I think that, as a miniatures gamer, I've always enjoyed the painting aspect as part of the hobby. Growing up we always had a big love of "showing off" our latest character in metal! Also, no matter how craptastic the paint job, we always had a lot more appreciation for "I made this" than some of the rubber crap we've seen lately.

Yup.

Painted minis its no contest in comparison vs the prepainted WOTC crap.

You'll gte more for your money buying them, but ultimately I'll have what I want, when I want, How I want, and they'll look much better.

For our group now, I've slowly gotten everyone their own painted character and fill in the gaps for the DM for stuff WOTC just isnt making(its a Ptolus game). Its not contest when the party is lined up on the board for marching order it looks sweet....and the prepainted wotc character thats left looks so bad in comparison....

Of course it is. They wouldn't be doing it otherwise. In fact, you went on to offer an explanation why such a move was necessary to help save the product line.

In a sense, they cannot save the product line; if you define the product line as "DDM - a collectible tactical minis wargame". They have directly said they are cancelling that product line.

That means t is whether or not the changes will be enough to save minis as a viable product line for WotC, as an addition to its RPG, CCG, novel, and digital product lines. (Not counting Avalon Hill as "really" part of WotC.)

And so the question is, will semi-randomized, pre-painted, plastic minis with product specific names and support material be able to compete with unpainted, non-randomized, minis?
Also, will releasing product expansion material with the D&D minis upset core customers?

Also, will releasing product expansion material with the D&D minis upset core customers?

Of course, the answer is a resounding YES.

I wouldn't make a fuss if there were one or two things about their marketing that alienates customers. What irritates me (and truly makes me worry about the future of the game) is a near-total disregard for customers' sensibilities -- if WotC doesn't upset you with this week's announcements, then next week's will probably do it.

Of course, the answer is a resounding YES.

Just because they promised new rules material would only appear in certain products is no reason to get upset when they go against that.

I wouldn't make a fuss if there were one or two things about their marketing that alienates customers. What irritates me (and truly makes me worry about the future of the game) is a near-total disregard for customers' sensibilities -- if WotC doesn't upset you with this week's announcements, then next week's will probably do it.

That is why I keep reading them, to see where they go next.

crosswiredmind wrote:

The price increase is not necessarily to save the line...

Of course it is. They wouldn't be doing it otherwise. In fact, you went on to offer an explanation why such a move was necessary to help save the product line.

I think you misunderstood. There is a difference between a price increase to match a cost increase and maintain a margin, and a price increase to increase a margin because of flagging sales.

WotC was being accused of the latter when I believe it is actually the former.

I wonder if the pricing issues might not have something to do with the fact that earlier this year oil skyrocketed in price. Plastic is a petroleum product. I know the price has come back down, but that would mean that the profit margins for a while were a lot thinner.

I wonder if the pricing issues might not have something to do with the fact that earlier this year oil skyrocketed in price. Plastic is a petroleum product. I know the price has come back down, but that would mean that the profit margins for a while were a lot thinner.

It should have, price increases in oil effected everything made with oil or transported to its destination market by oil. The price of shopping bags (you know the ones you get at Wal-Mart etc.) increased significantly for example.

And so the question is, will semi-randomized, pre-painted, plastic minis with product specific names and support material be able to compete with unpainted, non-randomized, minis?
Also, will releasing product expansion material with the D&D minis upset core customers?

WotC made the last step and made D&D itself a CCG.

"Hey, anybody pick up the new PHB pack? I've got this awesome new Barbarian daily that totally rocks."

It actually makes me a little sad.

I wonder if the pricing issues might not have something to do with the fact that earlier this year oil skyrocketed in price. Plastic is a petroleum product. I know the price has come back down, but that would mean that the profit margins for a while were a lot thinner.

I can guarentee you that's the major element in this case. I know that skyrocketing oil prices lower the profitability for books, so I can only imagine that it's as bad or worse for minis, especially since they take up more space than books and thus need more gas to transport to distributors and stores.

By selling miniatures in randomly selected packs, Wizards of the Coast was able to regulate the frequency of each mini to guarantee that most packs had several cheaply-produced figures and only one or two that required more attention to detail. That's why generic drow were commonplace while Elminster was rare: People would readily notice bad paint jobs on "PC-type" figures.

