Furdinand's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 137 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Marco Massoudi wrote:
PREPAINTED STARFINDER BATTLES MINIS FROM WIZKIDS IN 2020!!!

I may have to give Starfinder another try!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

AcP sounds like it will address my main beef with 1E PFS: Not working from the same character creation rules as other players at the table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
J-Bone wrote:
I need to know why this decision was made
you've been informed multiple times. It was take a gamble on ND, or a 100% chance of no minis at all.

Are CMON minis being drawn from the ether? ND was not the only possible option, it was the one that was chosen. "It was this or nothing" is giving a free pass to someone(s) who made a poor decision at the expense of actually learning from the mistake.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

"I never did pick up the Starfinder books, wasn't going to get into it unless I had some models to go with it."

I doubt you were the only one with this mindset, and Paizo was aware of that.

They needed minis for Starfinder's launch. WizKids turned them down. Reaper turned them down. Ninja Division didn't.

It's such a shame that there are literally only three miniature companies in the hobby world.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Those are some good looking minis!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I was not sure about the chimera, but Marco made a good observation that it is a new chromatic head. Now I kind of want one more to get a blue dragon head version.

Every mini set is someone's entry into miniatures, so I get the need to rotate in commonly used creatures. But every mini set is in addition to every set I've bought before, so I really need to see new things to stay interested.

I think the chimera is a good compromise. It's a returning creature with a twist. I still need to see creatures and class/race/gender combinations I haven't seen before and I need them to make up a hefty chunk of any set.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Dragon Turtle, nice!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
knightnday wrote:

Yeah.

So we're changing the look of the designs as well as changing the rules? I don't quite know what to say.

They aren't changed enough to justify "cover" versions of figures I already have.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Between the Iconic set and this, I'm getting the same feeling from the 2E minis that I got from the 2E RPG: They're trying to sell me the same thing twice.

The renders look neat, and the female orc is new but overall it still feels like a retread of a retread. If the first full set isn't at least half stuff that's never been in PPM, I'll probably take a break. There's no way to sculpt a goblin mook that will make me forget that I have almost 20 years of PPM goblin mooks, including "We Be Goblins".

And I don't have a high standard for new. A Goblin Paladin or a Kitsune bard would count!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

The crypt looks amazing!

Dungeon dressing wasn't something I'd have asked for or thought I needed but since they've been introduced I've gotten a lot of use out of them.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I saw some unpainted versions of old case incentives in my FLGS on Black Friday, so I assume it's out there.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I hadn't thought about Lastwall being the last 1st edition set. Hopefully the 2E Bestiary will be different enough from 1E that the next PFB set won't just be Heroes and Monsters with new sculpts.

For all its faults, 4E changed the MM so much that the DDM sets that followed were just as varied as the 3E sets.

Are this may be a stretch, but I wouldn't mind if Starfinder got a set in lieu of a regular PFB set or if some SF figures were sprinkled into PFB.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Love the Cyclops and Bloody skeleton!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I got my Worldscape minis yesterday. They are somewhat more detailed than plastic but they also look a lot more fragile. I really want to go all out painting them, but they'll probably go straight to a display case afterwards and not a table.

All's well that ends well, but in the future I probably won't back or pre-order anything from Ninja Division. I'll only get stuff I can put my hands on before paying for it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Good to see a True Dragon that isn't Chromatic/Metallic! I know every minis set is the first one for some players, but after 17(?) years of RPGPPM I am all set in the Beastiary I Dragon department. I'd have really liked to see the Bestiary II-VI dragons get more love.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Marco Massoudi wrote:

The D&D Icons "Falling Star" sailing ship 33 squares/inches long!) will release on may 15 2019 for a whopping $249.99!

enworld.org

If I get this, I'll have to convince my group to run Skulls and Shackles.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Glenn Elliott wrote:

We sold Starfinder Masterclass (unpainted) minis at the Paizo booth as well. As Vic said, all minis that were on sale at either booth were supposed to have been 100% fulfilled to all Kickstarter backers. No pre-paints were to be sold, no Kickstarter exclusives were to be sold, and no minis that had not already been 100% fulfilled were supposed to have been sold.

