Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Hey Erik, any way we can see another large mini in this fridays preview? Even just 1 large mini? Maybe the ogre?
Hmmm. I've got the photos for the next two weeks figured out already, and there are no larges (and no ogres) in the bunch. I'm usually happy to take requests, but as our photographer/art director is on a business trip to Italy for the next two weeks, I'm not sure I can fit him in until she gets back.
He's a strong candidate for the blog in three weeks, though. He is really, really sweet-looking, and I think people are going to love him.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
There's no elf archer in this set, but there is a relatively prominent Pathfinder NPC elf archer in the Rise of the Runelords set, and her digital sculpt will be one of the very first we show off from that set. It is amazing.
I'm super excited to share the sculpts from Rise of the Runelords with you guys, because they are VERY nice and answer some of the comments and criticisms leveled at this first set. They generally have a bit more detail, and are more likely to cover "Pathfinder" creatures as opposed to generic minis.
But I don't want to confuse people by showing off images from two different sets. Lemme get through Heroes & Monsters before I move on to Rise of the Runelords. And there are lots of awesome Heroes & Monsters minis no one has seen yet, so there's still plenty of sweet stuff for the next month or so at least.
Erik, I'm not sure if you can confirm this at this time, but is it true that all the larges in this set are also rares?
Erik,
I'm sure I know who the Elf Archer is in the Rise of the Runelords set, and I'm looking forward to seeing her. However...any chance for a similar *male* elf any time in the foreseeable future?
Kelvar
Erik, I'm not sure if you can confirm this at this time, but is it true that all the larges in this set are also rares?
That can't be true can it? That would mean whenever you bought a large booster you'd know you were getting a rare...which kind of renders the common/uncommon/rare designation meaningless.
Imagine they were all rares...How would the distribution change if they were all commons instead?
Someone (Vic?) told us that all the larges in the first set are rares. Of course, that means their rarity is pretty much meaningless, because if every large miniature is rare, you could just as easily say that none are.
Since the larges are segregated in their own boosters for this set (at least), this isn't much of an issue.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Erik, I'm not sure if you can confirm this at this time, but is it true that all the larges in this set are also rares?
Sort of.
Yes, it's true that all of the larges in Heroes & Monsters are rares, but it is also true that the "brick" display box contains 3 large boosters, and every large booster contains a large miniature. So if you were to get to the store when they open a new brick, you could immediately poach all three large boosters out of the box and be assured that you get three rare large miniatures.
There are eight large miniatures in the set, three per brick. Based on what WizKids has told us about collation, if you buy a case (four bricks, 12 large boosters), you should feel pretty confident that you will get all 8 large minis. We cannot guarantee that will happen due to human error and other problems that could go into collation of the sets, but the intention and expectation is that if a case doesn't get you at least one of every mini in the set, it gets you damn close.
Now, even though WizKids has not yet settled on the distribution method for the next set, Rise of the Runelords, I do know that the set includes LOTS of large minis, and many of them are not rare. You can't really pull off "Hook Mountain Massacre," for example, with one rare ogre, so we thought it imperative to put some additional uncommon ogres in that set. The same is true of stone giants and all kinds of other stuff.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Erik,
I'm sure I know who the Elf Archer is in the Rise of the Runelords set, and I'm looking forward to seeing her. However...any chance for a similar *male* elf any time in the foreseeable future?Kelvar
Rise of the Runelords has a male half-elf with a bow, but does not contain a straight-up male elf archer. Sorry!
We haven't determined the mix for sets beyond that, but I'll keep your request in mind. I'm certain we'll get to a male elf archer mini eventually.
Dear Erik, one of the hardest mini's to come by is a paladin with a two handed sword, male. Which is odd, seeing as it seems fairly iconic. Almost all of the DDM and Reaper minis feature a shield/bastard sword combo or some such. I tried to find such a mini for a friend 2 years ago and was surprisingly stymied.
Someone (Vic?) told us that all the larges in the first set are rares. Of course, that means their rarity is pretty much meaningless, because if every large miniature is rare, you could just as easily say that none are.
