Chainmail equivalents

Think it is about time to update the equivalents now WOTC?

Now you have a second Drizzt out how about making the Drow Ranger the Drizzt equivalent?

What about how the Orc Champion is the same as it's Chainmail equivalent, and yet it isn't legal still. WHY?

To Sell More Archfiends Minis Like They Are Through Online Sellers Like They Are...It Is JUST About Profit.

Then why make the others legal? It's not like those are not as expensive. The Grey Elf Wizard (Elf Pyromancer) is still pretty high up there, and the Orc Druid is the same as the DDM one, but the DDM goes for $15-20 while the chainmail sells at $1.50.

They Want Cheaper Miniatures Off The Market.Just Like They Did With The Lead Ral Partha Miniatures.WotC,After Buying TSR Melted Those Miniatures Away To Make More Expensive Mins.

Orc Champion

I appreciate an unfounded rant as much as the next person...No, I take that back: I don't appreciate unfounded rants.

I'd rather that the Drow Ranger was equiv'ed to an actual "Drow Ranger" or similar rather than aligned to Drizzt. I'd really like to see the Chainmail Equivs be worthwhile to put into a warband as opposed to "Bugbear", "Werewolf", et al.

I believe it was at last year's GenCon, but Shoe mentioned that something was coming with Chainmail Equivs, but I've yet to see anything. Of course, it was only a couple months ago that some of his promises came through.

Shoe Says a LOT Of Things And Rarely Delivers...

Where does it say that the Orc Champion is legal? I keep looking at the Wizards page and I'm not seeing it.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mi/20031127a

How utterly peculiar.

Ian's in Japan (or was until just recently), but someone should make a note for him that it's been left out of the floor rules.

I can't imagine that it was left out intentionally.

Like I said, it didn't make any sense. They are the same thing, except one is metal. Go figure.

That was a good (if strange) catch.

I've left a post on Hordelings about it. I know Ian checks there pretty regularly. He may not respond to my thread, but I believe he'll at least read it.

The real kick is that, because the way the rules have been written, I don't think it's possible for a judge to allow a Chainmail OC if it ever gets challenged. It's like the whole Basic Game (II) thing over again...

This is getting absurd.

Someone needs to pull their head out and get a breath of fresh air.

I know almost nothing about the allowances of Chainmail minis in constructed tournaments. What do you mean by the challenging? Is it possible for you to get in trouble for using a chainmail mini that is on the list?

SkYlyn3 wrote:

I know almost nothing about the allowances of Chainmail minis in constructed tournaments. What do you mean by the challenging? Is it possible for you to get in trouble for using a chainmail mini that is on the list?

Specific to the OC: Basically, an unscrupulous (IMO) player who was aware of the Chainmail OC's absence could, if playing against a player with a Chainmail OC, call the judge over and challenge the legality of the warband. While the OC has not been specifically exempted and does have an official equiv card, it does not appear in the appendix that lists the allowable Chainmail models. By a strict reading of the rules, the warband with the Chainmail OC would have to be declared illegal.

Chainmail in General: Any mini on the list should be allowable if it's within the other parameters set forth for Chainmail and converted minis in the floor rules. So it's technically possible for a heavily (or even moderately) converted mini to be disallowed even though it's on the list. But that should be a very rare occurrance.

Specific to the Basic Game (II) Minis: Most of the miniatures released in the Basic Game (II) were temporarily declared as not usable in official games. Because the minis had a different name on the base than would normally be associated. Regdar was, I believe, the only exception. Because the names were not the same (Whatsisbucket, Dwarf Cleric vs. Cleric of Moradin), it could not be conclusively proved that the miniature was indeed the same figure. It was also ruled that if the figure had been removed from its base it was perfectly legal (again if within the parameters set forth for converted miniatures) as it was easily identifiable because the "confusing" information present on the Basic Game (II) miniature was no longer present. It's an absolutely absurd ruling, but the only ruling possible within the framework of rules.

So, any ruling about this yet?

Not that I've heard. Of course, I really don't expect to hear back. All that's needed is to change the appendix quietly and let things go from there.

If it hasn't been updated Ian either hasn't seen it, or hasn't gotten around to it.

I'm reluctant to mention this on the WotC board just in case there is a toolbox who decides to yank someone's proverbial chain about an OC.