I'm very sorry that this happened and will investigate.

I saw on a YT video that they were also selling the Worldscape HumbleBundle figures at GenCon. I hope this means we can expect them this month.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Marco Massoudi wrote:

Ninja Division is pulling back from Kickstarter

Ninja Division Co-Owner and Creative Director John Cadice practically says that they overextended and that the online toxicity is to blame for their departure.

I find that very nonsensical and my personal opinion is that most of their Kickstarter projects in the past have been scams, because they havn't been fulfilled.

I think that we won't see any Starfinder minis beyond the ones already advertised and hope that backers receive their unpainted resin miniatures.

One the one hand, it takes some nerve for the Creative Director to say the problem is "online toxicity", as if it spontaneously occurred and targeted them and not the result to missed deadlines and poor communication. It's galling to see language used by marginalized groups co-opted by some dudes that are just not good at what they do and don't get why people aren't happy with them.

On the other hand, Ninja Division definitely should get out of the Kickstarter biz.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

So the Playtest's default, straight of the box, assumption is that European is normal and Asian is exotic? A new edition is an opportunity to change anything and Paizo is choosing to keep its Orientalism.

2E: New mechanics, same colonialism.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Is two months a normal gap for Icons releases?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Wouldn't Mordheim fire that bill? I loved playing it back in the day.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It's my understanding that the "exotic" designation in PF2 is exclusively a question of weapon power.

From the What's your Weapon? blog

Quote:
In Pathfinder Second Edition, we have a different way of talking about whether a weapon is likely to be found in a particular region, and so a weapon's type instead describes a weapon's mix of power and flexibility. Simple weapons usually have a smaller damage die than similar martial weapons (d6 rather than d8, for instance), and exotic weapons usually use the same damage die as a martial weapon but include additional abilities that make the weapon more complex.
So I figure the "monastic weapons" are simply the sorts of weapons that one would learn to master in a monastery. Possibly because they are inexpensive to produce and maintain, that one can carry them without attracting attention or being threatening, or because their study is relevant to deeper truths, or something else.

Until the actual weapon rules are released, I'm not going to just assume that Paizo understands what the problem is and has fixed it.

If East Asian weapons are still "exotic", it is still Orientalism. Giving a kama, a weapon that is functionally identical to a sickle, special powers doesn't ameliorate anything. In fact it solidifies it.

Saying they are weapons that just coincidentally happen to be the ones taught at monasteries is thin lampshading. Like saps and throwing axes attract more attention and are more expensive to produce?

First edition asks players to accept that a noble that never worked a day in their life can use a sickle as a weapon better than a farmer can use a kama. To accept that a wizard can throw a dagger (that may not have been designed for that purpose) more accurately than they could throw a shuriken, a weapon designed to be thrown. To accept that every fighter can handle a trident, a short sword, and a dagger but will be at sea with a sai without taking a feat. Finally, it expects players to accept that these are all quirks of designing a balanced game and not a function of the designers unconscious biases.

Even talking about whether a weapon is "likely to be found in a particular region" leaves me really apprehensive. The game designers chose to make different parts of Golarian analogs for real world regions and chose to put the East Asia analog in a place that isn't even on the map. They also chose to make the European analogs the center of most of the APs, modules, and scenarios. So making weapons regional isn't inclusive of players of color. Any Caucasian Pathfinder player can create characters that look like them, use the weapons their ancestors used, fight the creatures from their folklore, in settings that evoke their roots/history and never have to justify the existence of that character. For players of color to do the same (in most APs), they have to explain why they are so far from home. They have to justify their existence. This has to change.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

As far as I'm concerned, they can just get rid of "monk weapons" if the list is like as the old one. Calling the kama, a farming implement used in Asia, "exotic" while calling the sickle, a farming implement used in Europe, "simple" is textbook Orientalism and needs to go.

Just dump the Monk from core and replace it with a Brawler. It'd be a lot easier to explain to new players that a Brawler is a Wizard to the Fighter's Sorcerer than it is to explain to them how a concept as plainly racist as "monk weapons are really just Asian weapons" actually makes sense in the game world. Paizo needs to take time and work on the whole concept of the Monk character, not just fiddle with the math.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Best of luck, Crystal! War for the Crown is the best AP so far.

