Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lancelot" data-source="post: 3116551" data-attributes="member: 30022">Agreed. The key thing for me with A&A minis is they are a massive time-saver. I just don't have the time to prime, paint, base, flock, and so forth any more. I used to do this for fantasy minis (Ral Partha, Reaper, etc), but it has grown increasingly hard with a job, girlfriend, computer gaming, and (of course) the weekly D&D sessions.In addition to the time savings, A&A minis are just so much more convenient. Like D&D minis, they are extremely hardy. I can pick up a couple of platoons of tanks or infantry in my fist and dump them down on the tabletop without any damage to the figures. They're lighter, they're easier to store, you never need to worry about damaging the paintwork or bending a tank barrel on the field. And most figures actually look pretty darn good. Not as good as hand-painted masterpiece, but more than acceptable for a typical battle.As for cost, it's a mixed bag. Literally. Overall, A&A minis are much cheaper... but they're randomized, of course. That makes it harder (and more costly) to build a specific army for a specific campaign.Rules-wise, FoW is more detailed and realistic than A&A. The key thing is... there's nothing stopping you from using A&A minis with FoW rules. In my opinion, that's the best of both worlds.====...and to answer the original post, I don't collect Dreamblade minis. Two plastic crack habits (D&D, A&A) is enough for me, thanks. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" /></blockquote>

Verification