Allowing customers a choice of which miniatures they prefer reduces their control: Wizards has to plan for increased demand for more elaborate (and thus, expensive to produce) miniatures. Since customers have proven they're willing to pay such amounts, Wizards will charge what seems to be the "going rate" for non-random figures.

I think you misunderstood. There is a difference between a price increase to match a cost increase and maintain a margin, and a price increase to increase a margin because of flagging sales...

You're right, I did misunderstand. Sorry :)

WotC made the last step and made D&D itself a CCG... "Hey, anybody pick up the new PHB pack? I've got this awesome new Barbarian daily that totally rocks."

OMG -- you're right :(

I suppose it was inevitable. CCGs surely offer a better profit margin than anything else WotC makes.

Jal Dorak wrote:

WotC made the last step and made D&D itself a CCG... "Hey, anybody pick up the new PHB pack? I've got this awesome new Barbarian daily that totally rocks."

OMG -- you're right :(

I suppose it was inevitable. CCGs surely offer a better profit margin than anything else WotC makes.

The heart of a CCG is the randomized nature of the cards with which the game is played. Non-randomized power cards are a long ways away from that.

(If all a game needed was cards to make it a CCG, the spell/magic item decks I have for 2E qualify it for the title as well ...)

Also, wow this place seems to have changed since I was last here. Seems like more moderator options.

Edit: Wow, not while. Duh.

The heart of a CCG is the randomized nature of the cards with which the game is played. Non-randomized power cards are a long ways away from that.

(If all a game needed was cards to make it a CCG, the spell/magic item decks I have for 2E qualify it for the title as well ...)

Also, wow this place seems to have changed since I was last here. Seems like more moderator options.

Edit: Wow, not while. Duh.

Not to split straws, but aren't the random cards the heart of a Collectable Trading-Card game? Where you frequently need to trade to complete the set? I was just making an observation about getting a complete game through non-game sources. It's like putting game rules in Happy Meals.

And did you buy those spell/item decks as a set, or were you forced to get the cards one a time?

These things aren't random (I assume from the description), but it is still parceling out the game rules. Sure, D&D has always had a collector element to it - collecting the rulebooks is a huge factor for some people. But putting unique rules in discrete chunks is not fair to those who do not have the resources to make such purchases frequently.

I'm not saying I like the idea, but I'm reading the original release a little differently. In other words, I'm reading that there are three unique powers on cards in Martial Heroes I, and three unique powers on cards in Martial Heroes II, etc.

In other words, its not really randomized. Martial Heroes I will always have Power A, B, and C in it, and Martial Heroes II will always have Power D, E, and F in it.

I may be reading it wrong though.

Not to split straws, but aren't the random cards the heart of a Collectable Trading-Card game? Where you frequently need to trade to complete the set? I was just making an observation about getting a complete game through non-game sources. It's like putting game rules in Happy Meals.

And did you buy those spell/item decks as a set, or were you forced to get the cards one a time?

These things aren't random (I assume from the description), but it is still parceling out the game rules. Sure, D&D has always had a collector element to it - collecting the rulebooks is a huge factor for some people. But putting unique rules in discrete chunks is not fair to those who do not have the resources to make such purchases frequently.

Hmm. Perhaps. I always assumed the Collectible part of the CCG acronym implied randomization of the cards within the set. Are there CCGs that do not involve random playing cards?

The spell/item decks were sold as full sets, although I think at least one of them later had a second set released (not 100% on that though ...)

Also, the powers included with the minis will show up in the Compendium, so it isn't like you HAVE to buy the minis to get the powers. Someone with a DDI sub could gain access to them and never have to touch the minis if they didn't want to.

I'm not saying I like the idea, but I'm reading the original release a little differently. In other words, I'm reading that there are three unique powers on cards in Martial Heroes I, and three unique powers on cards in Martial Heroes II, etc.

In other words, its not really randomized. Martial Heroes I will always have Power A, B, and C in it, and Martial Heroes II will always have Power D, E, and F in it.

I may be reading it wrong though.

