Catching Up, Looking Ahead

I think it would be a great idea to split the line into 2 different ones

Let me try and illustrate why that "can't" work. The price-per-unit is driven down as the units-produced goes up, yes? So selling more minis of whatever particular mold means that its price is cheaper, yes?

So what happens when you are able to pick exactly which minis you want? You do so. And you don't pick any of the ones you're on the fence about. And you certainly don't pick any that you don't like at all.

Bottom line is that cherry-picking reduces overall sales, which drives up overall price. The individuals market compensates for that by being more expensive overall.

Long story short is that just like getting rid of random packaging, doing the obvious 50/50 monster/NPC split would be bad for the line overall.

Don't stop thinking though.

I don't think the battles line needs to be, nor could it ever actually be painted at the same standard as iconics. For the reasons stated by Vic I think the iconics will always be better painted.Iconics just illustrates they can do it. In fact what really needed is less, they need less paint on the faces. It's applied too thick and obscures the details. The battles line is at the correct price point and quality for me, and I'm very happy with the minis, they look great on the tabletop. I'm not upset by the quality of the line, the cost, range of minis etc. I just wish they'd use less paint on the NpC faces, the line is almost perfect in my eyes.

I'm not saying that at all! Sculpting is one thing, and painting is another. It's certainly true that what might seem to be a paint problem is sometimes a sculpt problem (melty-face Feiya, for example), and processes that improve sculpts will therefore help some of these problems. So should moving to digital sculpts help? Sure. But are digital scuplts that the only reason that Iconic Heroes look so great? Absolutely not. I'd say it's not even the *main* reason. The main reason that the Iconic Heroes sets looks so great is because they spend more time and money painting every single figure.

Vic, sorry about my late response and thanks for you reply.

First of all, I want to clarify that I am NOT someone who is dissatisfied with the line, even though it may sound like it from my recent posts in this thread. I have been a subscriber since the beginning and it's never gotten to a point where I have felt any need to cancel.

But that said, since I really do love my pre-painted plastic minis, I want them to be the best they can and therefore are disappointed when we get minis with really poor paint jobs, especially if they don't match (or come close to) the previewed pictures. And that's all I am trying to clarify, that they are recognized as mistakes and being worked on to resolve. And there have been times this has happened, like with Feiya and Queen Illeosa (although we haven't gotten those yet).

Now I am not expecting replacement minis for the poorly painted faces (which is a bit unfortunate, but understandable), but as long as you (Paizo) keeps on WizKids to improve the quality and WizKids doesn't become "ok" with the quality of the minis now, and I am stil talking about the quality of the humanoid faces again.

Because the minis in general (besides the faces) have been fabulous, and I'm not talking just the iconic line here. So I hope the lesser quality paint jobs (with the faces) have been realized and working on to be resolved, instead of a "this is just how it is sometimes".

Thanks for reading. :)

Does this bugbear mold mean that you're retconning the hunchback bugbear look from the Bestiary?

Hobbun wrote:

So I guess I just don’t understand if they have the capability to paint that way with the iconic line, why humanoid faces a lot of times look quite bad in the main sets. What is done so differently in the iconic line compared to the main sets?

Quite simply, the figures in a standard booster are priced at $15.99 for 4 figures, meaning a $4/figure average, while the Iconic Heroes minis are $29.99 for 6 figures, meaning a $5/figure average, which is to say they cost about 25% more per figure. And pretty much all that cost goes into additional paint operations, including additional touch-up work.

I get the Iconics are higher price and quality. I will give you that, but what is WizKids excuse when you look at how many human faces they do in their Heroclix lines and we don't see the melted faces there like we do in the Pathfinder sets?

Just saying, it seems like a problem that should be resolved by now. I realize this is not a Paizo problem, but it does not mean the question is not a valid one.

Having recently gone through some of the older mini sets looking for figures for PCs, I was impressed by how much worse Skull & Shackles and Shattered Star were than anything in Dungeons Deep. I think they really have improved, although you don't realize how much until you put older humanoid faces and newer ones side by side.

