of GoL, I swore off random minis. The day WotC releases all of the minis in a set in a single box is the day I’ll buy D&D minis from them again.


----------



## stephengroy (Oct 22, 2008)

As someone who found the 3rd Ed Chainmail sometime around Underdark, it saddens me to consider losing organized skirmish 

play. 

The Phoenix area is fairly strong, and our regular events even draw folks from SoCal and Tx. 

I will continue t0 hold out for 2.0 cards for the as-yet unreleased sets, and know that no one really cares if I sub 

Chainmail minis in our regular games. Heck, I could sub old Grenadier or even a bottle cap, and no one would whine. 

New stat cards for the new packaging? Doubtful.
Chainmail legal for DDM 2.0? Not holding my breath.

Restats as promised? Fingers crossed. 

Many of the Demonweb figs look like leftovers from Dreamblade.

With the new Price Point, I cannot afford these.

Bye bye Feywild

_________________
Waiting for Chainmail Equivalencies since 2005


----------



## Nebulous (Oct 22, 2008)

greatamericanfolkher said:


> Semi-random is still random. After my seventh fiendish t-rex our of twelve boxes of GoL, I swore off random minis. The day WotC releases all of the minis in a set in a single box is the day I’ll buy D&D minis from them again.




Even then, to get the other nine goblin minions you want, you'd have to buy 9 more full sets!!!

I exaggerate of course, but you see what i mean. 

I quit buying the random boosters because i was getting a lot of multiples of crap i just flat didn't want.  I've gone secondary market ever since and not regretted it.


----------



## Boggs (Oct 22, 2008)

I think this is a good thing ... for me at least. I haven't played the actual mini game in a very long time. I do however collect the minis to use in D&D gaming. This move will make getting what I want or need a bit easier.


----------



## Aluvial (Oct 23, 2008)

Arrrgggghhhh!   More change!!!  I detest change!!!!   

Damn, I've already bought cases from a supplier for 2009...  How are they going to come?

Aluvial


----------



## justanobody (Oct 23, 2008)

DanChops said:


> I think the focus on classes rather misses the point in this instance.  For me, a mini's usefulnes isn't determined by the class it's intended to represent, but rather by the equipment it's carrying.  For instance, a human fighter with heavy-ish armor, a weapon, and a shield could as easily represent a paladin.
> 
> While I understand (and to an extent, share) your conernces about the variety of minis available to represent any given character concept, I think I'll wait until I know what the minis will look like before deciding if WotC has done enough to represent a wide-enough variety of characters.




Now this is something that has always dumbfounded me. The weapons are the last thing you will see proper combinations of for YOR character, unless you use just generic. set-ups.

Cleric's all get maces, rangers/bows, fighters/swords, etc.....

While race should be a no brainer, the class isn't too hard to represent either.

As long as yuu say there is a weapon usable by the class and the armor is correct, there is a look to most classes.

Take older editions where a cleric couldn't use bladed weapons. You didn't want a sword in the hand of your cleric mini, because new people couldn't just pick up and tell which was what, and the DM could even forget. Just like the minis games themselves the mini is WYSIWYG in a manner to let know what the thing is going to do. Monsters are probably smart enough to know as well for tactical reasons. Yeah it is metagaming to say the least, but when using minis over say M&Ms there is a reason to use the best class representation.

I remember old minis that had no weapons, and you just bought packs and plug in what you wanted into the hands.

With plastics this would be easier to do, but maybe no as easy to mold and package.

So the armor I agree with needing to look right, but there is give depending on feats, that is making the classes hard to detail which would represent which in 4th that translates to the minis as I looked it over during the day today.

It is going to be a tough call to see what it is, and will take a hands on look at them.

I seriously think the old class groups will come into play. Fighter looking, rogue looking, mage looking, and priest looking, will make the minis Heroes and probably provide enough minis to represent all class combinations.

Fighter #1 could be the paladin for the group, and fighter #2 could be the fighter. Females may get lucky in this as that they will not have to fight over which mini they get to use.

Seeing them will be important.

@ Star Wars minis customizing.

I love that Games workshop Citadel Colour laying there in supplies needed. That was the laugh I needed for the day considering Games Workshop master painters ('EAVY METAL) suggest using Reaper or Vallejo paints!


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Oct 23, 2008)

We have a sense of how common, uncommon, and rare minis differ, but what will the visible minis in the monster packs be like?  I'm optimistic that WotC will take the sensible route and make the visible face of the product attractive, closer to a rare than to a common.  I might not spend $15 for a rare and four other minis, but I would spend $15 for an iconic rare-quality monster, a random rare, and three other minis.  Why not make the visible minis dragons, beholders, and giants (the visible faces of the brand), and leave the rares to exotic monsters that are actually, you know, rare?


----------



## justanobody (Oct 23, 2008)

The visible minis will of course be common, because the rate at which you can get them is 100% per package bought. They are gauranteed like the wood elf ranger and orc mauler included in the starter set. They would be your ultra commons because everyone can instantly get all the heroes, unless they are made in a limited edition format, and that would defeat the purpose of non-random minis in order to allow people to purchase what they need as you would still have to try and rush out to buy them before they run out or go out of print. Meaning more popular hero packs will be harder to come buy creating a false rarity of them due to scarcity rather than an inteded rarity in the production.


----------



## darjr (Oct 23, 2008)

Wot?

I think he meant they should be of a quality as if they were very rare's.

I agree. They should.


----------



## doctorhook (Oct 23, 2008)

I like minis! I'm not sure how I feel about this, though. Not good, because the price has gone up per mini, but not bad, because I will likely spend less overall to get the minis I want.

Regardless, I'll be switching to tokens soon. (Printed pictures glued to wooden circles from the craft store.) I love minis, but it's just so expensive to get the ones I need! I spent nearly $100 buying all the minis I needed for KotS from the eBay secondary market, including shipping. Worse, other adventures I plan to run sometimes call for multiple large or out-of-print rares.

Hence tokens. Thanks to the abundance of free artwork, creating tokens of exactly the creatures I need will be super cheap. (A bag of wooden circles for backing is about $5.)

I'll probably still buy minis when I see ones I really like, not to mention for PCs, but it's too expensive to justify spending $50 or more dollars per adventure just representing the monsters your players encounter.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 23, 2008)

darjr said:


> Wot?
> 
> I think he meant they should be of a quality as if they were very rare's.
> 
> I agree. They should.




I don't think any mini should purposefully be any better or less quality than any other. Be they rare or common, they should be of equal quality sculpt and paint quality. Those are the standards that will make or break any miniature product.


----------



## darjr (Oct 23, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I don't think any mini should purposefully be any better or less quality than any other. Be they rare or common, they should be of equal quality sculpt and paint quality. Those are the standards that will make or break any miniature product.




Ah! This too I agree with!


----------



## MerricB (Oct 23, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I don't think any mini should purposefully be any better or less quality than any other. Be they rare or common, they should be of equal quality sculpt and paint quality. Those are the standards that will make or break any miniature product.




Unfortunately, DDM have proven you terribly wrong. People want _good enough_, not _perfect_. 

