Talk:Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Are the lists of abbreviations really necessary? They seem to be confusing without some sort of base reference.


Contents

[edit] Sizes

I think this page could use some explanation of the figure sizes. The article makes mention of the Huge releases and implies that they are notable without giving the reader any reason why. Also the Icon releases - a casual reader will not understand the significance or the scale of sizes (how they relate). I also remember one of the sets was notable for the first inclusion of a Tiny figure (Quasit or Imp - memory not so good). --Cunnington A 15:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I could supply a picture of some miniatures lined up by size, if that might help. I have the Colossoal Red Dragon, as well as at least one figure of every other size, except tiny. If I take the picture, I could also put a common object that people would know the size of in the picture. Would that help? --Jazhara7 11:49, 27 January 2008 (CET)

[edit] War of the Dragon Queen

There is no Blue Dracolich.....

I think....

Can someone confirm that?

The Ronin 15:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Dracolich is just called Dracolich, although it is blue-ish white. ShadowUltra 22:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I just got a Dracolich. It says on the card "Dracolich (Adult Blue)", and its attacks, elements, and form are all that of blue dragons. Obviously, the Dracolich is a Lich Blue Dragon, but as the actual miniature is called Dracolich, we should keep it that way ShadowUltra 23:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seperate Articles?

I was considering making seperate articles for each expansion set in the DDM game and explaining some of the more famous or popular minis. If no one has any problems with this, shall I go ahead and do that? ShadowUltra 22:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection. The more info in Wikipedia the better, as long as it sticks to encyclopedic form. I would however say that fixing this article, adding info explaining gameplay etc is of a higher priority in the scheme of things - Waza 01:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge Harbinger (D&D)

This stub has mixed information about both D&D and Star Wars and the one line about each does not need a page for just them. shadzar|Talk|contribs 17:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Star Wars information. Unless someone wants to expand the article, I'd agree. But there was talk of expanding them in the discussion above, though nothing seems to have come of it. Is there a time limit on these things? --Suttkus 19:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I haven't found any time limits on anything around Wikipedia. But being new myself and trying to help clean up some of the ecvess D&D stubs I placed the merge notices for people that created the page to discuss if they (the articles) really need their own page. shadzar|Talk|contribs 03:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Rather than creating stubs for every set, if someone is keen to have all these articles it would be best to do one correctly and fully written to set an example for how the others can be layed out. - Waza 00:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Individual or Joined?

First, from the beginning, DDM hada page for all the sets.

Then I went ahead and changed that, adding a page for each set.

Then Percy Snoodle changed it back.

I've had a number of people agree with my changes, and a number of people who have not. With no offense to Percy Snoodle, I'd like to initiate a vote to see which is better. The Ronin 00:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Page

  • Well, I see it this way, multiple pages is a great idea in concept, but at the point the pages were removed, they didn't have remotely enough content to be worthy of existence. What do you intend to put on the pages to make them valid encyclopedia entries? Most of the conversation above consists of discussing this issue for as far back as July and, frankly, nobody has put anything useful on the individual set pages. Convince me it's a good idea and I'll change my mind, but right now, there seems to be no point. --Suttkus 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that there is much to say about the game. to give every set it's own page. what would be orther then a list of minis?Dm2ortiz 02:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Pages

  • The Ronin 00:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)-Because I think each set is notable enough to have it's own page, and that we can create a good enough page for each one.
  • Multiple pages would be good, but don't make the pages and hope the info will come. Start by working on one set, write up a great article on that as a model for what the others could be. Even then you start this by an expanded section in this article. One well written article on a release will be a much bettter add for multiple pages than a dozen stubs - Waza 03:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Will one month be enough to decide this?

This argument has reached no consensus as of February 2006. The Ronin 22:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] set logos

user Pak21 whats to remove the images of the set logs. he told me that they do not "contribute significantly" and are "regarded as merely decorative". I told him that I don't know about that but i found it help full. I think you guys need to deside if they need to go or not.Just-fix-it 19:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think pak doesn’t play DDM. The symbols are very significant to the game and should stay as they are. the symbols are stamped on all of the minis and are important for tournament games
I play the game, but that is neither here nor there. I am with Pak21 on this matter- we cannot just have huge galleries of fair use images. They have been removed from List of... episodes articles, they have been removed from discographies, they should also be removed from this. We cannot just layer articles with fair use images. J Milburn 16:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I have removed two of the galleries. As for the set logos, I will await some more input before I do anything with them. J Milburn 16:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The set-identifying icons are significant information. They are similar to, say, an jeweler's or potter's mark. Since the individual miniatures are "collectable" and frequently sold or traded individually, the primary way of identifying their set of origin is the symbol printed on their base. That said, the symbols on the bases are simpler and simply embossed; they have no color. A black-and-white version more similar to those on the miniatures themselves might be superior (although still subject to copyright and thus only available under fair use). — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we need icons for sets - it's how the individual figures are identified as belonging to a set. However I agree they don't have to be so large and colourful - just visible and practical for identification reference. --Cunnington A 20:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chainmail miniatures (todo)

(Need to figure out where to work this in to the article) There were an older line of miniatures produced by either TSR or WOTC that predate the Harbringer set - while they predated the current game, many of the miniatures are legal in tournament play with updated rules. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 02:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding it in a sections on rules/tournaments --Cunnington A (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
In fact there isn't anything about tournaments, store packs, promo figures , repainting, and more. --Cunnington A (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)