I do feel like this is part of the worrying trend of forward thinking creatives, who tried to expand what Pathfinder and TTRPGs can be, leaving Paizo in the last few years.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

It looks like they've also adjusted how they are doing waves and are sending out stuff as they're ready. So some people have received parts of wave 1 and parts of wave 2 together. Others have reported not getting anything, not even a shipping notification.

As a bystander, the whole process has me covering my eyes and peeking between my fingers. I can't imagine what backers are going through.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

If there isn't going to be any further support for PF1, what does it matter?

There's not going to be any new seasons. It won't have official tables at PaizoCon, Gencon, etc. FLGS play is already split between PF1 and SF1, there isn't going to be a big enough pool of GMs and players to support three games. When push comes to shove, people are going to gravitate to the new (PF2 and SF1) scenarios because they're, well, new.

This means that, in a couple years, PFS Seasons 1-10 will only be played in houses, open game tables, and online. Groups can make whatever replay rules they want when they are in those situations.

Arguing in general terms over what will be legal in PFS 1-10 is like arguing about what is legal in Living City.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I got a case of MM3 and I have to say that I really like the alternate for some of of the commons and uncommon. I assume it is less costly for the manufacturer to make a slight variation in an existing model or paint job than to make a whole new model, but as a collector it felt like I was getting a lot fewer duplicates.
I didn't like that there were so many variants of rares. I was lucky that I got the versions I wanted, but it could have gone the other way. The seeding is as good as Battles, I got a "full" set but I didn't get a complete set. Not the end of the world, but the completist part of my brain doesn't like it. Hopefully this is unique to this set since it doesn't look like earlier sets did the same thing.
The invisible figures are cool, but I can see how their utility has probably diminished as more sets have come out. Battles dungeon dressings seem much more popular. I can usually get an invisible figure for an uncommon and get a rare for dressing.
The minis themselves are pretty great. The giants can be out of scale for Pathfinder, but some figures almost demand to have an encounter designed around them. The goblin flinger and three headed frost giant for example. However, I don't like how obesity is used as a shorthand for hill giants being grotesques (an earlier case incentive was especially bad).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

2E: Everyone gets three actions a turn. Well the monk gets 4 attacks, but it still counts as three actions. But they have to take a penalty to attack if using the second action to attack. Which is the third attack. But don't worry! Their fists are "agile", so the monk's penalty is different than the penalty for other classes that take 4 attacks in three actions.

It's almost _too_ simple.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

*Looks at two pages of questions/arguments about how 2E conditions work*

Ah yes, this will be much simpler.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

If they can't handle updating a lot of existing material, it tells me two things:

1) Paizo didn't learn lessons from the first time the classes were introduced.
2) 2E, as a system, isn't as streamlined/simplified as they think. It will just seem that way because so much will be erased.

Paizo can update material as quickly or slowly as they like, my preference is still my preference.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I want them to just make a book that is just updated versions of the non-core classes and related feats/spells/etc. Nothing for core, no new classes. Just a book that lets me play the classes I already like and lets me play them ASAP.

I don't want to wait eight years for a hardcover that squeezes in a few pages for the Inquisitor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Staffan Johansson wrote:
I would imagine that any anniversary edition AP in the near future would be one that isn't overly reliant on non-core material. So, for example, Jade Regent is probably out given the heavy reliance on Asia-inspired material (e.g. kami, multiple types of oni, imperial dragons, a bunch of archetypes and stuff). This would likely mean one of the earlier ones, given that the APs often "show off" the new and shiny stuff (or, the stuff needed for an AP is seeded in material published just before it).

One thing I hope 2E will work on is not treating material inspired by Asia, the most populous and largest continent, as exotic and niche. Asian immigrants brought their myths and history to the US, just like European immigrants did. For a Seattle area company to exclude so much of it is a failure of creativity.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
The Gold Sovereign wrote:

I would also love to see 3 bestiaries covered in one book, so that two books were enough to convert all monsters we have now... But it's hard to even dream a robust book like this would ever be released. I still think the best solution would be that adopted in Starfinder, with no need to revisit all the already existing bestiaries.

