First peek at the new counter art from Liz Danforth for MELEE 5/18/2018

[larsdangly]

Groovy baby.

[Skarg]

I think top-down images make sense for horses and non-humanoid multi-hex counters, because the shape of the counter is the top-down shape of the creature, and it's tactically important where the body parts are. If you showed a ground-level perspective for a dragon counter, it wouldn't relate to where the body parts are, etc.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Skarg

I think top-down images make sense for horses and non-humanoid multi-hex counters, because the shape of the counter is the top-down shape of the creature, and it's tactically important where the body parts are. If you showed a ground-level perspective for a dragon counter, it wouldn't relate to where the body parts are, etc.

Not so. It would be just like the original wolf counters. The tail end of dragon would still be the rear, and the ventral and dorsal parts from the front and rear legs would be side hexes, just as always.

[EDIT]Here is a link to a concept drawing for a side-view 7-hex dragon.

[Kirk]

In general, right idea. The pole weapon user's hand seems jacked oddly, turns me off of that character, and the dragon's wings seem to interfere with seeing the body, but perhaps more characters will give an overall feel as the original.
The bell bottomed fighters are part and parcel of the original, but perhaps they want to tone that down for some reason.

What I don't remember or know is why can't SJ just use the original artwork from Danforth? If she is willing to do more, wouldn't perhaps paying her some portion to reuse the original work make sense?

Another important point to me is to have enough of the right type of counters. Swordsmen, shieldmen, proper axemen, pole users, bowmen, animals and creatures, etc. for a party and for NPCs. There are also specialty weapons such as thrown etc. which are sometimes difficult to find in a counter set for accurate representation during play. I hate having a thrown weapon character, for example, represented by a swordsman, or a small ax and shield by a battleaxeman.

[Dave Crowell]

If the original counter artwork was done as work for hire the copyright and publication rights may very well reside with Metagaming, not with Liz Danforth. This is fairly standard.

I would love to see even one figure in bell-bottoms as a callout to the originals. Just for nostalgia.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Not so. It would be just like the original wolf counters. The tail end of dragon would still be the rear, and the ventral and dorsal parts from the front and rear legs would be side hexes, just as always.

Oh ok, I see how you could do that, for certain postures that fit the counter shapes, anyway.

Personally, I am used to and like the top-down views, as I feel they're helpful for communicating the size and body part disposition of the creature relative to the map.

[Kirk]

If I remember, the original dragons were from the top down, and that works for me, especially since there are a specific ring of front, side, and rear hexes that need to match up to the drawing as easily as possible.

I'm glad to see Danforth on this reboot, I don't thihk she'll disappoint overall.

The original melee counters had a purple pass for color, as well as the great cover with the fighter having delivered a blow to the gargoyle and is *in the act* of resetting his weapon for another blow. That's good design, most people would just always make the fighter *delivering* the blow, not recovering from one. The balance in the figures is very good, very real, very naturally correct.

And the pieces had purple on white, and then a minority were white on purple, if I remember correctly. This worked well when selecting pieces and there were two sword shield PCs, one could distinguish by choosing one purple and one white for the party.

And what could be more cool than the tiny dagger dropped weapon counter and the others, as well. We always lamented that there weren't many, if any, dropped bolas and boomerangs counters, though.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Kirk

If I remember, the original dragons were from the top down, and that works for me, especially since there are a specific ring of front, side, and rear hexes that need to match up to the drawing as easily as possible.
...
And the pieces had purple on white, and then a minority were white on purple, if I remember correctly. This worked well when selecting pieces and there were two sword shield PCs, one could distinguish by choosing one purple and one white for the party.

And what could be more cool than the tiny dagger dropped weapon counter and the others, as well. We always lamented that there weren't many, if any, dropped bolas and boomerangs counters, though.

Hi Everyone, Kirk.
I agree with everything you mentioned above.

Very good point about some figures having a different background. Yes, I use different colors and backgrounds to show different forces all the time. I definitely think this idea should be used for the new counters.

Warm regards, Rick.

[JLV]

I think Liz has done a GREAT job of simulating the original feel with new and interesting art.

The pole-weapon guy seems to be at "high port," which is probably a good pose for a guy who isn't engaged in actual combat, so it seems to me that the pose there is a good one.

The wizard is pretty classic for TFT, to my mind -- I think we've all seen that pose pretty closely done before -- if nowhere else, on the covers of AM, AW and ITL!

I LOVE the top-down art for the dragon. I hope that other large beasts are depicted in a similar fashion, because, as someone else commented, it really helps everyone to see the facing of such creatures immediately. It would also help substantially on damage distribution if someone went that (complex) route.

The giant looks suitably nasty, and harks back to some of the original work as well, though it's obviously different enough to avoid copyright issues.

All in all, I give Liz an A+ for both quality and keeping true to the original TFT vibe. Sure hope she does a bell-bottoms guy or gal, though! ;-)

[Jim Kane]

I am hoping Liz gives us another two-headed Giant; that's the only counter we had as a two-headed humanoid iirc - or maybe a one-eyed Cyclops for variety - or heck, why not a two-headed, one-eyed (per head) Cyclops - Bell Bottoms optional, of course ;-)

JK