This truly is the classic dilemma, and set retirement (I prefer the term set rotation) is the standard solution. If DDM is really bought more than it's played, I don't think set rotation will upset too many people.
Maybe not, but it is still one of the biggest gripes that non-obsessive collectors have with games like Magic. If I blow $100 on a case of minis and a couple of years from now someone tells me I can't use 'em in tournament play, I'm going to be pretty chapped and I'm certainly not going to go "Well, time for me to buy some more minis!"
Now the fact that I am one of those very people you're talking about who uses the minis primarily for D&D and not for the skirmish game may just prove your point. However, if one of the goals of the minis game is to draw in people from the roleplaying game (which I certainly think you could argue is the case), then that same target audience's willingness to accept set retirement/rotation will need to be considered. I'd be interested to know just how many people are playing the minis game just for the minis game, and how many are roleplayers who occasionally play skirmish games.
The most important element of set rotation is reissuing enough of the classics to maintain both balance and nostalgia. Look at Eight Edition to see what I mean.
I'm not into the retirement/rotation thing. That's one of the reasons I stopped playing Magic.
Maybe a set formula (like the one from the miniatures handbook) could be the answer?
Set rotation seems little more than opportunism if done poorly. In theory, one of the criteria for including old cards in new sets is their popularity. If you look at the current Magic environment, you might be surprised to see how many Eight Edition and Mirrodin cards you already own (assuming you haven't unloaded all of your Magic cards).
As for a set formula, I'm not sure what AG is referring to. Could you give me a page reference so I can look it up? Thank you.
MM: I was thinking of something like the system from the Miniatures Handbook, pg 79. Afer reviewing the section, I think a 'formula' (if one could really be applied) would have to be more detailed than the one found in those pages.
What I really mean is a formula that would balance a minature's power with an appropriate point value cost, so the miniature would never go "out of style."
Even if errata had to be issued on various minis from time to time (changing their point value, their statistics, etc.), I think a formula would be better than retiring/rotating minis. Sure, I'd still use the minis for the RPG, but I'd really rather be stomping plastic monster butt with them.
What I really mean is a formula that would balance a minature's power with an appropriate point value cost, so the miniature would never go "out of style."
Even if errata had to be issued on various minis from time to time (changing their point value, their statistics, etc.), I think a formula would be better than retiring/rotating minis. Sure, I'd still use the minis for the RPG, but I'd really rather be stomping plastic monster butt with them.
Whoa, whoa, whoa there cowboy... There is no way that this would even be close to viable. Constantly changing errata and point values would make playing in a tournament way too much work for most players.
Here's the reality of DDM. As of today... CE is the best faction. Why? There are a few minis that are highly efficient in that faction... Orc Champion, Ogre Ravager, Red Samurai, Drider Sorceror, Orc Warrior, Abyssal Maw, Tiefling Captain, etc.
Does that mean that the other factions have absolutely no chance of winning at tournament? No... it just means that it's more difficult to win. I believe there was one CG band in the top 8 at the recent national tournament at GenCon. I'm pretty sure that was the only non-CE band in the top 8.
Does this require set rotation? Not really... CE would still be dominant without the Orc Warrior and Tiefling Captain (from the Harbinger set). It would likely remain dominant without Dragoneye also. Why? It's niche is high hitpoint, high damage figures. That's a tough combination to beat.
That said, the latest set gives a big boost to CG and also throws a couple of bones to LG and LE without giving CE a bunch more power (except the Chuul, which is pretty sweet). Even though CG has been made more viable, I still expect CE to dominate for a while.
The next set (Death Knell) should provide a needed boost to LE as it should be filled with undead... and it will also have some nice LE additions like the Beholder and the Mummy Lord.
The following set is rumored to be named Angelfire... which can only spell out a little bit of extra love for LG.
What does it all mean? It means that future sets should produce warband building options for all factions that are tournament worthy. I fully expect to see all of the factions represented in the top 8 at next year's national tournament.
We now bring you back to your regularly schedule topic. ;)
--sam
AG: That's what I thought you meant by a formula. I was pretty sure the DDM handbook explicitly did not use a formula for one of two reasons. Either they have one and they don't want to reveal it for fear of someone breaking it, or they don't and had no desire to painstakingly reverse-engineer one.