Now... I would be totally ok with a "Dragons Revisited for 2E" book... *w*

Two or Three books could be done be done if they go the 5E MM route and have an appendix of monsters that don't really need a big description or an illustration, just a stat block (mostly animals). They fit 3-5 monsters to a page. 40+ pages of Bestiary 1 could 15 or so pages.

Along with the suggestions of more compact stat blocks and taking potential PC races out and giving them their own book, the "catch-up" Bestiaries could cover a lot of ground. Assuming that getting players/GMs back to what they had in 1E without having to rebuy the same 6 books a second time is the goal.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
NielsenE wrote:
While I'd love move hardback compilations of APs, not at the expense of the new stories they have to tell.

What new stories were not told due to the RotRL and CotCT Hardbacks? Seems like the regular APs kept coming out on schedule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
CraziFuzzy wrote:

Well, until that 163 pages are reproduced with new artwork for pf2e's version of Planar Adventures.

I'm not going to hold off getting a planes book until 2028 when the 2E version releases (Just before 3E playtesting starts).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Last year there was an afternoon mini swap that I wasn't able to attend. Is it happening again this year?

If there is here's my have/wants:
http://www.miniaturetrading.com/user/portermj

message me if you want me to bring specific pieces.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I found out that my Humble bundle minis are delayed until later this year, so I checked to see how the KS is doing. The latest update is that six of the figures will ship in May. Which is ... not great. At that rate it would take years to fulfill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
edduardco wrote:
For me, one way to help in this is by carving a niche for yourself, and given that Pathfinder shares a lot with D&D it should strive to make itself as different as possible from 5e. What would that imply? Well, for me, more crunchiness, more available customization options, gonzo style + Golarion (seriously those APs are the best), and a higher power level overall.

It doesn't help that when someone new to Pathfinder opens the 2E Corebook they will see the pretty much the same races that are in the Player's Guide and nearly identical classes.

The crunchiness and options aren't going to matter if the first impression of Pathfinder is that it is Hydrox to D&D's Oreos.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Rogue hasn't been anything approaching a sub-class for a very, very, long time. It also epitomizes a fantasy archetype no other Class really works for very well. Removing it would be a really bad idea from a game design perspective.

Paladin is much easier to justify the removal of from a game design perspective, since it overlaps so much with Cleric thematically.

However, from a marketing perspective, removing either is an utterly awful idea. People enjoy both Classes immensely and will react with great anger at their removal. The popularity of the game will take a steep nosedive if two of the 10 most popular Classes are removed.

The idea that removing the paladins is bad from a marketing perspective hinges on the idea that there is no class replacing the paladin could create enough anticipation/happiness to offset the anger the removal causes.

2E is effectively removing 27 or so classes from the game. Each has players that enjoy them and will be angry at their removal. I find it very unlikely that, among the players familiar with these class, the paladin is more popular than every one of them. If the Inquisitor was in 2E core book, by the time the 3E playtest comes around it would just be assumed that the Inquisitor would be in it. Sometimes players don't know what they want until the get it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Thanks for the update!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Doktor Weasel wrote:
I figure the PF1 classes will likely be brought over (at least ones not made obsolete by the new system, I suspect many of the hybrid classes will lose their reason to exist due to flexibility in the core classes). And I'd assume it'd be early in the design cycle. But I'd also guess there there will have to be a wait, maybe a year or two before we get them in PF2. Mostly because it's going to take time to design and test them to get something balanced and interesting instead of something just tossed together. And considering doing the many many classes in one go would be quite a bit, I suspect we'll get a few at a time. Maybe the APG classes plus Magus and Gunslinger in one book at Gencon 2020, Occult in another another year later then the hybrids that still make sense in a third.

I'm not buying APG a second time, nor Occult Adventures, nor ACG. I can already play the classes in them right now. If Paizo wants me to get on board they need to offer something better than what I have in my bookcase.

Each of those classes were unique, with their own abilities that won't be replicated by archetypes or multiclassing. Until all the classes Paizo already spent time developing and that players built affection for are brought forward, 2nd Edition will be a step down from 1st.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I think the most likely new edition books are one or more Class Books (possibly themed) and an Ancestry Book converting a lot of PF1 races.

