(02-24-2014, 01:17 AM)armyduck95 Wrote: PS - beyond the soot/scorch issue, I think you guys worry too much counters. Yes, consistency is preferred, but not a big deal to me. 
I disagree. Given what we are paying, there is not much in asking that counters are relatively ... in fact more than relatively, but compatiable with each other, be it in size, colour or combat values. As far as I am concerned, Lib Counters look ridiculous against BN counters which were the thinnest of all and are practically 4:1 in size difference. I think taking into consideration how the map styles differ (when there is no reason, such as Lib 44 and FoF), the counter differences DO come down to a lack of will to make them the same. It seems even MB may be of the opinion that the Lib 44 may have been just too thick. I believe there is a chance they may return to a sensible size.
On to something else touched on. This is reference to supplements and box-sets. I realise a lot of people do not like taking counters from a number of box sets to play a supplement. For me and I know many others, like supplements to span a good number of box-sets. It gives the player the chance to match up counters that would not otherwise face each other because they came out in different box sets. I see no logical reason to buy an expensive product which can be produced far cheaper in a book style. ASL has barely suffered by having scenario sets that require numerous products. It is also tiresome having reams of marker counters, combat charts and rules sets to stash away or throw away.
Another factor is that items such as Edelweiss and First Axis would be lesser products as these guys faced such a variance of foes. Edelweiss especially would have been a poorer product if it had only concentrated on one or maybe two boxsets. It would have been very limited.