And once you have acquired a card with a power, any repeat is worthless. So the 2nd time you acquire it your just throwing money away. Any idea on how many different power cards there are?

I have no idea. I guess my point was that Martial Heroes I will always have the same two male minis and the same female mini. The minis aren't randomized at all. So if you buy the pack more than once, I would assume it would be because you would want multiple copies of the same mini.

I'm just completely guessing here, to be honest. I just wanted to point out that I'm betting there won't be tons of different power cards, just (my guess) a different set of cards for each set.

As I said, it was just my read, so I don't really know anything more than anyone else.

I have no idea. I guess my point was that Martial Heroes I will always have the same two male minis and the same female mini. The minis aren't randomized at all. So if you buy the pack more than once, I would assume it would be because you would want multiple copies of the same mini.

I'm just completely guessing here, to be honest. I just wanted to point out that I'm betting there won't be tons of different power cards, just (my guess) a different set of cards for each set.

As I said, it was just my read, so I don't really know anything more than anyone else.

That is how I've read the announcements as well, both the initial one and the follow-ups from Scott. If my (our) reading is wrong of course, my previous statements are not correct.

I don't really get the CCG argument. Is the idea that: (a) new monster stats will be released in the miniatures and therefore (b) the only way to get those stats is to purchase the miniatures? If so, isn't that already happening in the case of modules, which include new monsters with stats along with new traps? Didn't it also happen in prior editions, which also included new monsters and new magic items in supplementary material? So, if you wanted a complete collection of all the monsters and all the magic items in 3.5, wouldn't you need a complete collection of all D&D books released by WotC? Or is this different because you would need to buy a different product type under the current regime?

4e is definitely a different beast as compared to the 3e core only philosophy (which, as everyone knows, was a reaction against 2e's "let's shoehorn stuff in every book and cross reference like madmen" philosophy). While I didn't like 2e's style, I do think 3e went too far in the opposite direction, at least initially (the last few year or so of products released by WotC tended to include material that would only be useful if you had other expansions, e.g., feats/abilities designed specifically for the ninja included in Complete Scoundrel or the PHBII required Complete Adventurer to be used). If 4e introduces a new element that quickly becomes necessary or ubiquitous in, say, Forgotten Realms Adventure 3, that would be too much like 2e for me and would not make me happy. If, on the other hand, the upcoming rules supplement "Squirrels and dogs" included rules that supported a beastmaster class introduced in "The Animal Lovers Handbook" and the mount rules (no pun intended) in "Adventurer's Vault", that's okay with me.

We'll see how it works out. In any event, I can only see the CCG argument if you assume that there will be core/ubiquitous elements exclusively available in the miniatures line. If a monster is particularly popular (e.g., you can only get the stats for the Good Drow Ranger by collecting the ultra rare Drizzt figure), the argument becomes stronger. If the monster stats are just "kobold who can throw flaming snot", I can't really see how it's any more CCG-ish than having new monsters in Dragon/Dungeon/modules/etc, which has long been a staple of the game in each edition. Am I missing something?

Edit: Hell, part of the reason I am a superscriber is because Paizo seems to have structured their products specifically to appeal to collector type consumers. They've introduced supplementary rules, world information, etc., in every product. I feel like I don't dare stop subscribing to the modules because they may introduce a new part of the world that I don't want to miss (e.g., Osiron or, I hope, eventually another planet). I don't begrudge them this practice, and in fact, I like that it helps validate my OCD instincts and makes them feel like a functional behavior.

I wasn't aware that the Power cards would be duplicates from the Compendium, but doesn't the Compendium cost $ as well?

The CCG comment was directed at the fact that from the basic statement it appeared that material for the core classes was going to be included in a seperate product line - you'd end up piecing together different aspects of a character from many different sources.

It's not entirely a CCG, but it is a step in that direction. Previously, if I wanted a bunch of melee feats, I bought the one or two rulebooks that dealt with combat. I'm not saying they shouldn't diversify, but what if someone doesn't want to carry around a bunch of cards or a laptop to look at powers?

It's not entirely a CCG, but it is a step in that direction. Previously, if I wanted a bunch of melee feats, I bought the one or two rulebooks that dealt with combat. I'm not saying they shouldn't diversify, but what if someone doesn't want to carry around a bunch of cards or a laptop to look at powers?

