Brubbas...oops

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
someone forgot to send a picture of this monster off to the printing press...
Achievements: 06/28/10 - MODERAT0WND!!11 06/30/10 - A Friendly Nod 07/04/10 - Troll Infiltrators 11/16/10 - RIP CB (What you are paying for should work; is it?) 12/20/10 - "No Way! That's Great...*chuckle*...WE'VE RERELEASED GAMMA WORLD!" Scapegoat of the Month for November: Pirates
I would have frankly rather had them use that space on a classic monster, for instance the Centistede (just about every other classic mount was covered).  There are loads cooler and funnier things they could have come up with then mutant swamp hicks.
Id rather see them use the space for actual mount rules instead of more mounts :p
someone forgot to send a picture of this monster off to the printing press...

There's no indication that this was a mistake. The picture is in a number of different places—even for WotC, that's too big to let slip through. Brubbas are essentially low-intelligence mutated humans, so they don't have a representative "look" (like other monsters do)—brubbas can theoretically be as varied in appearance as humans can. Plus, why would they use a piece of art as a placeholder for another piece of art?

Did you think this through, or was it just a knee-jerk post for shock value? And before you get upset, remember that Famine in Far-Go isn't officially out yet. People may be weighing comments like yours in their decision about whether or not to buy the expansion. I'm all for legitimate criticism, but anything that could even be perceived as half-cocked is only going to undermine the game. I, for one, want Gamma World to be successful; a comment like "someone forgot to draw a picture of this monster" isn't helping.

Can we please raise the level of discourse on these boards? At least until the expansion comes out; then people can make up their own minds.
no, I actually think it's a mistake on the part of wotc. my opinion is an honest one and it'd be a disservice to those looking for honest opinions if i were to say otherwise or withhold it. of course, not all opinions will be the same, and that's ok, too.

amid a plethora of awesome in the famine in far-go box is this and a few other ittle glaring annoyances.

i think exchange via the forums with some wotc person involved with GW would do a lot for raising the level of discourse.
Achievements: 06/28/10 - MODERAT0WND!!11 06/30/10 - A Friendly Nod 07/04/10 - Troll Infiltrators 11/16/10 - RIP CB (What you are paying for should work; is it?) 12/20/10 - "No Way! That's Great...*chuckle*...WE'VE RERELEASED GAMMA WORLD!" Scapegoat of the Month for November: Pirates
People may be weighing comments like yours in their decision about whether or not to buy the expansion.

I really hope anybody looking for a detailed review of FoF is going to click the "Far-go Thoughts" thread rather then "Brubbas...oops".   That being said, I don't see the fact that Brubbas can vary in appearance as a viable reason to exclude a placeholder picture: They include pictures of zombies (even though the 4 varieties would look very different even before applying the fact they are just as variable as non-undead humans) and killer robots (terminator equivalents which have human variable outer appearance).  And they included *2* pictures of arks for some reason, so the second ark could easily have been used for a sample Brubba.  Its just an odd lack...
no, I actually think it's a mistake on the part of wotc.

Here's the basis for my opinion: The so-called "placeholder" art appears on page 55 (two brubba entries), page 103 (sidebar "Poster Maps and Tokens") and on both sides of one of the token sheets. Now, the product has two editors, and I'm sure the final product was seen by far more than just those two. It may have indeed been a giant oversight (maybe the biggest WotC one ever), but the much more reasonable explanation was that the picture was intended. Now, I'm not saying it was a good choice, I'm just saying it was a choice rather than a screw-up.
I really hope anybody looking for a detailed review of FoF is going to click the "Far-go Thoughts" thread rather then "Brubbas...oops".

Me too, but once the comments are out there, we can't control who sees it or what opinions they may form based on it. Flint was just posting a concise version of a problem that he saw, but without context, a comment like that may give people the wrong idea. That's all I'm saying.
It seemed to me to be a glaring omission or perhaps a late addition that wasn't accounted for in the art budget.

Given the relatively large cache of art assets (D&D) at their disposal and the fact that we got a significant delay in the release of the expansion I'm thinking it was the latter.
IMAGE(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a58/Smougman/Avatars/FR_Icon2-1.png)IMAGE(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a58/Smougman/Poland.gif)IMAGE(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a58/Smougman/Avatars/Ebb.gif)IMAGE(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a58/Smougman/Avatars/GamaW.png)
Sign In to post comments