Since the larges are segregated in their own boosters for this set (at least), this isn't much of an issue.
Well yeah, that's my point. It doesnt make any sense to me at all - rarity only means something if there's variation as to how likely you are to get each particular mini out of a booster. It only means something to me anyhow.
If they repeated the set but decided to make all the large minis 'common'...wouldnt it be exactly the same?
:confused:
|
Well yeah, that's my point. It doesnt make any sense to me at all - rarity only means something if there's variation as to how likely you are to get each particular mini out of a booster. It only means something to me anyhow.If they repeated the set but decided to make all the large minis 'common'...wouldnt it be exactly the same?
:confused:
no, because then the perception would be that by buying a case you would get more duplicates than you do uncommon mediums. Erik mentions above ther are 12 larges in a case and 8 in the set. this means most likely a case will get duplicates of half. which is rarer than most uncommons. Its prolly would have been cleaner to say common/uncommon/large/rare than common/uncommon/rare in my opinion, unless the rares have the same % chance of a particular rare being in a brick.
no, because then the perception would be that by buying a case you would get more duplicates than you do uncommon mediums. Erik mentions above ther are 12 larges in a case and 8 in the set. this means most likely a case will get duplicates of half. which is rarer than most uncommons. Its prolly would have been cleaner to say common/uncommon/large/rare than common/uncommon/rare in my opinion, unless the rares have the same % chance of a particular rare being in a brick.
Well yeah, that's my point. It doesnt make any sense to me at all - rarity only means something if there's variation as to how likely you are to get each particular mini out of a booster. It only means something to me anyhow.If they repeated the set but decided to make all the large minis 'common'...wouldnt it be exactly the same?
:confused:
Ah ok - it's about 'how many X per case?' not 'what's the chance of the next large figure being X?'
Cheers.
Someone (Vic?) told us that all the larges in the first set are rares. Of course, that means their rarity is pretty much meaningless, because if every large miniature is rare, you could just as easily say that none are.
Since the larges are segregated in their own boosters for this set (at least), this isn't much of an issue.
Well yeah, that's my point. It doesnt make any sense to me at all - rarity only means something if there's variation as to how likely you are to get each particular mini out of a booster. It only means something to me anyhow.
If they repeated the set but decided to make all the large minis 'common'...wouldnt it be exactly the same?
:confused:
If I had to guess, its based off how many they expect to print, not relative rareness in the pack. If they say the larges are commons, internally there is more confusion about how large the print run will be with them. If they say they are rares, then statements like "we will print 5000 of each rare" do not need special clauses to add "and each large."
|
Erik,
I'm sure I know who the Elf Archer is in the Rise of the Runelords set, and I'm looking forward to seeing her. However...any chance for a similar *male* elf any time in the foreseeable future?Kelvar
Reminds me of the time I had a male elf archer character concept back in high school... who turned out to be female because I couldn't find a decent male archer miniature :) Keldran became... Keldrette.
Reminds me of the time I had a male elf archer character concept back in high school... who turned out to be female because I couldn't find a decent male archer miniature :) Keldran became... Keldrette.Erik,
I'm sure I know who the Elf Archer is in the Rise of the Runelords set, and I'm looking forward to seeing her. However...any chance for a similar *male* elf any time in the foreseeable future?Kelvar
I only ever envisioned miniatures as proxies. I have used dice just as often as miniatures. In my Carrion Crown game I do not have any minis that are representative of the characters. The alchemist is a dual dagger wielding cloaked theif, The Cleric of Cayden is a highlander with a shield, the gnome bard, is a halfling slinger, and the ranger is some drow priestess.
I have lots of minis, but most of them are Grenadier 25mm scale. I prefer the reaper scale. STill I can barely ever find the 'perfect' miniature.
I guess I'm sort of OCD about it. I always prefer it when I have minis that represent the characters and monsters as close to their descriptions as possible. This explains why I've collected so many darn DDMs and why I'm probably going to make sure I get at least one of every Pathfinder Mini I can get (and probably many duplicates). I'm sort of the "Mini and Flip-Mat" guy for our group. They find it mildly amusing the extent to which I obsess about having just the right mini and/or Flip-Mat for the job. Our DM...er, GM...loves sifting through my huge box o' minis.