Do people who paint miniatures put the same effort into painting their PC as one of a hundred orcs? I rather doubt it!

Cheers!


----------



## justanobody (Oct 23, 2008)

MerricB said:


> Unfortunately, DDM have proven you terribly wrong. People want _good enough_, not _perfect_.
> 
> *Do people who paint miniatures put the same effort into painting their PC as one of a hundred orcs?* I rather doubt it!
> 
> Cheers!




Ask Temperance on coolminiornot.com (If he has been there since hired by WotC), or Peter Lee on forums.gleemax.com. Or ask him here on a thread.

I am sure he would tell you that painting minis is not for the purpose of speed, but to make them all look like what they represent.

Good enough for rare, and good enough for common, are both of equal quality, so the point still remains. PCs shouldn't be "perfect" and monsters just be "good enough". Likewise rare should not be "perfect" and everything else just "good enough".

That is what quality control is all about.

More often times or not, you find that most mini painters treat them all equally. Be that of poor quality, or better quality. The production line on the other hand may put more emphasis on one or the other for artificial reasons as only secondary markets would benefit from better painted rares, because the manufacturer has made its money once the item is sold to the distributor, and the distributor has made their money once the item has sold to the retailer. The retailer has made his money when the item has sold to the customer.

Only singles markets can gain from varying paint qualities, so why would WotC put any time, money, or effort, in making rares look better than commons or uncommons? 

Also to note of late it seems the paint quality and resulting sculpt from the molding process has not even yielded "good enough" minis.

So as long as the quality is the same across the board, then the product line will live or die by the average quality of the product.

(addendum: DMs may not even paint PC minis, so the quality of the PCs would not be of concern to them. The DM would put his effort in his avatars for the game which is everything else.)


----------



## hennebeck (Oct 23, 2008)

I like the comparison to subscription based and the horrors this will bring.
Seriously? Really?

Don't we already play a subscription-based game?
1 book every month for $30.

What? You just use the Core books?
What? You could do the same thing in the future and not worry about the collectible powers?

We already have a subscription-based hobby.
just like buying season tickets to the opera.
Or a Year membership at the Country Club.

Except, if we don't want to pay anymore, we don't have to AND we still get to play with what we have.

I'ld say that's a pretty good deal right there.


----------



## avin (Oct 23, 2008)

I wish Wotc could make more thematic packages, a bunch of goblins, skeletons... and get rid of skirmish for once. I wish they make minis for Creature Collection's monsters... =/


----------



## Nebulous (Oct 23, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> Hence tokens. Thanks to the abundance of free artwork, creating tokens of exactly the creatures I need will be super cheap. (A bag of wooden circles for backing is about $5.)
> 
> I'll probably still buy minis when I see ones I really like, not to mention for PCs, but it's too expensive to justify spending $50 or more dollars per adventure just representing the monsters your players encounter.




I find that tokens are great for minions, especially weird critters for which there are no miniature equivalents. I used tokens for kruthiks in a recent adventure, and i see that minis for kruthiks (two kinds) are coming out in the next set.  Pricewise, it's hardly worth it.


----------



## doctorhook (Oct 23, 2008)

Nebulous said:


> I find that tokens are great for minions, especially weird critters for which there are no miniature equivalents. I used tokens for kruthiks in a recent adventure, and i see that minis for kruthiks (two kinds) are coming out in the next set.  Pricewise, it's hardly worth it.



lol Ironically, Kruthiks are one of the few monsters I find cool enough to actually buy minis of. Granted, I already bought ten Kruthik Hatchlings (Deathknell).

I'll use my dragon minis when necessary, as well.


----------



## Tian Zi (Oct 23, 2008)

I play D&D, and have for about 20 years now.  Having prepainted plastic minis has been an absolute improvement to the game for my group.

In the last 3 years, I've been playing the Skirmish game.  It is a great competitive board game, and allows me to use the plastic minis I (and the group) were already buying.

As an RPGer, I am pretty ambivalent about the packaging change.  Perhaps my group buys more minis than others, perhaps we've just been buying long enough that we do not feel any particular shortage of any particular monster or PC.

As a Skirmisher, this change sounds very discouraging.  No more Limited/Sealed really hurts the casual player.  How this effects Constructed remains to be seen.

Clearly, the Skirmish side was not worth considering when they went with this change.  The announcement didn't even mention it!!  How rude  

The price of oil, and the desire to get into mass market stores like Wal-Mart seem like obvious motivators.  

I hope this helps WotC as a whole, because I do not see it helping RPGers anymore than the old packaging model...  Who does this satisfy?

DM:  I need 20 goblins.  Should I go to an online store and buy almost exactly what i want and have it shipped to me... or should I buy $15 boosters until I get what i want?

DM:  I run many encounters in many sessions.  I need a solid collection of minis to serve in as-yet-unanticipated combats, characters and campaign arcs.  Do I buy a bit of every set?  Or collections from online stores or individuals on eBay?

Player:  I need a mini for my PC.  Online store?  Hope my DM has one?  Buy $15 boosters till I get what i want?

I just don't get it from a DM, Players, or Skirmishers POV.  I see it as a reaction to Heroscape, WoW minis, oil prices, and a desire to get 4e into Wal-Mart.

Total buzzkill.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 23, 2008)

I'd find this to be very deeply upsetting and startling if I wasn't _laughing as hard as I am_ about it.

Several people saw this coming and were called out and attacked for it.  Vindication indeed.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 23, 2008)

Tian Zi said:


> I just don't get it from a DM, Players, or Skirmishers POV.  I see it as a reaction to Heroscape, WoW minis, oil prices, and *a desire to get 4e into Wal-Mart*.




Never going to happen. The books are too niche to carry in the book section for most stores, and there is no place in toy's/games section for books. Minis take up too much shelf space and sell too little for the overhead to carry them. Cards take up less space and have higher profits so are easy to carry a selection in some hidden place.

With the recent changes to Wal*mart store designs thee is going to be less space for things as the shelves themselves have been made shorter so they will be picking and choosing more of what they carry meaning less chance for 4e or DDM in them. You would have to live in a heavy gaming area in order to see these things, and most stores aren't in those areas for the Wal*mart warehouses to keep them in stock.


----------



## avin (Oct 23, 2008)

I was wondering again about the "visible" mini. How good will it be? Stores will be crowded with visible "wrackspawns"? o.0

They should get rid of random. And make some Arcanoloth already.

For people buying on Amazon it will be 100% random...


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 23, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I'd find this to be very deeply upsetting and startling if I wasn't _laughing as hard as I am_ about it.



Not sure why you're laughing. Many of the same people who complained about random distribution also claimed that WotC never listens to what the market "really" wants.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 23, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Never going to happen.




If by "never going to happen," you mean "this has already happened," then you are correct, as I purchased a set of 4e core books at Wal-Mart as a gift for my cousin's birthday this past weekend.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Oct 23, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I don't think any mini should purposefully be any better or less quality than any other. Be they rare or common, they should be of equal quality sculpt and paint quality. Those are the standards that will make or break any miniature product.