I hope so, I'm not even going to consider 2nd Edition until I can "play the character I want to play". Hopefully with existing classes and ancestries brought forward in two or three hardback.

To me, the "core" classes and races aren't Pathfinder, it's just the stuff they took from D&D and refurbished. Pathfinder is all the original material they created afterwards.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

My preference would be to get rid of race boons altogether. If a race can work for one player, it should be available to all players.

There aren't feat boons, class boons, or skill boons. What does it matter if a lot of rare races show up to a scenario? Like people are concerned that 4 ratfolk at a table might be too much fun. Lorewise, it wouldn't be any weirder than a group of any one of the non-human "core races" that are variously described as rare, isolated, or some combination of the two.

If a race creates some overpowered combination, do what is done to everything else: Nerf it or ban it.

If GM's really need more incentives, make boons that provide benefits that are created specifically for society play. Reward GMs, don't punish players.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Worst timeline: Everyone knows the best stories are about characters perfectly tailored to face the tasks at hand and are not out of place in any way, shape, or form.

A tolerable orchestra of conformists, if you will.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

No one could have predicted ND minis would ship late... except for literally everyone who had dealt with them in the past.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

"It's tempting to just decide the solution is not to have save or lose effects, but that really cuts off a wide variety of classic feats, monster abilities, and spells from the game."

This mindset hobbles every new edition. If it makes for a better game, why not cut off classic feats, abilities, and spells? Not everything has to be carried forward.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:


Since the end of Iron Gods, though, the general feeling has been a lot more similar, bar Ruins of Azlant and Strange Aeons, in that they all feel much more... vanilla, in a sense. Yes, they have things that make them unique: Hell's Vengeance is an Evil AP! Return of the Runelords will run players from Level 1 to 20! And I cannot stress how much I love the concept of Hell's Rebels. But I suppose my gripe is that a lot of it feels very classic fantasy, ones which don't need characters built specifically for the setting (eg you don't need to design a character who clearly looks like they belong diving into pyramids or standing at the deck of a pirate ship- rather, a character designed to be played in Giantslayer could potentially be re-used in War for the Crown with only minor changes, design and archetype wise. No races which are particularly fitting the way Changelings fit into CC and Androids into IG, no archetypes which fit THIS AP extremely well the way Buccaneer or Corsair fit Skulls and Shackles, etc). Basically, what I'm saying is that a lot of the newer...

So of the six fulls APs that have come out since Iron Gods most of them have all been vanilla except for three? If I asked for a scoop of vanilla ice cream and got back half vanilla, part ube, part chocolate, and part mint I would be very surprised.

I haven't run through Ironfang, but my GM makes it sounds like it is heavily Wilderness based. I'm not sure a character from that campaign would do well with the court intrigue of War for the Crown.

Personally, my love of Pathfinder APs isn't just because weird stuff shows up, it is also because they find ways to make goblins, orcs, and dragons interesting again. The world just feels more realized and full of inhabitants with distinct personalities, back stories, and connections with other characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Because the don't need to.

Kings/Rulers/Tyrants are driven by a fear of death and are trying to achieve immortality by creating a legacy that lasts after they are gone.

Wizards achieve immortality by not dying.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Marco Massoudi wrote:


The reason is, that they now offer a huge blue dragon (from the Alien Archive art) in their "late pledge manager", which is not included in the "all-in" pledge, but costs an additional $48.

It's stuff like this that made me hesitant to back this project.

If they don't plan to include the Blue in the All-In deal they shouldn't have it associated with the KS in any way.

And it takes a lot of nerve to offer what is basically a pre-order on a new project before they've finished the current one.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
DropBearHunter wrote:

I guess we've all sort of given up on regular updates of the miniatures?

No one is even complaining about "no preview" anymore.

If we're far enough out from the next set, what does it matter? The iconic boxes are see through, so I can just go to my FLGS and check out what they look like. If it is close to the release and we don't get previews or I don't like what I see, I can always drop my sub for that set.

Not marketing the minis line isn't a problem for players, it can only affect Paizo/Wizkids. If they are opting out, that's their business.

1 to 50 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>