But didn't that happen in 3e? There were feats in the majority of books that were released.

crosswiredmind wrote:

I think you misunderstood. There is a difference between a price increase to match a cost increase and maintain a margin, and a price increase to increase a margin because of flagging sales...

You're right, I did misunderstand. Sorry :)

No problem. I was not as clear as I should have been.

But didn't that happen in 3e? There were feats in the majority of books that were released.

Considering there was a feat that a paladin one of my players was running was thinking of in Exemplars of Evil I'd say the feats got pretty spread out over the range of different books.

The CCG argument breaks down when you consider how easy it will be to just transcribe or copy the card. It's not like Magic where you need the real card to play in any sanctioned event. The new powers will spread to plenty of people that never buy the minis or subscribe to DDI.

The CCG argument breaks down when you consider how easy it will be to just transcribe or copy the card. It's not like Magic where you need the real card to play in any sanctioned event. The new powers will spread to plenty of people that never buy the minis or subscribe to DDI.

That's true, which is why I question the marketing strategy.

As to the spread of feats in 3rd Edition materials, I can say undeniably (having compiled my own Feat Compendium) that the majority of feats are to be found in the major books (Complete, Races, PHBII, Environment Series, ELH). But you still get a heck of a lot more from Elder Evils than a few feats, which one can't really say about a pack of three minis.

I'm just thinking about the pricing: $11 for three warrior minis and one Power...or $30 for an entire book of Warrior stuff and 50 cents for a used common mini?

But how long does a common mini stay at fifty cents if there are no new minis coming out at all?

But how long does a common mini stay at fifty cents if there are no new minis coming out at all?

Probably depends on the mini. Kobolds probably slowly get a bit more expencive while some odd creature with a name no one can pronounce thats never been featured in any adventure anywhere probably plummets in value.

Another reason for the price increase IS the fact that it is moving from totally randomized.

WOTC and the actual sellers now have to predict what will be a "hot item" and thus, there's a good chance that they will either underestimate or overestimate demand on a mini.

Either situation loses them money.

Whereas the randomized packs meant that WOTC didn't have to worry about that at all.

Ranomized packs will always be cheaper than non-randomized packs

They keep getting feedback from mini buyers that we want less randomness and more connection to D&D rather than the skirmish game.

They have done what many folks have claimed they do not do - they listened. This is a very positive change indeed.

Well I think until they achieve NO RANDOMNESS they are not listening entirely. Many RPGers want to be able to buy what they need for their game when they need it. I for one do not want to buy multiple packs of minis and hope that I get what I need. I also do not want to have to go to Ebay and pay a premium for a figure I need due to it's randomness and rarity.

I was so excited about Reapers plastic minis. Problem is their selection is so limited. Hopefully they will start putting out more figures soon.

Anyways they have good intentions but WotC did not go that extra mile on this one. Of course we haven't seen any new packaging yet. It's possible that new packaging may allow you to actually see what your buying but who the heck knows with WotC these days.

The PC type minis are no longer random. Thats cool with me :)

Monsters are still random but the sets are smaller numbers.

RPG is the focus and the skirmish game is gone.

On a very selfish level this is all fantastic news. WotC may have lost all my RPG book money but they still got me for miniatures.

I'm one of those collectors who used to collect the minis for both skirmish and rpg. (Although originally I threw out the cards because I never thought I’d play the skirmish and didn’t see their value for rpg) Just prior to 2.0 being released, the skirmish community in my area was drying up fast. The same 5 or so players who showed up every other week had tried various methods to attract new players(Including me giving away about 30 or so minis to some fresh faces who showed up one week to try it out), but with 2.0's imminent release, enthusiasm was waning instead of waxing, especially since their initial announcement of the obsolescence of minis. 2.0 killed it completely, despite WOTC's decision to eventually include those minis back in eventually. The mini quality seemed more randomized than the figures, especially in terms of painting and some godawful "cartoonish" molds. I played a few games using the 2.0 rules with my daughter, and the feeling was that you had to keep looking at your cards to figure out what the minis could do... which had its advantages and its disadvantages, and would probably dissipate over time. Themed bands seemed more achievable, and I thought that was good. But there was no enthusiasm for the new sets among my local community.