I also wish that every mini had the same quality as a rare, but it seems unlikely without a price increase.  We can only hope that the quality of future minis reflects the announced price increase.

In trying to predict the value of these future sets, the current starter set seems a much better piece of evidence than the current boosters.  The starter set contains three visible heroic figures (two male and one female) and two visible monsters.  Would you pay $11 for (three minis on par with) the dwarf battlemaster, human sellsword, and elf warlock?  (I probably wouldn't as a DM, but as a player I would if it matched the character I wanted to play.)  Would you pay $15 for (a mini on par with) the young green dragon, plus a random rare, uncommon, and couple of commons?  (I might, and definitely would if I needed a green dragon.)  I'm guessing that these starter set minis will be indicative of the quality we'll see in the visible minis next year, with the random rares, uncommons, and commons following along the current lines.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 23, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Minis take up too much shelf space and sell too little for the overhead to carry them.



Has WalMart stopped selling Heroscape? I honestly don't know.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 23, 2008)

Okay, now it's time to come back with the same question I ask whenever changes to the minis line come about: what's changed?

When we first had D&D minis come out, I was annoyed by the fact that in order to get my goblin warband I had to either buy off a secondary market or but half a dozen boxes and end up with four sets of flumphs.

At the time I was told it was "impossible" to make these kinds of packs. You simply couldn't make a profit doing prepaints that weren't random. So what changed?

--Steve


----------



## avin (Oct 23, 2008)

SteveC said:


> So what changed?




Less minis for more price. That changed.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Oct 23, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Not sure why you're laughing. Many of the same people who complained about random distribution also claimed that WotC never listens to what the market "really" wants.




It's the difference between 'the market' meaning 'gamers' and 'the market' meaning Adam Smith's invisible hand.  I don't doubt that WotC is listening to what the latter 'wants' (or what they think it wants), but I don't recall any gamer saying what they really wanted was to pony up cash sight-unseen for poorly-painted, overpriced bits of plastic.  Don't confuse not having a choice with being a preference.



The Little Raven said:


> If by "never going to happen," you mean "this has already happened," then you are correct, as I purchased a set of 4e core books at Wal-Mart as a gift for my cousin's birthday this past weekend.




Could be regional.  The last time I was in a Wal-Mart (granted, it's been a while), they had absolutely nothing even remotely close to gaming stuff.  Could also be seasonal, or a one-shot deal.  I would be rather surprised to see Walmart routinely dedicating shelf space to enough D&D stuff to make me consider them a reliable source as opposed to a 'what the heck, I'll look while I'm here' kinda thing.



SteveC said:


> Okay, now it's time to come back with the same question I ask whenever changes to the minis line come about: what's changed?
> 
> When we first had D&D minis come out, I was annoyed by the fact that in order to get my goblin warband I had to either buy off a secondary market or but half a dozen boxes and end up with four sets of flumphs.
> 
> ...




My understanding is that what made the random packs work was that brick-and-mortar stores only had to stock a single SKU.  So ordering was simple, inventory was simple, and they didn't have to deal with returns on unpopular fixed collections (or overproducing and having them sit in the warehouse). 

What remains to be seen is if there will still be a single SKU for the new packs of mostly-randoms, or if (for all intents and purposes) they will still be completely-randoms for the merchants.  In other words, will Bob Smith the FLGS owner order 10 of 'WotC Monster Warband' and receive 10 boxes with a different visible mini, or will he have to order 1 WotC Monster Warband w/Flumph, 1 WotC Monster Warband w/MindFlayer, etc.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 23, 2008)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> It's the difference between 'the market' meaning 'gamers' and 'the market' meaning Adam Smith's invisible hand.  I don't doubt that WotC is listening to what the latter 'wants' (or what they think it wants), but I don't recall any gamer saying what they really wanted was to pony up cash sight-unseen for poorly-painted, overpriced bits of plastic.  Don't confuse not having a choice with being a preference.



They apparently voted with their wallets, which resulted in what, 16 series of randomized minis? And as for overpriced, you know that the per-mini price goes *up* when randomization goes down, right? Case in point, the new D&D minis.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 23, 2008)

avin said:


> For people buying on Amazon it will be 100% random...




Score one for the FLGS ;-)


----------



## justanobody (Oct 23, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> If by "never going to happen," you mean "this has already happened," then you are correct, as I purchased a set of 4e core books at Wal-Mart as a gift for my cousin's birthday this past weekend.




And do you live in a heavy gaming area? Area there so many stores around for gaming that Wal*mart has a reason to compete with them in order to get people into Wal*mart to spend money on other things?

As I said, it would require a heavy gaming area for Wal*mart to carry them. Each Wal*mart has a regional manager that decides what goes in his/her group of stores based on the surrounding stores of the various types in the area. Those not having grocery do not bother with grocery prices, but those that do will try to compete with local grocers. Likewise those Wal*mart regions with heavy gaming related stores will likely have gaming materials in them.

Go ask your Wal*marts manager about it. Ask him for the number to the local market office.


Fifth Element said:


> Has WalMart stopped selling Heroscape? I honestly don't know.




Does anywhere still sell it? I haven't seen it in a while.

Of course checking the Wal*mart website does no good since it is only an online store and not connected in any way to local stores as it is a separate business entity. So what they have online has nothing to do with individual stores. There beta in-store item locator also is not even working if you try to use it. It has no data or fictitious/select locations data just to test to see if the function is useful.


----------



## El Mahdi (Oct 23, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Never going to happen. The books are too niche to carry in the book section for most stores, and there is no place in toy's/games section for books. Minis take up too much shelf space and sell too little for the overhead to carry them. Cards take up less space and have higher profits so are easy to carry a selection in some hidden place.
> 
> With the recent changes to Wal*mart store designs thee is going to be less space for things as the shelves themselves have been made shorter so they will be picking and choosing more of what they carry meaning less chance for 4e or DDM in them. You would have to live in a heavy gaming area in order to see these things, and most stores aren't in those areas for the Wal*mart warehouses to keep them in stock.




I don't think I'd say never. With the books, probably not, but that doesn't mean never. More than likely you'll probably only see them in bookstores (Books-a-Million, etc.), but again, never say never. As to DDM, they are already there. I've seen both D&D mini booster sets and a large amount of Star Wars minis (not the toys, actual Star Wars RPG mini booster sets). Perhaps you haven't seen them in the Wal*Marts you've been to, but I have seen them in ones I've frequented.

I also wouldn't say that it depends on a heavy gaming presence. I've seen this in four different places; Grand Rapids, Michigan - Valdosta, Georgia - Palm Beach, Florida - Orlando, Florida. Grand Rapids and Orlando could be considered your standard big cities, so it's reasonable they would carry them. However, Palm Beach has only one game/comic store for an area with about a 50 mile diameter - not exactly a gamer heavy area. Valdosta is even less gamer heavy. They lost there only RPG store to a CCG and Comics only store near the local college. Eventually an RPG store did surface to fill the niche but was located 10 miles north of the city outside a local military base, where there is a niche group. For a while there was no RPG store in Valdosta, other than buying books at the local Books-a-Million. Definitely not what I would call gamer heavy, and I've seen minis in every single one of those Wal*Marts.

