Anyone else laugh at Dangers of the Demonweb?

[Stoat]

I don't buy the minis and I don't keep up with the new minis when they come out. If they hadn't mentioned it, I wouldn't have known that these monsters were based on the new minis.

So I didn't think it was funny.

 

[megamania]

I will admit to cackling evily once or twice. For example the Explosive Scythejaw's Clockwork Timer/Timed Explosion. At first I was like but then I was like

Phaezen

Spoken like a DM.

 

[Hellzon]

For what it's worth, the Demonweb RPG stats actually looked okay when I checked a sample, unlike those for Dungeons Of Dread and Against The Giants (which were made before the 4E rules were finished).

 

[Dire Bare]

I just found something highly humorous about Dangers of the Demonweb.

As mentioned above, so shocking you've added yet another post to your negative post-a-thon "laughing" at the D&D Minis product line.

1. Based on monsters that come with cards that have the stats.

And? As stated in the article, some of the beasties presented are different builds than the ones presented on the stat cards. Some are the same (I haven't checked to see which is which, or the percentage of "new" builds). Usually, we get minis with stat cards based on monsters presented in RPG products, in this case they are just reversing the direction of inspiration.

2. To use the gaming stats from the mag on the table, you need the minis. That come with the cards.

Uh, no. To any or all of the monsters in the article, you do not need the corresponding mini and/or stat card. Now you are just spreading disinformation. Sure WotC wants to encourage you to purchase lots of minis and the article's purpose is cross-promotional, but to state you "need" the minis is just flat out wrong.

3. The cards are wrong. Still.

Again, wrong (not the cards, you). I have no doubt there is errata needed for the various minis and cards in the Demonweb expansion (show me a minis or D&D product that didn't need errata and you win a prize). But the builds on the stat cards are not "wrong". They are simply different builds. You might have noticed that many monsters in the MM and other sources have *gasp* more than one build. Same case here.

So The Demonweb set for the D&D Miniatures Game contains some creatures that haven't appeared in any 4th Edition products shows that either WoTC doesn't believe that the miniatures are 4th edition products or they decided to make people pay for the errata.

Interesting leap of logic here. You do know that there were minis introduced in earlier sets that had no 3rd Ed counterpart at the time? WotC has long used the minis line to introduce a handful of new creatures to the game, and IMO this is awesome! Anytime we get new beasties is a good time! It's clear that WotC considers the minis to be part of the 4th Ed line of products and, no, they are not having you "pay" for errata. Again, you are just being a bit silly about the whole thing here.

Not really I know but it strikes me as funny for some reason.

As the rash of negative D&D minis posts over the past week or so show, you mask your dislike of the the line with "humor" quite poorly. We all get it Joe, you don't like the way WotC handles their miniature line. It's okay. Just come out and say it, and please drop the snark, it's getting tiring.

 

[Shroomy]

Laugh...uh, no. Really appreciate some cool 4e monsters...hell yeah.

 

[Umbran]

As the rash of negative D&D minis posts over the past week or so show, you mask your dislike of the the line with "humor" quite poorly. We all get it Joe, you don't like the way WotC handles their miniature line. It's okay. Just come out and say it, and please drop the snark, it's getting tiring.

There's no call to get personal, or to tell other folks what they are thinking. Please don't. You're free to disagree, but we expect the level of rhetoric to be somewhat higher than this.

Address the position he takes, not his person, please.

 

[JoeGKushner]

In terms of 'continous' bashing, I'm a little puzzled.

This thread is more of a 'bash' against the DDI than the old minis. It just seemed an odd choice and tickled my funny bone.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/247623-why-d-d-miniature-line-failed.html would be my 'bash' against the old random style minis and you'll note I've posted in there a limited number of times. Mostly it's other people sharing their observations/comments/criticisms.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-did-prepainted-minis-get-you-into-minis.html isn't a bash on prepaints, it's a question of did the ease of buying prepaints get you into metal minis.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/247985-so-what-your-favorite-d-d-prepaints.html talking about favorites?

Maybe I'm missing something but those are the ones I'm aware of. Maybe it's because I post with my own name and it's familiar or something. Crazy kids these days. "Man, Joe was talking about his favorite minis from WoTC but you know he was just lying, just looking for some negative things to say."

Uh... no.

 

[Dire Bare]

In terms of 'continous' bashing, I'm a little puzzled.

I must have taken cranky pills, because upon rereading my post later this evening it's pretty obvious that I went overboard and too far. Sorry, Joe.

I do disagree with the points you raised in the original post, but I took it too far and made it unnecessarlily personal. The posts you linked to show that you've certainly been discussing the D&D minis, but as you pointed out, it is far from completely negative.

I think I need to take a step back, take a break from posting, and ask myself why your original post got me all riled up.

 

[JohnnyQuest]

I've heard mostly positive feedback about the article.