D&D minis game: point cost NOT linked to rarity. HUZZAH!

[frankthedm]

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=802549#post802549

quote: CelticGamer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Thirdly, I hope that rarity of a figure will not depend exclusively on its power. I’m going to be honest here so please don’t be offended and consider what I’m saying. One thing that almost immediately turned me off of Magic: the Gathering was that some of my friends spend money they couldn’t afford on large numbers of booster packs looking for cards which they hoped would give them an edge. I believe this is somewhat exploitive and generates feelings which can detract somewhat from the game. Rare pieces, which will be sought by collectors who want a complete set, do not necessarily have to be powerful pieces desired by people who simply want to have an adequate collection in order to play the game. A griffin or elder elfish wizard can be a common piece, while a particularly specially designed goblin or Orc Captain could be a rare piece. This would certainly be a more democratic and egalitarian way to market the game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.....

Above Point 3: There are many commons and uncommons that are very cost effective like the common Man-at-Arms with his very good armor class for his cheap cost, or the uncommon Axe Sister with her 50 hit points. When costing I did not take into account rarity. Many factors affected rarity and many factors affected costing but costing had nothing to do with rarity.

__________________
Mike Donais.
WotC R&D

SWEET!

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Definatly a good thing to hear. Thanks for posting that! You get a cookie.

 

[Technik4]

Not convinced

Unfortunately what he described also fits Magic the Gathering. For instance, there are many solid common and uncommon cards that can build a good creature base, or perhaps supplement your spells. The problem is, in Magic, rares are the real meat of the deck. Rares usually can start combos or interact with commons and uncommons in more powerful ways, not to mention provide alternate ways of winning the game. Rares are generally harder to use than commons or uncommons, or flat-out a better value than their more common counterparts.

Which is not to say D&D Minis will be like that. I think they already said that larger pieces will be more rare, which appears to be both a game-driven and an economics-driven solution. When it comes to a miniatures game though you don't need 4 of a good rare to supplement your army, probably just having 1 will be plenty unless you play at very high point totals or it happens to be a very inexpensive Rare point-wise. I hope most rares are fairly expensive to field, because I expect they WILL be slightly better than their more common counterparts and therefore I don't want to face an army of all rares.

I want to believe things will be different, but based on that statement, color me with a "wait-and-see" attitude as far as really diving into the game. I plan on buying a couple boosters and a starter for fun.

Technik

 

[frankthedm]

Oh its definitly wait and see, thing like this [and unfortunatly employees who value game balance over profits] change.

 

[tetsujin28]

Well rare doesn't always equal good. Some of the HeroClicks rares are actually pretty wimpy.