I don't know about recent changes to Wal*Mart store designs (other than getting bigger), but I saw Star Wars minis just this week at a local Wal*Mart. I'm not sure where you get your information about what Wal*Mart is able to keep in their warehouses, but it seems that the fact I've actually seen them proves this wrong.

I've also seen them fairly regularly in Target.


Edit:  The Little Raven posted while I was typing so I didn't see where he said he'd actually bought the books in a Wal*Mart.  Personally I've never seen the books in a Wal*Mart, but I haven't actually looked for them either.  I usually don't look at the books in Wal*Mart, I'll go to one of the book chains instead.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 23, 2008)

justanobody said:


> And do you live in a heavy gaming area?




I dunno. I guess. I don't pay attention, since I don't actively recruit from the local community, just my friends. I'm sure another San Diego resident would be better suited to determine whether we're a "heavy gaming area."



> Area there so many stores around for gaming that Wal*mart has a reason to compete with them in order to get people into Wal*mart to spend money on other things?




I can think of two gaming stores in the city, Game Empire and Game Towne, compared with 6 Wal-Marts (one of which is a supercenter) within the area, three of which I know carry the 4e books.



> Likewise those Wal*mart regions with heavy gaming related stores will likely have gaming materials in them.




Wal-Mart wouldn't pay attention to local gaming stores, since they wouldn't have access to their sales numbers. They'd pay attention to things like major book chains like Borders (the one in my city sells 4e as well), which helps indicate how successful they might be in selling the product.

Moral of the story: Don't make blanket statements about how something will never happen, when it has already been happening since June.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Oct 23, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> They apparently voted with their wallets, which resulted in what, 16 series of randomized minis? And as for overpriced, you know that the per-mini price goes *up* when randomization goes down, right? Case in point, the new D&D minis.




Try addressing the arguments instead of spouting platitudes.  They bought what was offered; had WotC offered random and non-randoms at differing price points, you would have some empirical evidence of what gamers wanted and what they were willing to pay.  Given the substantial amount of secondary sales, I think it's pretty safe to say that there is a market for non-random that's being met, just not by WotC.  Or only indirectly by WotC, actually.

The increase price of non-random on the secondary market isn't a function of individual sales being non-random, it's a function of the *supply* being random and artificially constrained.  The price is high because the person selling it couldn't just order up a Donkey-Punching Frost Giant, he had to buy 30 boxes of random boosters before he got one.  And the supply is further constrained by the source supplier deliberately limiting certain figures to create scarcity and increase the sales of unwanted minis.

The only thing random packaging does from a supply standpoint is reduce inventory of unpopular figures.  But in this day and age, that's got to be relatively minor.   Market research for this kind of thing is relatively easy, and there's already doing it; I doubt very seriously they decide what minis to make and which are rares is decided by picking names from a hat.

The cost per-mini is relatively fixed regardless of the distribution mechanism, although there is some marginal increase in packaging costs; the price is a reflection of market forces.  The change from random to semi-random doesn't affect the production costs at all.  The price increase is likely a combination of rising costs and a belief that the consumer is willing to pay more for the semi-randoms than the truly randoms.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 23, 2008)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> Try addressing the arguments instead of spouting platitudes.



Sir! Yes sir!



Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> The cost per-mini is relatively fixed regardless of the distribution mechanism, although there is some marginal increase in packaging costs; the price is a reflection of market forces.



Not necessarily. With completely random distribution, you don't have to estimate what the demand is going to be for a particular mini, just the entire series of minis. The expected demand drives the production levels of each mini, and the production levels determine the cost of production.

You naturally have to be a bit more conservative when selling non-randomized minis, because you can more easily overshoot actual demand for a particular mini and wind up with unsold stock.

Being more conservative with some of the minis reduces the total number of minis produced, which reduces the number of minis over which you spread your fixed and semi-fixed costs, which increases the per-mini cost. This can explain why they will be charging more on a per-mini basis.

I can't say for sure if WotC will be producing less minis, but it wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 23, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> I dunno. I guess. I don't pay attention, since I don't actively recruit from the local community, just my friends. I'm sure another San Diego resident would be better suited to determine whether we're a "heavy gaming area."




I think San Diego would have much diversity in entertainment, and like the areas mentioned by the previous poster are places that are widely heard of so would carry the latest trendy whatevers. Well known places need to so when people visit they can attract all sorts of sales from customers.

Again the blanket statement was made about Wal*mart carrying 4th edition. So I was responding to that. Wal*mart won't ever carry it in all locations. Borders more than likely will, as well Barnes & Noble, etc.


----------



## Digital M@ (Oct 23, 2008)

The price increase is a large percentage, but not a lot of money.  Without getting political, the world banking community is in a lot of trouble and the amount of money companies can float each month is shrinking and it takes longer to get people to pay you.  Therefore companies have to realize more margin for their products and or services. 

IMO this will be good for the overall plastic mini market.  It takes some of the profits off of the secondary market (who act like scalpers) and bring it to the manufacturer who is spending money for R&D, production, etc. 

Companies like Reaper will be more successful, in bringing out their line as they will not have to be as worried about secondary market commons selling for $1 or less.  I think this will bring us more diversity and better quality product in the long run.


----------



## Vanuslux (Oct 23, 2008)

Digital M@ said:


> IMO this will be good for the overall plastic mini market.  It takes some of the profits off of the secondary market (who act like scalpers) and bring it to the manufacturer who is spending money for R&D, production, etc.




Ummm...you can't exactly pirate minis...the secondary market isn't paying WotC any less for the minis it sells than the retail market is.


----------



## El Mahdi (Oct 23, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I think San Diego would have much diversity in entertainment, *and like the areas mentioned by the previous poster are places that are widely heard of so would carry the latest trendy whatevers*. Well known places need to so when people visit they can attract all sorts of sales from customers. . .




Well, Grand Rapids, Orlando and Palm Beach, I'd agree that they are widely heard of. Valdosta, Georgia isn't. Valdosta only has a population of about 40,000+, with just a little over 100,000 in the entire county, with estimates of 25,000+ being military and retired military. Not exactly what I would call a hotbed of gamer saturation. It's also smack dab in the middle of the Bible-Belt. Also traditionally not a hotbed of gamer saturation.

By comparison, the Metro area of Grand Rapids has over 1.3 million. Also Grand Rapids isn't exactly a Wal*Mart city. They do have some, just a handfull I think, because Meijers is king (Grand Rapids is their hometown). Which I'm sure limits there warehouse space, as you mentioned, yet the minis are there (and I'd bet so are the books considering The Little Ravens experience). Grand Rapids has about 3 or 4 dedicated gaming/comics stores.

Up until about 3 years ago, Valdosta only had one Wal*Mart, and it wasn't a super center. They now have a supercenter but the other store is declining. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up closing it entirely (the new supercenter is only about 5 miles away). There are also no other competitors in Valdosta (no K-Mart, etc.), and yet they had the minis. I even used to buy my Pirates strategy card games there (and this was at the original store, not the new supercenter). The original store was well away from the interstate, negating it getting a lot of travel traffic (the new supercenter is right off of I-75). Also, Valdosta only has the one RPG store (and for a year or so didn't have any), and I'm pretty sure it's the only game store in the county (for RPGs anyways, there is a CCG/Comics store).