When I went to Origins this year, there were a total of 6 people playing in the open skirmish matches. Six. At Origins.

People have been asking for this change for quite some time, and maybe this will be a good change in product line for WOTC.

My daughter is a real dragon enthusiast. I bought her the Dragonomicon for a birthday present when it came out, and she has all but committed it to memory. When showed the cover for Bloodsworn Vale, for instance, she correctly identified the creature on the cover as not being a true dragon. The changes to the appearance of the dragons in 2.0/4e have her sputtering invectives every time she sees them. (And she’s not too happy about the changes in appearance in Golarion either, of course.) I feel the same way about the scaly beholders. Other changes in appearances of the monsters have changed my perception of the value of the new minis as well. I’m much more selective about which minis I want (before it was “All of them- whatever’s not useful for skirmish will probably be useful somewhere in the RPG.”) So now I look for individual minis, usually on Auggie’s and I take a close look at the pictures to see if they’re really something I want.

But I have a HUGE collection that will be useful for the rest of my D&D/Pathfinder days. I also buy metal figs, for the PCs and sometimes important NPCs. I love the Pathfinder minis, but I don’t love how they lag half a year behind the adventure path. The new Reaper pre-painted minis are very nice. Beautiful sculpts and really nice paint jobs. One of my players even took to using one of them as her PC figure.

Overall, I’d say skirmish had a good run and was on its way out when 2.0 was announced, with the way 2.0 was initially handled (obsolescence) driving away many committed collectors and players, and later changes in policy not being enough to save it. The 2.0 launch wasn’t really embraced as a step forward for the skirmish community, wasn’t massively marketed as the time for new players to join the skirmish community like it should have been, and all-in-all, failed in its objective to revitalize skirmish play.

Hopefully, this change in product line will do for the RPG mini collectors what 2.0 failed to do for the Skirmish mini collectors.

RPG is the focus and the skirmish game is gone.

Or is the RPG gone and they're calling the new skirmish game D&D? :P

WOTC and the actual sellers now have to predict what will be a "hot item" and thus, there's a good chance that they will either underestimate or overestimate demand on a mini. Either situation loses them money.

More money than not ever having "hot items" cost them? Didn't randomized boxes eliminate such a possibility?

yoda8myhead wrote:

I have used the RP stats to do more complex, RP-style skirmishes before, and I think that this will still be possible. While the rules for commanders and unit point values won't be there any more, I think that people wanting to use them for arena/goal-oriented skirmishing can still make it work, and the inclusion of a statcard for each mini allows for you to play this way without having to flip through the MM for each and every monster.

And D&D becomes closer to the Magic: the Gathering model with each change. Clearly Wizards figures that they did good with Magic, thus if they can only get D&D closer to that, they'll be okay.

I'm still waiting for the M:tG monster manual and campaign setting. [snark]That would be awesome.[/snark]

But you still get a heck of a lot more from Elder Evils than a few feats, which one can't really say about a pack of three minis.

I'm just thinking about the pricing: $11 for three warrior minis and one Power...or $30 for an entire book of Warrior stuff and 50 cents for a used common mini?

Wouldn't the value depend on why you're purchasing the minis? You assume that the minis are purchased because of the stat cards and therefore entirely discount the value of the minis themselves. Or, to repackage:

For $11 I get three usable minis and some rules. For $30 I get a book that's not usable as a mini at all! What a rip-off!!!

Or:

I hate modules! But if I want all the monsters published by WotC, I need to buy them!!! What a rip-off!!!

This CCG argument doesn't hold water. As has been pointed out, the CCG market is in part based on needing the particular card in order to use the ability described on said card. There's no such limitation in D&D.* In addition, there's no evidence that the stat cards included with the minis are some essential element of the game. It's not as if the longsword is not in the phb and the only way you can have a character that uses one is to purchase the mini that includes the stats for a longsword. So, the only argument for needing to buy the minis in order to get the complete set of rules is an unnatural level of OCDness which, it should be noted, would also required substantial purchases under the prior regimes. I fail to see how not catering to the OCD consumer who needs every monster ever published by WotC is either a new development or a failure in WotC's marketing strategy.