I'm currently playing a an Elven Scout (3.5) that I've "converted" to Pathfinder (meaning, I updated his skills and wrote down his CMB and CMD--bam! "converted"). I'm using a DDM called "Lyrandar Skyfire Captain" (Whatever the Heck that is), but I'm not totally satisfied because his cloak is blue instead of green. (Yes, I have a problem). :-)
By the way, I've noticed that the picture of a "Brick" appears to be the same as the picture of a "case." I assume we do not yet have a picture of a case. Anyone know when we might see one? (That's what I ordered, so I'm looking forward to seeing it in all its awesomeness!)
I guess I'm sort of OCD about it. I always prefer it when I have minis that represent the characters and monsters as close to their descriptions as possible. This explains why I've collected so many darn DDMs and why I'm probably going to make sure I get at least one of every Pathfinder Mini I can get (and probably many duplicates). I'm sort of the "Mini and Flip-Mat" guy for our group. They find it mildly amusing the extent to which I obsess about having just the right mini and/or Flip-Mat for the job. Our DM...er, GM...loves sifting through my huge box o' minis.
I'm currently playing a an Elven Scout (3.5) that I've "converted" to Pathfinder (meaning, I updated his skills and wrote down his CMB and CMD--bam! "converted"). I'm using a DDM called "Lyrandar Skyfire Captain" (Whatever the Heck that is), but I'm not totally satisfied because his cloak is blue instead of green. (Yes, I have a problem). :-)
I definitely prefer to have the representative minis so I get it. In a pinch I just make sure that the proper size category is represented.
I have that same DDM as well. It was used by a player in another game. It is a nice mini.
I like the DDM minis actually, there are jsut unfortunately a hep of useless ones other than for thier base size. My friend is upset that I threw out all the cards, but I could not find a use for them.
He's a strong candidate for the blog in three weeks, though. He is really, really sweet-looking, and I think people are going to love him.
Well, I look forward to it. Book him! Make it so! Has Paizo settled with Wizkids on the rarities yet? I remember you (maybe it was Vic) mentioning previously that the list was undergoing some last minute revisions.
I like the DDM minis actually, there are jsut unfortunately a hep of useless ones other than for thier base size. My friend is upset that I threw out all the cards, but I could not find a use for them.
Yeah, I only keep the cards for the weird crap that I want to sell. DDM has a lot of minis that are completely unrecognizable to me as anything remotely related to D&D/Pathfinder. So I try to sell them. (And try to get ones I really want on the secondary market or from Paizo).
Yeah, I only keep the cards for the weird crap that I want to sell. DDM has a lot of minis that are completely unrecognizable to me as anything remotely related to D&D/Pathfinder. So I try to sell them. (And try to get ones I really want on the secondary market or from Paizo).
I like the DDM minis actually, there are jsut unfortunately a hep of useless ones other than for thier base size. My friend is upset that I threw out all the cards, but I could not find a use for them.
That is the only criticism I have to DDM. The useless minis. Or the minis that WOULD be perfect if they were not adding some qualifier to it like Stormbound someting. The Green, red, and Black spawn really irritate me because how hard would it have been just to make a dragon? Why make it the Green Dragon with Blade wings? I know they were supporting the DDM story, but DDM was a skirish game. The story could have been just as informed using useful minis for the Table top game.
That said I still use those odd minis for various different things. if I need a Large green dragon I still use the dragon spawn, it just would have been nice to have it fit that purpose.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Dear Erik, one of the hardest mini's to come by is a paladin with a two handed sword, male. Which is odd, seeing as it seems fairly iconic. Almost all of the DDM and Reaper minis feature a shield/bastard sword combo or some such. I tried to find such a mini for a friend 2 years ago and was surprisingly stymied.
