<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Iron Wind Metals release Aegis Capital Ship</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652</link>
	<description>Daily news, reviews and information for tabletop gamers of all interests.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:06:15 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: penn42</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22663</link>
		<dc:creator>penn42</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 May 2008 01:17:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22663</guid>
		<description>And sorry about the typos. Long convention weekend already here....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And sorry about the typos. Long convention weekend already here&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: penn42</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22662</link>
		<dc:creator>penn42</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 May 2008 01:04:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22662</guid>
		<description>Trust me, I know the history. I have been playing since 1984 and never looked back. One thing that gets IWM a lot of cred is the fact that there are many people in the community riding off the love fro mthe mid 90s. And there is no arguement that 10 years ago, IWM helped keep BT going. That said, I am not a hige fan of what you DID, but what you are DOING. It's there here and now I am concerned with in the statements I am making now...

As for a section of the list, here ya go. I didn't feel like editing the rest. I was able to get three of these sculpts through standard distro channels.

20-873 Spider 
20-900 Cicada
20-879 Clint
20-870 Whitworth 
20-932 Vindicator
20-849 Centurion 
20-901 Trebuchet
20-787 Dervish 
20-888 Grasshoper
20-848 Orion
20-847 Awesome
20-863 Cyclops 
20-864 Hatchetman 
20-902 Charger
20-942RE Atlas
20-810 Hatamoto-chi
20-361 Thorn
20-305 Flea
20-372 Hornet
20-777 Flacon
20-780 Hussar 
20-774 Black Knight</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trust me, I know the history. I have been playing since 1984 and never looked back. One thing that gets IWM a lot of cred is the fact that there are many people in the community riding off the love fro mthe mid 90s. And there is no arguement that 10 years ago, IWM helped keep BT going. That said, I am not a hige fan of what you DID, but what you are DOING. It&#8217;s there here and now I am concerned with in the statements I am making now&#8230;</p>
<p>As for a section of the list, here ya go. I didn&#8217;t feel like editing the rest. I was able to get three of these sculpts through standard distro channels.</p>
<p>20-873 Spider<br />
20-900 Cicada<br />
20-879 Clint<br />
20-870 Whitworth<br />
20-932 Vindicator<br />
20-849 Centurion<br />
20-901 Trebuchet<br />
20-787 Dervish<br />
20-888 Grasshoper<br />
20-848 Orion<br />
20-847 Awesome<br />
20-863 Cyclops<br />
20-864 Hatchetman<br />
20-902 Charger<br />
20-942RE Atlas<br />
20-810 Hatamoto-chi<br />
20-361 Thorn<br />
20-305 Flea<br />
20-372 Hornet<br />
20-777 Flacon<br />
20-780 Hussar<br />
20-774 Black Knight</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: evernevermore (John)</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22661</link>
		<dc:creator>evernevermore (John)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 May 2008 00:57:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22661</guid>
		<description>Ive heard some of the issues with ordering IWM but I have also seen Battletech go through a massive drought and stand at the edge of oblivion before first FanPro and especially Catalyst manage to rebuild the line. As far as the iconic mechs I would think the reseen have brought them back pretty throughly. What iconic models are you talking about?

I'll have to check with my Commando and the game store I use for minis to see how things are for them with IWM.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ive heard some of the issues with ordering IWM but I have also seen Battletech go through a massive drought and stand at the edge of oblivion before first FanPro and especially Catalyst manage to rebuild the line. As far as the iconic mechs I would think the reseen have brought them back pretty throughly. What iconic models are you talking about?</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll have to check with my Commando and the game store I use for minis to see how things are for them with IWM.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zac</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22655</link>
		<dc:creator>Zac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 23:20:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22655</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the clarification</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the clarification</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: penn42</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22651</link>
		<dc:creator>penn42</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 22:21:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22651</guid>
		<description>evernevermore, let me clear up my previous statement. 

IWM is currently the sole license holder to produce miniatures for Classic Battletech. Being that they hold the license, you would think that to support the game they hold the license for, they would mirror the products they make to the product set that Catalyst is currently producing. I own a game store. I also carry CBT. It is _laughable_ to try and stock minis for the game currently. When I tried to order the full compliment of mechs that were placed into the 3039 TRO, I walked away with being able to find about 1 in 9. That level of support for a miniatures game is atrocious. I don't have the ability to order some of the most iconic designs in the game through either distribution or though IWM directly. You see, a few years back, they weeded a bunch of skus out of distro/direct sale. Now, If I want to sell them, I have to order them just like you would through the IWM site at a margin that actually _costs_ me money to put on the shelves. Of all the minis line/games i deal with (and there are MANY) this is the only miniatures company supporting a game in this fashion. I know for a fact retailers WANT to carry CBT on the quality of products Catalyst is doing. I have access to forums where retailers converge to discuss such things. Two just this week said they wouldn't try stocking the game due to IWM. 