*Yes, yes, we all know that there will soon be such a limitation and WotC's stormtroopers will enforce it at gunpoint.

Just for the record, I'm not trying to argue a specific position. It was an off-hand observation about the evolution of the hobby, which I don't necessarily care for.

And no you can't use a book as a mini at all, but you can use a penny. And I don't think you can replace a book with a brick (okay, your imagination can but that takes a lot of work, which some people don't always have).

(God, I wish undo on most of my PC apps worked like the rewind undo in LittleBigPlanet. It would make editing text so much easier sometimes. Anyway.)

I only got into D&D skirmish play after being a dedicated Star Wars skirmish player since Rebel Storm hit the shelves - you know, back when a Twi'lek Scoundrel was decent fodder in a 200-pointer in addition to an ideal repaint. LOTS of NPCs in my SWRPG tabletop were Twi'leks for just that reason, in fact. But I digress.

I liked DDM1's skirmish system. It offered a depth to constructed squad combat that was true to its roots and fun in execution. Yes, it needed some house ruling to be truly playable - morale saves were an artifact of 2nd edition that didn't always make a quick game fun. But, even more so than 4th edition has struck me as an unnecessary(sp?) change, the facelift DDM got in its latest incarnation seemed like a reinvention of the wheel. Star Wars minis are now on their way to an eleventh set with minimal changes to the core rules - though admittedly there have been many additions. DDM might have kept more fans if its underlying framework weren't so radically changed to fit in with the flavor of a bizarre marketing concept or new-guard vision of the cosmology.

I do, though, praise Wizards for its efforts to make updated stat cards for old sets to maintain playability. It is nice to know that if I run into a player who is more familiar with the new rules, I can oblige him or her and still use my existing pieces (as I have bought nothing produced after Desert of Desolation).

As for the changes to pricing and packaging, though, I can't see how this hurts those who buy them for RPG purposes. A fixed price for popular sculpts would kill the secondary market, and those of us who trade heavily with online retailers are already seeing this happen in declining trade-in values for miniatures whose sale prices don't lower proportionately. Wizards may be on to something good here if their sales of the miniatures really are so RPG-driven, but since I don't play 4E and have a rather hefty load of DDM1 stuff already, I'll probably never know.

The price increase was as opposed to cancelling the line now, because profitability is failing. Increased gas prices are certainly a factor in why prices are going up, but flagging sales are also a factor. That's why I referred to it as a change to save the line - it's that or cancel it. They're obviously hoping that even in the face of flagging sales (as mentioned elsewhere), a price increase won't finish off the brand.

My comment on increasing prices rarely working to save a failing product was simply that - a comment. I didn't suggest they were hoping to raise sales by increasing prices, but rather than raising prices while they are also trying to increase sales is unlikely to work, and the product is quite possibly headed into a downward spiral. With a 150% price increase per mini over launch, DDM simply is not a cheap miniatures solution any more.

The price increase was as opposed to cancelling the line now, because profitability is failing. Increased gas prices are certainly a factor in why prices are going up, but flagging sales are also a factor. That's why I referred to it as a change to save the line - it's that or cancel it. They're obviously hoping that even in the face of flagging sales (as mentioned elsewhere), a price increase won't finish off the brand.

My comment on increasing prices rarely working to save a failing product was simply that - a comment. I didn't suggest they were hoping to raise sales by increasing prices, but rather than raising prices while they are also trying to increase sales is unlikely to work, and the product is quite possibly headed into a downward spiral. With a 150% price increase per mini over launch, DDM simply is not a cheap miniatures solution any more.

Yep. For the first time in a long time I am looking at alternatives for those "must have" minis. I will probably still purchase certain important monsters, but for now I am pretty satisfied. The last few sets were grasping at straws for remakes rather than new monsters.

Anyone know where I can get a good set of Animal minis?

Anyone know where I can get a good set of Animal minis?

This may not be what you are looking for, but I use toy plastic animals when I need an animal mini.