I'm not doubting that Wal*Marts near you don't carry it. I can't speak to that so I'll take your word, but for everywhere else I've been, your statement just doesn't hold up. An I'd be willing to bet others throughout the country could say the same as me.

Edit: Not saying that I've been everywhere (a sheer impossibility), but I've only just retired from the military, and I can say because of being in the military, I did travel around a bit.  Now I'm not saying I went looking for DDM minis in every city I've gone to, but I've seen them in a lot of varied places.  And not all of them metropolitan, gamer saturated areas.


----------



## El Mahdi (Oct 23, 2008)

Vanuslux said:


> Ummm...you can't exactly pirate minis...the secondary market isn't paying WotC any less for the minis it sells than the retail market is.




Actually, not that this is the issue, but D&D minis have been pirated. I read a story just this last year how a Japanese (I think) company got a hold of some DDM masters (or DDM die masters, I can't remember exactly) and started pirating them. I believe they were being sold on E-Bay. They would get reported and shutdown, only to pop up again as a different user.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 23, 2008)

How does this, as far as the monsters go, really change anything.  I mean it's still random, and commons (and probably uncommons) will still be cheaper to purchase en masse from secondary sellers than trying to buy enough boosters (from the one mini you get to see) to get the type of numbers and variety you pretty much need for 4e.  Though I guess the hero packs will certainly help as far as THE GREAT DRAGONBORN DROUGHT of 2008...



Fifth Element said:


> Not sure why you're laughing. Many of the same people who complained about random distribution also claimed that WotC never listens to what the market "really" wants.




The problem is it's coming so late.  I will readily admit I was one of those who complained when DDM first went up in price, but now that I order from secondary stores...I just can't see paying these prices for what still amounts to random minis.  In fact I think one of the reasosn DDM sales may be dying is that many roleplayers have collected enough minis that they buy very little now, or that many roleplayers who haven't went this route are actually looking for alternatives like counters, tokens,etc.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 23, 2008)

Imaro said:


> In fact I think one of the reasosn DDM sales may be dying is that many roleplayers have collected enough minis that they buy very little now, or that many roleplayers who haven't went this route are actually looking for alternatives like counters, tokens,etc.



I agree that likely has something to do with it. Goodness knows I have enough minis to last me a lifetime, though I do keep buying them in smaller and smaller amounts.


----------



## El Mahdi (Oct 23, 2008)

Imaro said:


> In fact I think one of the reasosn DDM sales may be dying is that many roleplayers have collected enough minis that they buy very little now, or that many roleplayers who haven't went this route are actually looking for alternatives like counters, tokens,etc.




Possibly.  Even I (a self professed minis addict) have started making my own cardstock counters for monsters in my games.  It just ends up being a lot less hassle.  I wouldn't say this is it for certain, but it could very well be a factor.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 23, 2008)

Commonblade said:


> All I want for Christmas is a box of Orcs. I don't even want new molds. Just a box of common orcs. 5 with Bows, 5 with Spears, 10 with swords, and 10 with Axes. After that, Human guards, thugs, scoundrels. Maybe a box of knights. A box of Goblins. A pack of Gnolls. Skeletons.
> 
> Call it the DM Series. We should be able to get the cannon fodder cheaper. If they did this and then sold the "bosses" a little higher, I would be good. It wouldn't make any money probably. But, it would sure make me happier. As it stands, my group has about 30-40 minis from the first two sets. We make do with that.




Dwarven Forge - Miniature Terrain maker of MasterMaze for Warhammer miniatures, Star Wars miniatures, D&D miniatures , Reaper miniatures, and Lord of the Rings Scenery :: Miniatures

Seems people talk the talk but don't want to walk the walk.


----------



## avin (Oct 23, 2008)

DDM is over:

"Hi there XXXXXX, 

Thank you for contacting Wizards of the Coast game support! 

Wizards of the Coast has chosen to concentrate its D&D miniatures-creation efforts on an accessory line optimized for D&D Roleplaying Game use. November’s release of Demonweb will be the last new set that includes skirmish statistics. We will continue to update all miniatures stats from previous sets to the current D&D Miniatures ruleset as promised, with the conclusion of that process scheduled for mid-2009. 

In addition, official sanctioning of D&D Miniatures skirmish events will cease right after D&D Experience in February. We hope to see skirmish play continue at the grassroots level, using the hundreds of miniatures produced for the game over the past six years and encouraged by the passionate fan sites that exist for the D&D Miniatures skirmish game. 

The skirmish game has many dedicated fans, and we appreciate the years of enthusiastic support that these players have shown to the line. Unfortunately, despite this enthusiasm, the number of skirmish players has been dropping steadily over the past couple of years. We had hoped that improvements implemented during 2007 and 2008 would change that trend, but they have not accomplished enough toward that end. At this point, we can no longer justify the design, development, and production resources required to support the skirmish game. 

This also means that the Feywild set that was announced for next year will not be released. We needed to make room for this new approach, and early 2009 is the best time for that to begin. However, many of the sculpts that were in the process of being created for Feywild will find homes in the new D&D Miniatures products, as appropriate, and with the increased quality levels we’ve established for the new line. 


Take Care and Good Gaming! "


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 23, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> Actually, not that this is the issue, but D&D minis have been pirated. I read a story just this last year how a Japanese (I think) company got a hold of some DDM masters (or DDM die masters, I can't remember exactly) and started pirating them. I believe they were being sold on E-Bay. They would get reported and shutdown, only to pop up again as a different user.




Happens to Games Workshop too with metal miniatures.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Oct 23, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Has WalMart stopped selling Heroscape? I honestly don't know.




Yep, they still carry it. I just picked up some Wave 8 packs last week.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 24, 2008)

avin said:


> "However, many of the sculpts that were in the process of being created for Feywild will find homes in the new D&D Miniatures products, as appropriate, and with the *increased quality levels we’ve established for the new line*."



That sounds good. Since we're paying higher prices it's nice to know all the minis will be of good quality, rather than "good enough" quality that many commons and uncommons were.


----------



## avin (Oct 24, 2008)

Here we go:

D&D Miniatures Changes Explained


----------



## Tian Zi (Oct 24, 2008)




----------



## Scott_Rouse (Oct 24, 2008)

avin said:


> DDM is over:
> 
> "Hi there XXXXXX,
> 
> ...




Sorry Avin, 

This was copy and paste from my article before it went live and was not meant to be a customer service response.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 24, 2008)

That link just makes me think that the line is going to die entirely.



> Where all this netted out was that there *was no silver bullet answer *that would slay the wolf at the door, so we were faced with two options: continue with the current model and eventually succumb to the wolf, or charge the wolf head on and score a critical hit. In the end we chose the later and here we are today






> In many ways both these efforts worked, but the "wolf of increasing costs" was still lurking at the door and the minis line continued to suffer. ... to changes to the randomized model including price increases and/or reduction of minis per pack.




