Icingdeath
- Thread starter Vocenoctum
- Start date
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
Vocenoctum said:
The blue is on all fours. It looks like a reptile.
The red and black look like some weird humanoid/dragon thing and the red is SITTING on it's hind legs and is obvious way too big for it's 'size'. Part of the problem with the whole squares and assigning the sizes so early in the game. (Then again I know a lot of people who say a horse takes up a 10' by 5' as opposed to the 3.5 10' by 10'.)
Vocenoctum
First Post
Yeah, but Dragons don't even have a reptile subtype! The blue looks like he's on a walk in the park, rather than combat.JoeGKushner said:
Of note though, I doubt many if any of the humanoids are in ratio to their base either. One would imagine that the miniatures are simply a statuesque representative of the positioning of the figures.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Yeah, my single biggest problem with 3.5 vs. 3.0 are the changes in base sizes - I just plain do not think every critter should get a square base. So, I stick with the old base sizes and some of the old spell durations.JoeGKushner said:
If I ever feel the need to get a humongous white dragon I will get Deathsleet from Reaper.
But frankly, I'm waiting to see what they do for the larger Green Dragons - I have used greens more than any other dragon.
The Auld Grump
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
Great figure and while in a 'standing' position doesn't look like he's going to the batheroom and has a sense of... menace about him. He's not squatting.
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
Vocenoctum said:Of note though, I doubt many if any of the humanoids are in ratio to their base either. One would imagine that the miniatures are simply a statuesque representative of the positioning of the figures.
Completelyg defeating the purpose of the whole size/base thing. Bad on WoTC as many of their 'giant' figures look way too similiar, especially when comparing say ogres and hill giants and noting that frost and fire giants are all about the same size. Bad WoTC. No cookie for you.
Vocenoctum
First Post
JoeGKushner said:
Menace? He's getting ready to arm wrestle.
frankthedm
First Post
Oh, many of us agree on that.Pants said:
Vocenoctum
First Post
JoeGKushner said:Completelyg defeating the purpose of the whole size/base thing. Bad on WoTC as many of their 'giant' figures look way too similiar, especially when comparing say ogres and hill giants and noting that frost and fire giants are all about the same size. Bad WoTC. No cookie for you.
That's my point, none of these figures defy the base/size/ratio formula.
There isn't one, never was, never will be. I would prefer that figures not overlap the base so much simply because that means they'll bump into other overlappers near them on a map, but otherwise the figures don't need to match. (I'd prefer more general comparisons though, the new dwarf guy is just horrible.)
Sure they have guidelines, and I'd prefer them to be tighter controlled, but it's not a big deal.
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
Oh, no. There isn't one 'official' figure that defies the base/size/ratio formula... There are many from third parties that do. Heck, Grenadier's old Giants line was great for this. Mind you they had a few that abusred the whole size thing like the frost giant with his legs spread in his battle stance making the base WAY too big, but overall were pretty good.
Well, actually, there at least three that I can think of off the top of my head. The blue dragon goes beyond his base. The red dragon is in a sitting position and SHOULD go well beyound his base. The loyal earth elemental goes beyond his base. The bases are 'false' so to speak and the figures could be remounted onto larger bases with little difficulty.
Well, actually, there at least three that I can think of off the top of my head. The blue dragon goes beyond his base. The red dragon is in a sitting position and SHOULD go well beyound his base. The loyal earth elemental goes beyond his base. The bases are 'false' so to speak and the figures could be remounted onto larger bases with little difficulty.