You can usually get a nice bag of them at CVS, Toys R Us, Target, etc. for around $2-$3. In most cases, the bags are themed around farm animals, jungle animals, sea creatures, dinosaurs, etc., so you can pick and choose what you need. For more exotic animals, you can find similar animal toys at the zoo or natural history museum.

I find that, although there is no base for these critters, they work extremely well during my games.

Hope this helps!

This may not be what you are looking for, but I use toy plastic animals when I need an animal mini.

You can usually get a nice bag of them at CVS, Toys R Us, Target, etc. for around $2-$3. In most cases, the bags are themed around farm animals, jungle animals, sea creatures, dinosaurs, etc., so you can pick and choose what you need. For more exotic animals, you can find similar animal toys at the zoo or natural history museum.

I find that, although there is no base for these critters, they work extremely well during my games.

Hope this helps!

That's what I do as well. If you look around enough, you'll find the right scales. The critters found in Toobs are often about right, I often see them at craft stores.

Good ideas using toys. I hadn't considered it, though I do think of using McFarlane Dragons to fill in some Draconomicon roles. I'll definitely keep an eye out!

Speaking of miniature alternatives, has anyone seen something that might be used for dungeon dressing (e.g., chests, furniture, boxes, etc.)? Dwarven Forge has a set, but it's out of stock.

Speaking of miniature alternatives, has anyone seen something that might be used for dungeon dressing (e.g., chests, furniture, boxes, etc.)? Dwarven Forge has a set, but it's out of stock.

Lego, especially those old pirate sets with treasure chests. They also have barrels, though tables are unheard of.

Speaking of miniature alternatives, has anyone seen something that might be used for dungeon dressing (e.g., chests, furniture, boxes, etc.)? Dwarven Forge has a set, but it's out of stock.

MageKnight did a great line of these, if you can find them anywhere. I got mine for $2 per set on clearance.

Bleach wrote:

WOTC and the actual sellers now have to predict what will be a "hot item" and thus, there's a good chance that they will either underestimate or overestimate demand on a mini. Either situation loses them money.

More money than not ever having "hot items" cost them? Didn't randomized boxes eliminate such a possibility?

"Hot items" and "randomized packs" are licenses to print money for WOTC and the retailers. They don't have to order/build a specific mini but a retailer for example, can simply buy X boxes of the Bloodwar expansion.

Said retailer KNOWS he's going to sell out all X boxes since until each pack is cracked, nobody knows the contents of the pack.

With a non-randomized mini, the retailer doesn't have the assurance. He has to guess how popular each mini will be.

Here's my take on the whole change. When looking at the new 3 mini PC packs, I see that as a huge improvement. Generally speaking, I have only needed one of a given PC model at a time. Most of my players are not playing identical twins, nor would I want to use a repeat model for an NPC. I might need a handful of humanoid NPC thugs once in a while, but I certainly have that covered by now. If a new DM buys each of the character packs, they can likely use whichever minis are not being used by the PCs as NPC thugs (as in, if I have Martial Heroes I and II, I likely have an extra 4-5 fighter characters at a time).

Getting 5 random monsters will likely be better than getting 7 miniatures. If I assume that I will likely get about 2 humanoids in each pack (which as I've shown above I likely don't need), I'm getting about the same value as before. If I can cherrypick the monsters I want in a window, they are almost certainly going to have to be equally good choices, or this line will have exactly one set that sits on the shelf forever.

This is just my take, but if the minis look good enough and have enough useful choices, I may have to pick some of these up...

Speaking of miniature alternatives, has anyone seen something that might be used for dungeon dressing (e.g., chests, furniture, boxes, etc.)? Dwarven Forge has a set, but it's out of stock.

My mother has a doll's house, so I know (from christmas present shopping) that there are hobby shops out there which sell furniture for non-RPG purposes, but I suspect that lego (as Jal suggests) is much cheaper.

Speaking of miniature alternatives, has anyone seen something that might be used for dungeon dressing (e.g., chests, furniture, boxes, etc.)? Dwarven Forge has a set, but it's out of stock.

If you don't mind making your own out of cardstock, I heartily recommend any of the sets by the folks over at Fat Dragon Games. The quality is great and it's a good deal cheaper than the stuff by Dwarven Forge, easier to replace (or replicate as the case may be) as well.