So no silver bullet answer and they've reduced the minis per pack, kept the randomization (to a large point) and added another line with some RPG element potentially collectiblity factors.

Get 'em while you can.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 24, 2008)

Vanuslux said:


> Ummm...you can't exactly pirate minis...the secondary market isn't paying WotC any less for the minis it sells than the retail market is.



Every week I pass by a rock-n-roll store who sells, among other things, statuettes. Among them is a pirated Colossal Red Dragon made of resin. Someone got a hold of the CRD and made a mold out of it, fire and all.


----------



## El Mahdi (Oct 24, 2008)

I've spent considerable time overseas in numerous countries, and I can honestly say there is nothing that can't be, and probably hasn't been, pirated (not saying this is only limited to countries other than America).  Just walk through a market in South Korea or Turkey and it will be right there, staring you in the face.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 24, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> I've spent considerable time overseas in numerous countries, and I can honestly say there is nothing that can't be, and probably hasn't been, pirated (not saying this is only limited to countries other than America).  Just walk through a market in South Korea or Turkey and it will be right there, staring you in the face.




Boy George LPs and Levi's pants right?

I got a flashback of OotS earlier thinking about the minis when I read the "final" announcement.

Those lizardmen and everyone else might have had better luck with the new packaging. At least they would have known which booster packs to buy with the new ones.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 24, 2008)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> The cost per-mini is relatively fixed regardless of the distribution mechanism . . .




This is absolutely untrue. _Production_ cost may be fixed (or close to it), but there is an awful lot more that goes into the cost of a mini than production. In fact, production cost is probably well under half the overall cost; that's true for most consumer goods.

In the random-vs.-nonrandom scenario, the single biggest cost variable is the cost of unsold product. The cost of every unsold unit of product is a direct tax on the profitability of the item. In a randomization scheme, you only have to roll the dice on production numbers a few times a year. In this new scheme, WotC has to get the numbers right for each individual SKU--and it's more complicated, because the consumer response to each SKU might be different.

To account for this, WotC's product P&L _must_ include a cost for unsold product, and that means their costs go up.

[To further complicate things, it's not only WotC that has to deal with this. The distributors and retailers also face an increased inventory risk and an associated cost. So at the end of the chain, the price you pay reflects this increased inventory risk _three times over_! Merric's law rears its ugly head!]


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 24, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> In the random-vs.-nonrandom scenario, the single biggest cost variable is the cost of unsold product. The cost of every unsold unit of product is a direct tax on the profitability of the item. In a randomization scheme, you only have to roll the dice on production numbers a few times a year. In this new scheme, WotC has to get the numbers right for each individual SKU--and it's more complicated, because the consumer response to each SKU might be different.



This is precisely my point, expressed differently.


----------



## Cadfael_Corwith (Oct 24, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Has WalMart stopped selling Heroscape? I honestly don't know.




Walmart continues to sell Heroscape, but has changed just what they will actually put on the shelves (Master set & small expansions are in, large expansions are out).  FLGS are carrying HS now and the ones I've visited have been happy with the sales.

Target & TRU have dropped Heroscape altogether.  

From what the HS community heard, wave 8 sold better than expected.  I wonder what it means that DDM is ceasing as a stand-alone game to HS?  Could it be that HS is now the preferred miniatures game at WotC?


----------



## MerricB (Oct 24, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> [To further complicate things, it's not only WotC that has to deal with this. The distributors and retailers also face an increased inventory risk and an associated cost. So at the end of the chain, the price you pay reflects this increased inventory risk _three times over_! Merric's law rears its ugly head!]




From what I've heard of the suggested distribution scheme, it's really, really problematic: not only will there be cases of the random boosters (so, one of each of the fixed figures), but the individual boosters will have their own SKU #s: One for the trolls, one for the ogres, etc. You can buy a case of Troll boosters (each has a troll + four randoms).

Working out the numbers of the _eight or nine_ SKUs this creates? Total and absolute nightmare for Wizards, distributors and retailers. This could go badly wrong.

As a consumer, I like the idea, but I'm not the one left holding ten cases of Dire Flumphs that someone thought was a good idea at the time...

Cheers!


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 24, 2008)

According to responses from the former lead for HS in WotC, Target and TRUs tried to hold them (my words here) over a barrel to keep carrying heroscape, so WotC pulled it from those stores.

WalMart carries some HS still, but isn't as nimble as a LGS. WotC believes only the LGS will really be able to get you the HS product you want, when you want it.

However, as Charles reminds us, this comes with unsold product risk. I don't know about you, but every time I walk into an LGS I see thousands of dollars of illiquid assets on the shelves. I have no idea how these small business owners can afford to have walls of dusty minis, old books, and old games and still maintain reasonable cash flow.

Hate it or not, random minis relieved a great deal of this pressure. This new line opens up the presssure.

That said, there are a lot more players than DMs. Perhaps packaging items aimed at this larger audience will save the line.


----------



## Cadfael_Corwith (Oct 24, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> In the random-vs.-nonrandom scenario, the single biggest cost variable is the cost of unsold product. The cost of every unsold unit of product is a direct tax on the profitability of the item. In a randomization scheme, you only have to roll the dice on production numbers a few times a year. In this new scheme, WotC has to get the numbers right for each individual SKU--and it's more complicated, because the consumer response to each SKU might be different.




Heroscape has suffered from this exact problem.  Wave 5 had the Nakitas which sold like crud.  Because these products didn't sell, big box stores wouldn't reorder more product.  The glut is only now clearing out and it's been 18 months since their introduction.  In the meantime, Target and TRU dropped heroscape

Another issue that hit HS was the unique vs. common in packaging.  As the story goes, someone decided to ship two unique sets for every one common set.  Again, this caused massive overstock problems with the retailers.  It seems to have been fixed, but it took 3 years to fix it.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 24, 2008)

MerricB said:


> From what I've heard of the suggested distribution scheme, it's really, really problematic: not only will there be cases of the random boosters (so, one of each of the fixed figures), but the individual boosters will have their own SKU #s: One for the trolls, one for the ogres, etc. You can buy a case of Troll boosters (each has a troll + four randoms).
> 
> Working out the numbers of the _eight or nine_ SKUs this creates? Total and absolute nightmare for Wizards, distributors and retailers. This could go badly wrong.




Of course, the D&D RPG line manages to be viable with 25-30 RPG SKUs per year, and it's hardly unique in the game business. A DDM plan that generates a lot of SKUs (within reason) may still be plenty viable. It's just that the more the SKU count rises, the greater the cost of inventory risk. And the higher the price tag on those minis.

And, as an ancillary concern, the greater the risk that retailers won't stock the full line (or won't stock it in depth), making it hard to find the minis you want.


----------



## Digital M@ (Oct 25, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> This is absolutely untrue. _Production_ cost may be fixed (or close to it), but there is an awful lot more that goes into the cost of a mini than production. In fact, production cost is probably well under half the overall cost; that's true for most consumer goods.
> 
> In the random-vs.-nonrandom scenario, the single biggest cost variable is the cost of unsold product. The cost of every unsold unit of product is a direct tax on the profitability of the item. In a randomization scheme, you only have to roll the dice on production numbers a few times a year. In this new scheme, WotC has to get the numbers right for each individual SKU--and it's more complicated, because the consumer response to each SKU might be different.
> 
> ...





Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner.  Now add this to the fact that you have to order product in 20' or 40' containers from China and it makes it next to impossible to fine tune inventories so the risks of unsold SKUs and not having enough of high selling SKUs is even higher


----------



## justanobody (Oct 25, 2008)

I still think the minis should be made locally and avoid the entire ship from China aspect.

I would really be interested in the exact numbers of why China is cheaper with shipping costs by boat or plain.

Are more minis being shipped to Australia than North America, or do more minis stay local to China than ship?


----------



## Dire Bare (Oct 25, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I still think the minis should be made locally and avoid the entire ship from China aspect.
> 
> I would really be interested in the exact numbers of why China is cheaper with shipping costs by boat or plain.
> 
> Are more minis being shipped to Australia than North America, or do more minis stay local to China than ship?



While I would love bringing more manufacturing back to the good old USA, there is a reason why everything is made in China.  It's just flat out cheaper, despite the need to ship product.

Made in USA for D&D Minis (and practically everything else) would only increase costs significantly further.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 25, 2008)

Dire Bare said:


> While I would love bringing more manufacturing back to the good old USA, there is a reason why everything is made in China.  It's just flat out cheaper, despite the need to ship product.
> 
> Made in USA for D&D Minis (and practically everything else) would only increase costs significantly further.




Is it something only China has access to? The materials are only found there?


----------



## darjr (Oct 25, 2008)

Printing in 3D in sufficient detail, and with several color plastics, is just around the corner...

Well, we'll see it in my life time, I hope.

We'll see it in my life time, I think, because the usefulness of 3D printing of this type is high.

but I'd bet on much sooner rather than later.


----------



## El Mahdi (Oct 25, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Boy George LPs and Levi's pants right?




Yup, and _The Village People_ DVD videos collections.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 25, 2008)

darjr said:


> Printing in 3D in sufficient detail, and with several color plastics, is just around the corner...
> 
> Well, we'll see it in my life time, I hope.
> 
> ...




Then you just order your vmini from DDI, and print it out at home and don't even bother with random anything anymore!

Shipping cost, removed
Mold making costs, removed
Painting costs, removed
Molding costs, removed.

I would be looking at about 10 cents per ANY mini at that time as all material costs would be for me to supply in my own printer.

Even allowing for custom paint jobs by altering the plastic flour and glues used to make the mini to swap colors out.

So when you print your PC from Character Visualizer, you REALLY print your PC out!



El Mahdi said:


> Yup, and _The Village People_ DVD videos collections.




YMCA!


----------



## darjr (Oct 25, 2008)

justanobody said:


> *snark*






I should have stated that I was talking about 'industrial' printing.

But I do think personal 3D printers are on their way.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 25, 2008)

darjr said:


> I should have stated that I was talking about 'industrial' printing.
> 
> But I do think personal 3D printers are on their way.




I was being 1000% serious. I cannot wait for the day 3D printers are affordable for home use. Of course it would make IP/copyright lawyers have heart attacks when they are attached to existing 3D scanners, but oh well!

Need a replacement part for something then just print/scan it off!

Labour costs for things would skyrocket but parts cost may come down quite a bit!

And think what would happen to gas prices when less shipping is needed for things, and then food prices soon to follow!

The day gas prices are once again lower than their octane rating I hope to see in my lifetime, unless we can finally convert to electric/other before then!


----------



## darjr (Oct 25, 2008)

Ah, I can't wait either.

....

Scott? I really like the changes to the miniatures. I've bought quite a few. Recently I have not been happy with the quality and have not bought nearly as many. I will buy more new mini's under this plan.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 25, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Is it something only China has access to? The materials are only found there?




I'm thinking cheaper labor might have something to do with it....


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Oct 25, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Is it something only China has access to? The materials are only found there?




It's all about labour costs. You can pay someone in China a couple bucks (if that) a day vs. 10 times that amount in North America. Plus, painting minis is labour intensive so labour costs probably represent a higher than average cost.

When you're shipping tens of thousands of units at a time, the shipping costs are acceptable.

Bottom line? It's just not economical to make them in North America. Nor should North Americans want to be employed performing highly *unskilled *labour. Better to train up to be *skilled *labour at high(er) paying jobs.


----------



## Vrecknidj (Oct 25, 2008)

*Saving the DDM Skirmish Game*



avin said:


> DDM is over:



I don't think it is.  There's quite a bit of fight left in the DDM players.  On Hordelings, Maxminis, and the WotC forums you'll find quite a robust discussion of how the skirmishers intend to reincarnate the game.

Guilds, donations, player tracking and rankings, tournament play including championships, it's all there.

Several of the people are themselves freelancers working on the restatting of the cards from Harbinger forward, so, they have at least a little bit of inside access.

Eventually, I can see WotC giving just enough permission for an official (not WotC official, but official nonetheless) guild to have rights to produce skirmish stats for the miniatures that will be released with the new packaging.  Even Limited play may survive.

A tough bunch, those skirmishers.



Dave


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Oct 25, 2008)

darjr said:


> Printing in 3D in sufficient detail, and with several color plastics, is just around the corner...
> 
> Well, we'll see it in my life time, I hope.
> 
> ...




This is interesting. Tell us more...


----------



## Henry (Oct 25, 2008)

Ogrork the Mighty said:


> This is interesting. Tell us more...




Just a minute of googling brought me this...
Shapeways: 3D Printing for the Masses, Contest at BlenderNation

Researchers have been playing with this for upwards of 10 or 12 years now, and cost and use have been prohibiting factors, but the idea that you can have a local manufacutring facility of only a couple thousand square feet or less, spread all across the world, producing specialty widgets that people pay good money to have shipped to them right now, like plastic machine parts or such, is a dream a lot of people have been pursuing. Ultimate dream: take a CAD computer, a printer, and a 50-gallon drum of "liquid-to-solid magic" plastic, and BAM! you've got a machine shop.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 25, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> I'm thinking *cheaper labor* might have something to do with it....






Ogrork the Mighty said:


> It's all about labour costs. You can pay someone in China *a couple bucks* (if that) *a day* vs. 10 times that amount in North America. Plus, painting minis is labour intensive so labour costs probably represent a higher than average cost.
> 
> When you're shipping tens of thousands of units at a time, the shipping costs are acceptable.
> 
> Bottom line? It's just not economical to make them in North America. Nor should North Americans want to be employed performing highly unskilled labour. Better to train up to be skilled labour at high(er) paying jobs.




That's just disgusting!


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 25, 2008)

justanobody said:


> That's just disgusting!



Getting a bit close to politics here. Such discussions tend to get into politics even if they start out as economics.


----------



## Leatherhead (Oct 25, 2008)

Well this thread has gone places.

