Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="IronWolf" data-source="post: 5266216" data-attributes="member: 21076">Excellent post, you've put to words what I have tried to say in other threads.Exactly, WotC marketing will avoid calling this a revision at all costs.&nbsp; It does not behoove them to call it a revision and risk even further fallout akin to the 3.0 to 3.5 days.&nbsp; This is actually a case of WotC being smart and learning from past mistakes without the need to stifle 4e development.Yes, the Essentials version has many changes since the 4e ruleset.&nbsp; And while WotC is not calling it a revision that doesn't change the fact that this print of the ruleset has many changes (i.e. revisions) from the original ruleset.Exactly.&nbsp; Another case of WotC learning from past mistakes.&nbsp; Instead of people fighting the notion that this is a revision of rules, they should accept it and instead be lauding WotC for having learned from past mistakes and keeping the community more in the loop as the ruleset has morphed to Essentials.&nbsp; For some reason being labeled a revision has been loaded with undue baggage and people are fighting that instead of just accepting it is a revision, just a revision that WotC has managed to roll out in a smoother fashion than going from 3.0 to 3.5.Yes.&nbsp; WotC has succeeded in morphing the rules in a more gradual manner while people were in the loop to the point of now printing a set of revised rules.&nbsp; And a set of revised rules that seems on the surface to have better compatibility to the older 4e ruleset than 3.5 to 3.0.&nbsp; Again, another case of WotC having learned from past mistakes.It seems to me that people are reacting strongly to folks saying this is a revision instead of crediting WotC for pulling off an update from the original 4e ruleset to this Essentials version in a relatively open and smooth manner.&nbsp; A revision is a system that is changed from the original, backwards compatible or not.&nbsp; A revision is not a bad thing, it is most likely an improvement of the rules from lessons learned over time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="IronWolf, post: 5266216, member: 21076"] Excellent post, you've put to words what I have tried to say in other threads. Exactly, WotC marketing will avoid calling this a revision at all costs. It does not behoove them to call it a revision and risk even further fallout akin to the 3.0 to 3.5 days. This is actually a case of WotC being [b][i]smart[/i][/b] and learning from past mistakes without the need to stifle 4e development. Yes, the Essentials version has many changes since the 4e ruleset. And while WotC is not calling it a revision that doesn't change the fact that this print of the ruleset has many changes (i.e. revisions) from the original ruleset. Exactly. Another case of WotC learning from past mistakes. Instead of people fighting the notion that this is a revision of rules, they should accept it and instead be lauding WotC for having learned from past mistakes and keeping the community more in the loop as the ruleset has morphed to Essentials. For some reason being labeled a revision has been loaded with undue baggage and people are fighting that instead of just accepting it is a revision, just a revision that WotC has managed to roll out in a smoother fashion than going from 3.0 to 3.5. Yes. WotC has succeeded in morphing the rules in a more gradual manner while people were in the loop to the point of now printing a set of revised rules. And a set of revised rules that seems on the surface to have better compatibility to the older 4e ruleset than 3.5 to 3.0. Again, another case of WotC having learned from past mistakes. It seems to me that people are reacting strongly to folks saying this is a revision instead of crediting WotC for pulling off an update from the original 4e ruleset to this Essentials version in a relatively open and smooth manner. A revision is a system that is changed from the original, backwards compatible or not. A revision is not a bad thing, it is most likely an improvement of the rules from lessons learned over time. [/QUOTE]

Verification