To add more fuel to the fire, the fan funded/direct only sculpts are just one more incentive for retailers to take a pass. While it's nice that IWM choses to focus on minis for game systems that have been OOP for YEARS, and sustain that small vocal minority...great. But as license holders for the "Classic Battletech Intellectual Property" they have made themselves hugely irrelevant. So sure, it's a nice ship...but in the end, that's not what CBT needs. It needs a company who will support the game, get minis out there that relate to what is in print, and supply the people who are doing a better job of supporting the game than they are.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>evernevermore, let me clear up my previous statement. </p>
<p>IWM is currently the sole license holder to produce miniatures for Classic Battletech. Being that they hold the license, you would think that to support the game they hold the license for, they would mirror the products they make to the product set that Catalyst is currently producing. I own a game store. I also carry CBT. It is _laughable_ to try and stock minis for the game currently. When I tried to order the full compliment of mechs that were placed into the 3039 TRO, I walked away with being able to find about 1 in 9. That level of support for a miniatures game is atrocious. I don&#8217;t have the ability to order some of the most iconic designs in the game through either distribution or though IWM directly. You see, a few years back, they weeded a bunch of skus out of distro/direct sale. Now, If I want to sell them, I have to order them just like you would through the IWM site at a margin that actually _costs_ me money to put on the shelves. Of all the minis line/games i deal with (and there are MANY) this is the only miniatures company supporting a game in this fashion. I know for a fact retailers WANT to carry CBT on the quality of products Catalyst is doing. I have access to forums where retailers converge to discuss such things. Two just this week said they wouldn&#8217;t try stocking the game due to IWM. </p>
<p>To add more fuel to the fire, the fan funded/direct only sculpts are just one more incentive for retailers to take a pass. While it&#8217;s nice that IWM choses to focus on minis for game systems that have been OOP for YEARS, and sustain that small vocal minority&#8230;great. But as license holders for the &#8220;Classic Battletech Intellectual Property&#8221; they have made themselves hugely irrelevant. So sure, it&#8217;s a nice ship&#8230;but in the end, that&#8217;s not what CBT needs. It needs a company who will support the game, get minis out there that relate to what is in print, and supply the people who are doing a better job of supporting the game than they are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: evernevermore (John)</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22633</link>
		<dc:creator>evernevermore (John)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 15:20:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22633</guid>
		<description>My complaint with the mini is it looks like they have a mold line running down the side of model - wish they had cleaned that up a little more. Looks like the fins will be fiddly and pretty bendable - could be trouble with keeping your paint in good condition.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My complaint with the mini is it looks like they have a mold line running down the side of model - wish they had cleaned that up a little more. Looks like the fins will be fiddly and pretty bendable - could be trouble with keeping your paint in good condition.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Noah D</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22628</link>
		<dc:creator>Noah D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 13:56:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22628</guid>
		<description>Considering how many generic/universal spaceship rule sets there are out there, I don't think &lt;i&gt;any&lt;/i&gt; ship mini contributes towards 'irrelevancy'.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Considering how many generic/universal spaceship rule sets there are out there, I don&#8217;t think <i>any</i> ship mini contributes towards &#8216;irrelevancy&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zac</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22627</link>
		<dc:creator>Zac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 13:49:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22627</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Saying IWM is irrelevant because your not interested in thier products...&lt;/blockquote&gt;

He hasn't actually clarified what he meant so its not fair to speculate on his opinion. Hopefully he will pop in again and say why he thinks they are irrelevant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Saying IWM is irrelevant because your not interested in thier products&#8230;</p></blockquote>
<p>He hasn&#8217;t actually clarified what he meant so its not fair to speculate on his opinion. Hopefully he will pop in again and say why he thinks they are irrelevant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: evernevermore (John)</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22625</link>
		<dc:creator>evernevermore (John)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 12:50:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22625</guid>
		<description>I dont see how - a Star League era ship when one of the major rulessets in the works is the one that folds Battlespace, Battleforce, and all the other bits of rules for a strategic level game. Saying IWM is irrelevant because your not interested in thier products doesnt make much sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I dont see how - a Star League era ship when one of the major rulessets in the works is the one that folds Battlespace, Battleforce, and all the other bits of rules for a strategic level game. Saying IWM is irrelevant because your not interested in thier products doesnt make much sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zac</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22606</link>
		<dc:creator>Zac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 04:14:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22606</guid>
		<description>How so?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How so?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: penn42</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22601</link>
		<dc:creator>penn42</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 00:55:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/05/22/14652#comment-22601</guid>
		<description>I honestly didn't think IWM could be more irrelevant, but here's proving me wrong!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I honestly didn&#8217;t think IWM could be more irrelevant, but here&#8217;s proving me wrong!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