I will say that focusing on getting pc characters out there is a step in the right direction. In my experience, it really helps to draw people in when you can give them mini of their character that more or less resembles their character. However, 18 is kind of a small number to start out with considering all the different race class combinations. At the minimum, I still want to get at least 8 minis of each race in the phbs; A male and female mini of a heavy armor melee, light armor melee, caster, and ranged weapon user. I figure those can more or less cover every class I currently know about, but that number might go up if WotC starts to push a bunch of unarmored classes or one of the new power sources has a specific trait not covered in those generalizations.

I have a small collection of the more common humanoids (humans, elves, and dwarves) I can draw from. In a pinch, some elves work for eladrin and half-elves, a few humans could work for half-elves as well. So I am just missing a bunch of female characters, halflings, and the newer races at this point.


----------



## darjr (Oct 26, 2008)

3D color printing.

Wikipedia's article has more info. 

I've heard that there is a store in Akibara that will do 3D printing on demand. Large and crude, good for nothing other than a novelty, not to mention D&D mini's. But it's another start.

Color 3D printing is a factor in some of the technologies.

I think the demand for this will rise and make, first industrial, then at home, affordable 3D color printing technologies good enough for D&D mini's, inevitable.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 26, 2008)

I like everything about this except the price. I know why it's increasing, but we'll see if they can retain me as a customer. The key factor is, I think, whether the minis are useful enough to warrant purchasing. I.e. no weird ones that never see play.


----------



## Uzzy (Oct 26, 2008)

I've never played the Minis game, never used Minis and don't even play 4th Edition, but this change does appeal to me. While the power cards and dungeon delve stats would be useless, a big mass of monsters are nice. I just hope they box them by monster type, so we get a box of orcs, a box of goblins, a box of generic human thugs etc.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Oct 26, 2008)

Wow, I didn't think I'd have anything to contribute to this thread!  

While I don't work with polymers directly, several people in my (academic) department do, and we actually have a pretty famous polymer guy on staff.  One of the things that is being looked into is 3D printing, and I've had opportunity to talk with a lot of researchers on the topic.

3D Printing is pretty easy to buy into - the positioning systems are relatively inexpensive, even for high-"resolution" ones.  Honestly, I don't think you'd need quite the same resolution on a mini as you would for some of the aspects they're being utilized for.

The biggest hurdle for 3D printing would be the sheer numbers of inputs you would have.  I'm thinking it would probably be easier to do one nozzle per color.  Computers can handle multiple inputs pretty easily, but the increased number of inputs becomes a bear to manage; especially on the supply line.  Most stuff I've heard about or read only uses a couple of inputs.

On the other hand, is this really economically feasible?  My gut instinct is to say not particularly.  It's much faster to injection mold miniatures in a base color, and have them painted by hand factory-style.  3D-printing is pretty slow, relative to injection molding.  You can't (that I know of) simply paint with 3D-printing; the process requires it to be built up in layers.

I think 3D-printing, for the time being, would just raise prices.


----------



## darjr (Oct 26, 2008)

LightPhoenix said:


> I think 3D-printing, for the time being, would just raise prices.




Well yea, I just don't think it's in the flying car realm, and thanks for that.

I'm not sure the price is that big a deal or me. Sure I wish they were cheaper, but I think I'd want higher quality for my buck at this point. And something more focused for my use, the rpg.


----------



## SavageRobby (Oct 27, 2008)

Well, this is the nail in the coffin for me, not that I was all that far away anyways. The paint job quality has steadily retarded the last two years (Oh  joy - new promises of increased QC? Been there, done that.), the recent selection has been questionable, the prices keep going up as the quality goes down, and I despise the folks running the (dis)organized play. The last set was the first one I didn't collect at least two full sets of (no full sets, in fact), and I don't think I could name a single mini in the upcoming set, and haven't looked for any spoilers for it.

So, what are we getting now? Higher cost per mini for ... what exactly? Most folks could already get any mini easily enough from secondary sources. Increased quality? Well, I'll believe that when I see it (having seen similar previous claims).


RIP, DDM. It was a ton of fun, and a great ride ... for a little while.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 27, 2008)

A lot of people are unhappy about the price increase, but I wonder if they're really paying attention to what things cost these days.

I generally use prepainted plastic minis (mostly D&D minis), but I paint metal minis as needed for specific PCs, NPCs, and monsters for which I want something special or can't get what I need from DDM.

This year I took a shopping list of half a dozen or so items to Gen Con. Most decent-quality, unpainted metal minis cost me at least $5 each; some were $10 or even more. Unpainted. Single minis.

Prices go up. Nothing costs the same as it did five or ten years ago. These new DDM prices may be more per mini (I suspect they're actually a better deal for most of us, on the basis of how much we're paying _per mini that we actually want_, but that's a separate issue), but they're still a pretty good deal in the grand scheme of minis pricing.


----------



## Nebulous (Oct 27, 2008)

I buy just from the secondary market after being disappointed several times by the random case approach (i do not need four fiendish huge spiders). I'm wondering if the higher price but significantly fewer minis per set will mean that i end up paying about the same thing when buying in bulk?


----------



## mac1504 (Oct 27, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> A lot of people are unhappy about the price increase, but I wonder if they're really paying attention to what things cost these days.
> 
> I generally use prepainted plastic minis (mostly D&D minis), but I paint metal minis as needed for specific PCs, NPCs, and monsters for which I want something special or can't get what I need from DDM.
> 
> ...




Agreed. The cost of the lead free alloys that are used by most metal-mini manufacturing companies has been steadily going up in the last few years. It's obviously a concern when companies like Reaper are going back to lead-based pewters (P-65 line), which will lower their costs but there's the obvious health concerns with doing that.


----------



## El Mahdi (Oct 27, 2008)

mac1504 said:


> Agreed. The cost of the lead free alloys that are used by most metal-mini manufacturing companies has been steadily going up in the last few years. It's obviously a concern when companies like Reaper are going back to lead-based pewters (P-65 line), which will lower their costs but there's the obvious health concerns with doing that.




Just don't lick the minis.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 28, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> A lot of people are unhappy about the price increase, but I wonder if they're really paying attention to what things cost these days.




Maybe they are paying attention to the prices of everything else and coming to the conclusion that it is stupid and greedy for all parties, and not just WotC in regards to minis, but gas prices, nilk prices, etc while rich people just got 700 billion dollars in order to keep their businesses alive and these people keep making millions per year while the average American cannot afford to live. So having something to give a little bit of enjoyment in a 'ed up economy jump in price to be unattainable and the the consumer be blamed for not buying it as the reason for changes and price increases by companies that don't realize how bad off the majority of Americans are is like spitting in someone's face.

But it is ok for those people making 6 digit salaries to complain their new gas guzzling sports car substitue for genitalia size costs half a yearly salary, while most people can't even afford gas to drive to work in a much more economical form of transportation.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Oct 28, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> Just don't lick the minis.




But they taste so good.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 28, 2008)

justanobody said:


> ...while rich people just got 700 billion dollars in order to keep their businesses alive and these people keep making millions per year while the average American cannot afford to live.





Folks,

Please drop this line of the conversation.  We've got rules against real-world political discussion around here for good reason.  Please do not give us any further reason to enforce them.  Thank you.


----------