That's funny, because I played a two-hander-wielding paladin for about eight years a while back. I'll keep my eye out for a good time to put one into one of these sets.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
By the way, I've noticed that the picture of a "Brick" appears to be the same as the picture of a "case." I assume we do not yet have a picture of a case. Anyone know when we might see one? (That's what I ordered, so I'm looking forward to seeing it in all its awesomeness!)
My understanding is that a case will be four brick displays wrapped up in shrinkwrap, so the picture is bound to be pretty boring.
Also, it doesn't exist yet. We built the images up now off the design files for the packaging, and the packaging is still being printed.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's a strong candidate for the blog in three weeks, though. He is really, really sweet-looking, and I think people are going to love him.Well, I look forward to it. Book him! Make it so! Has Paizo settled with Wizkids on the rarities yet? I remember you (maybe it was Vic) mentioning previously that the list was undergoing some last minute revisions.
Yes. All of the rarity issues are settled. I'll get into that as its own blog down the road, but basically it means swapping the Gnome Fighter and Dire Rat to uncommon, and moving what was to be a goblin-based uncommon two-pack to common. There's a bit more to it than that, but that's the short version.
Yes. All of the rarity issues are settled. I'll get into that as its own blog down the road, but basically it means swapping the Gnome Fighter and Dire Rat to uncommon, and moving what was to be a goblin-based uncommon two-pack to common. There's a bit more to it than that, but that's the short version.
Excellent news! Barring that the reduce in rarity could result in a reduce in quality, I'm all for more goblins, and less gnome fighters! (I mean really. How many gnome fighters are you actually going to need)
He's a strong candidate for the blog in three weeks, though. He is really, really sweet-looking, and I think people are going to love him.Well, I look forward to it. Book him! Make it so! Has Paizo settled with Wizkids on the rarities yet? I remember you (maybe it was Vic) mentioning previously that the list was undergoing some last minute revisions.Yes. All of the rarity issues are settled. I'll get into that as its own blog down the road, but basically it means swapping the Gnome Fighter and Dire Rat to uncommon, and moving what was to be a goblin-based uncommon two-pack to common. There's a bit more to it than that, but that's the short version.
I think this is one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't pairings. I like having lots of dire rats... afterall, I don't think I have ever encountered just 1 dire rat alone. On the flip side, I really do not want a bunch of gnome fighters. I know the intent is to have "goblin packs" but how about packaging the gnome fighter with the goblin mystic as an uncommon, and then have two common smalls: 2 goblins, and 1 goblin and 1 dire rat. On the plus side, every small will have a goblin :)
I think this is one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't pairings. I like having lots of dire rats... afterall, I don't think I have ever encountered just 1 dire rat alone. On the flip side, I really do not want a bunch of gnome fighters. I know the intent is to have "goblin packs" but how about packaging the gnome fighter with the goblin mystic as an uncommon, and then have two common smalls: 2 goblins, and 1 goblin and 1 dire rat. On the plus side, every small will have a goblin :)
Oooh, I quite like that... I support this! Sacrificing a bit on the flavour of the pairings, but uhh, rat+gnome didn't have much flavour to it I spose, and quantities and qualities are the more important thing really in this case.
There's a bit more to it than that, but that's the short version.
Cool.
And the blog is the best place for the long version. This planning blog posts stuff is easy! ;)
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I think this is one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't pairings. I like having lots of dire rats... afterall, I don't think I have ever encountered just 1 dire rat alone. On the flip side, I really do not want a bunch of gnome fighters. I know the intent is to have "goblin packs" but how about packaging the gnome fighter with the goblin mystic as an uncommon, and then have two common smalls: 2 goblins, and 1 goblin and 1 dire rat. On the plus side, every small will have a goblin :)
Stay tuned for more details, but the Goblin Mystic is OUT of the set. The proportions came out all wrong, and we had to remove him entirely and replace him with a different goblin.
I think this is one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't pairings. I like having lots of dire rats... afterall, I don't think I have ever encountered just 1 dire rat alone. On the flip side, I really do not want a bunch of gnome fighters. I know the intent is to have "goblin packs" but how about packaging the gnome fighter with the goblin mystic as an uncommon, and then have two common smalls: 2 goblins, and 1 goblin and 1 dire rat. On the plus side, every small will have a goblin :)
Stay tuned for more details, but the Goblin Mystic is OUT of the set. The proportions came out all wrong, and we had to remove him entirely and replace him with a different goblin.