The Rusty Dragon Inn set should've been a set that focused solely on Townsfolk and Dungeon Dressing. I'm actually a fan of the dungeon dressing pieces - though, not the ones that have been revealed thus far for this set - but I really resent them taking up a monster slot. Plus, with only six pieces per set, it kills me to see any of them miss the mark, like the Cart and Wagon. I mean, they aren't horrible or completely useless pieces, but they'd be way less of a disappointment in a set that contained, say, 20ish dungeon dressing pieces. And maybe if they weren't rare; okay, the sculpt is probably complex, what with the wagon wheels, but we all know they're just going to be painted a flat brown and, for a rare, that's unacceptable.

Also, speaking of rares, dungeon dressing needs to come in varying rarities. The Chest in Dungeons Deep was rare but the Mimic was uncommon? When would I ever need more Mimics than chests? The Bubbling Cauldron, Iron Maiden and Sarcophagus were appropriate rares, while the Chest and Brazier should've been uncommon. The Anghazan Idol could've gone in either rarity. Stuff like barrels, crates, tombstones, broken pillars and similar simple sculpts requiring limited paint jobs would all be great commons - because they aren't complex and they're all things one might hope to get 4-6 of when buying a case. And more complex stuff, like a town square fountain complete with translucent blue plastic for water, wicked looking thrones made of dragon bones and teeth, an alchemist's table covered in beakers and bottles and glittering crystals, and an ornate altar to a forgotten god would be appropriate - and awesome - rares. And uncommons could be stuff like a large-sized table (what's a tavern setting with no tables for people to sit at?), and a DDM-styled Arcane Portal, and large bookcases lined with books. There's certainly ideas enough to warrant a set with more than a mere 6 dungeon dressing pieces and rarities for those pieces other than just rare.

And Townsfolk don't have to be useless non-combatants. Sure, you'll get stuff like the Serving Girl, Dancing Girl and Merchant, but the Pious Guard, Guard, City Watch Commander and even Half-Elf Bard would fit into the same set. Because 'townsfolk, to me, refers to anyone you might find in and around a town or city. A Filthy Beggar, a Doomsayer, a Farmer, a Sellsword, a Dark Alley Rogue, a Shepherd, a Town Mayor, a Butcher... Even animals, like the Draft Horse and Riding Dog, could be part of the set. Livestock, pets and vermin. Maybe you aren't keen on the uncommon Cow or rare White Stag, but the common rat and common spider could definitely find a home in your game, or some of the pets are ideal animal companions.

You could easily get a 50-figure set focusing on Townsfolk and Dungeon Dressing. And you could probably put one of those sets out every 18 months or so (one a year would be too many). Provided, of course, the sales of such a set matched the more monster-and-NPC focused sets. And if the sales were abysmal? Well, I think that'd a pretty clear statement that those sort of miniatures just aren't all that desirable by the masses and, as such, probably shouldn't be shoehorned into regular sets either, lest you diminish the overall appeal and damage sales of those sets as well.

And if the sales were abysmal? Well, I think that'd a pretty clear statement that those sort of miniatures just aren't all that desirable by the masses and, as such, probably shouldn't be shoehorned into regular sets either, lest you diminish the overall appeal and damage sales of those sets as well.

The problem is that a set with abysmal sales would have a strong probability of killing the line completely.

And if the sales were abysmal? Well, I think that'd a pretty clear statement that those sort of miniatures just aren't all that desirable by the masses and, as such, probably shouldn't be shoehorned into regular sets either, lest you diminish the overall appeal and damage sales of those sets as well.

That's a false conclusion. If a burger joint were to try selling a meal that was "french fries, french fries, and a side-order of french fries", it would probably tank. Nobody would buy it. Strangely that wouldn't invalidate that french fries, when accompanying a burger and a drink would sell very well.

Variety is key in this line. Some people would shy away from a monsters-only set. Some people would shy away from a heroes-only set. So you mix the two, and people who like monsters and people who like heroes both buy cases. Balancing the mixture to entice more purchases is the hard part.

Dungeon dressing has probably proven itself a viable third option, given what demand appeared to be. So we'll probably continue to see a few in each case, and that's likely the most sensible approach.