D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[Neonchameleon]

"I've taken that to another thread"
"No you didn't"

I linked the thread I created based on exactly your false premise. I probably should have invited you to it directly so you wouldn't continue clogging up this one with a repeatedly refuted claim.

 

[FrogReaver]

I linked the thread I created based on exactly your false premise. I probably should have invited you to it directly so you wouldn't continue clogging up this one with a repeatedly refuted claim.

Your thread has nothing to do with comparing 4e to MTG. This one does.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Your thread has nothing to do with comparing 4e to MTG. This one does.

My thread is about comparing 4e powers to each other and demonstrating how risible your claim is that everything is similar between classes.

Meanwhile having actual attack and defense values on creatures puts 4e one step above the CCG literally based on D&D - Spellfire.

 

[FrogReaver]

My thread is about comparing 4e powers to each other and demonstrating how risible your claim is that everything is similar between classes.

Which is a different premise than what the statement you quoted was about - thus the "no you didn't start a thread about that"

 

[Neonchameleon]

Which is a different premise than what the statement you quoted was about - thus the "no you didn't start a thread about that"

Except that your entire claim where you use the Magic: The Gathering analogy is that 4e powers are similar between classes.

I'm demonstrating that that's a stone cold falsehood - and that the reason you think that everything looks like a 2/2 creature is because you have personally loaded all the decks with 2/2 creatures despite there being much more out there.

I'm therefore inviting you to look at decks that people who enjoy the game play rather than the 2/2 spam you seem to think comes with the game. Because from what you've said I'm not convinced you've played more than a very minimal amount.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Or to take your MtG analogy semi-seriously, 4e At Wills are 2 mana creatures. They have that in common.

But the list I produced (and I could have gone way further) includes a wall that literally can not attack (Storm Pillar), one with 0 attack (Astral Flame), one that prevents an opponent untapping (grappling strike) and others.

You aren't objecting to 2/2 creatures because they categorically aren't all 2/2. What you are objecting to is the idea of the mana curve and the lack of rules ensuring that decks are either all 1 mana or all colorless legendaries and artifacts.

 

[FrogReaver]

Except that your entire claim where you use the Magic: The Gathering analogy is that 4e powers are similar between classes.

I'm demonstrating that that's a stone cold falsehood - and that the reason you think that everything looks like a 2/2 creature is because you have personally loaded all the decks with 2/2 creatures despite there being much more out there.

I'm therefore inviting you to look at decks that people who enjoy the game play rather than the 2/2 spam you seem to think comes with the game. Because from what you've said I'm not convinced you've played more than a very minimal amount.

You still don't get that your thread isn't about what my post here was about? MTG compared to 4e is not what your thread is about.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You still don't get that your thread isn't about what my post here was about? MTG compared to 4e is not what your thread is about.

Your post was about saminess and using Magic The Gathering as an analogy.

Was the Magic: The Gathering part the important part or was the important part how you were trying to illustrate the saminess?

Not that this is productive. When you call everything a 2/2 creature and I've demonstrated walls and creatures with 0 attack you are simply, objectively, and unequivocally wrong in your analogy.

 

[FrogReaver]

Or to take your MtG analogy semi-seriously, 4e At Wills are 2 mana creatures. They have that in common.

I said 1 mana creature. But I don't think there is enough different in 1 and 2 mana creatures to matter for this discussion.

But the list I produced (and I could have gone way further) includes a wall that literally can not attack (Storm Pillar), one with 0 attack (Astral Flame), one that prevents an opponent untapping (grappling strike) and others

.

That they included a few unique options doesn't indicate that the other powers you didn't mention aren't samey.

You aren't objecting to 2/2 creatures because they categorically aren't all 2/2. What you are objecting to is the idea of the mana curve and the lack of rules ensuring that decks are either all 1 mana or all colorless legendaries and artifacts.

Actually what I'm objecting to is having to go through 99 powers that are samey to find the 1 that is unique.

 

[FrogReaver]

Your post was about saminess and using Magic The Gathering as an analogy.

Was the Magic: The Gathering part the important part or was the important part how you were trying to illustrate the saminess?

1 and the same.

Not that this is productive. When you call everything a 2/2 creature and I've demonstrated walls and creatures with 0 attack you are simply, objectively, and unequivocally wrong in your analogy.

That 1 wall exists in a sea of 1/1 or 2/2 creatures doesn't really demonstrate what you think it's demonstrating.