Darn, I was really looking forward to seeing him. On the plus side, I am happy to see that your quality control standards are so high that you would rather send a mini back to the drawing board rather than to force the mini into the release. It was fairly evident WotC did this* (or they just plain didn't care about accuracy to scale). I think this bodes very well for the line. Now people better buy the line and make sure it does well so that there is a second release so that I can get my goblin mystic :)
* Such extreme examples can be seen in the dwarves such as the halfling looking "Tordek Dwarf Fighter" to the man sized crouching "Dwarf Sniper" up to the giant, steroid induced "Guard of Mithril Hall". (And don't even get me started on the orcs...)
Has anyone compiled a list of all announced minis for this set?
|
|
Has anyone compiled a list of all announced minis for this set?
Better yet, Kor- Orc Scrollkeeper has created a website for minis lists/pics
Thanks.
Stay tuned for more details, but the Goblin Mystic is OUT of the set. The proportions came out all wrong, and we had to remove him entirely and replace him with a different goblin.
At first I was really bummed about the first sentence. Then the more I thought about it, I was sufficiently appeased by the second sentence. At least they're replacing one goblin with another. Maybe the mystic will make it into a future set. *Crosses fingers that the "new" goblin will have a torch*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll take a brick of goblins, please.
I'll take a brick of goblins, please.
A GM after my heart. Given a small amount of variety, One can never have too many goblins.
The latest previews are out and now we get to see the color of the orcs.
Although Erik has mentioned that the orc is not quite as bright green as depicted due to lighting conditions, its still too green for me.
I'm probably in the minority, but in a feeble attempt to raise support for the orcs, I present another poll:
http://www.d20.ca/poll/index.html
Personally (in my own jaded opinion) orcs look so much meaner and fiercer when they are darker in color (like a dark green or dark grayish-green).
Disclaimer: I do somewhat post this in jest, as I'm sure the color is set and won't be changing.
After I give that orc a dip, he'll look near perfect.
As will all the other minis in this set.
What is a dark wash?
A dark-colored paint (usually dark brown or black, though I myself prefer not to use black), thinned out with water and applied over a miniature to make some of the details pop.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
What is a dark wash?A dark-colored paint (usually dark brown or black, though I myself prefer not to use black), thinned out with water and applied over a miniature to make some of the details pop.
We specifically asked WizKids to add dark washes to their process for many Pathfinder Battles minis, and they've done so.
Minwax Ebony Wood Finish for monsters, or Pecan Satin for PCs. Brings out details and protects as well.
I'm sorry if this has been asked before, it's a long thread too search through.
Will any of the new sets have item type miniatures?
A weapon rack, or a chest or even a nice little pile of treasure or tables and bunks.
A pile of furs and things like that would be cool too.
Not that I have seen, or read. I don't know about future sets, I don't think anyone knows!
James
I highly doubt we will see accessories as part of any of the sets. You will probably only see actual character or monster based miniatures.
Although if the miniatures line takes off, they could possibly do accessory packs, similar to like the upcoming encounter packs.
I would like to see them myself, as I have bought some of the Dwarven Forge accessories. If they did release it, maybe we could see some bookshelves, with varying things on them. Of course books, but maybe having a skull for that evil wizard, maybe some beakers or scrolls on the shelves (molded as part of the book shelf). It would also be neat to see a stand with a crystal ball.
Yes, I could embrace some accessories if they decided to try them out. :)
|
I'm sorry if this has been asked before, it's a long thread too search through.
Will any of the new sets have item type miniatures?
A weapon rack, or a chest or even a nice little pile of treasure or tables and bunks.
A pile of furs and things like that would be cool too.
It is looking certain that this first set will not have accessories. But I too wouldn't mind a miniature or two in each set that would be dungeon dressings.
Later,
Mazra