Dragon's Tail Cut?

[Korgoth]

Isn't it curious how willing the anti-4E crowd is to see corporate plants all over the place?

I was discussing the content (or lack thereof) in his post. And if I'm part of the "anti-4E" crowd, I'm a late arrival. I distinctly remember sticking up for Scott Rouse, for example, after the announcement when a lot of folks imputed, on very shaky ground I might add, outright deception to the man. That was unfair to Scott, and to do the same thing or something similar to the opposite 'camp' is equally unfair.

I don't like most of the latest things I've heard about 4E, and I feel strongly about that. So what? People should be allowed to express their views without being tarred and feathered by one side or the other.

As far as Mouse, he's a smart guy (and seems like a nice one, too) and should speak for himself. But when I see a merchant merely blacken the detractors of a product in which he has an interest, without offering a substantive critique, I feel that it's reasonable to bring it to his attention. I have every expectation that a reasonable response is forthcoming... but it wouldn't be if I didn't bring it up.

 

[Greg K]

Going in without any idea of what the two abilities do, it's much more likely that a new player would guess that Mire of Minauros gets his opponents stuck in one place for a while, although it's not likely that the player would guess that there's also acid damage involved..

Well, I really dislike the name Mire of Minauros as well.

 

[Mouseferatu]

As far as Mouse, he's a smart guy (and seems like a nice one, too) and should speak for himself. But when I see a merchant merely blacken the detractors of a product in which he has an interest, without offering a substantive critique, I feel that it's reasonable to bring it to his attention. I have every expectation that a reasonable response is forthcoming... but it wouldn't be if I didn't bring it up.

That might be valid, if I'd made a blanket statement "blackening the detractors."

My point is simply that a lot of people have ignored a valid point. It's not one that's necessarily going to change their minds, but it's one they should at least consider.

Many people have done so, and still object to the name. I have no problem with them. (I'm actually not a fan of the name myself, though I don't hate it, either.)

My problem is with certain people--and no, I'm not giving names--who feel the need to respond to every piece of news with allegedly witty put-downs, but consistently ignore any possible counter to their initial reaction. I've seen more than a few people in this category, and frankly, it's starting to irritate me.

And that, in a nutshell, is the extent of any explanation I feel obliged to give. I've been around here long enough that people either trust my objectivity, or they don't. And I've been positive about most of what I've heard about 4E, but expressed a dislike about a few particular features, and that ought to be enough to tell people that I'm not simply parroting any hypothetical party line.

If either of those two points are still lost on anyone, I'm not convinced it's either my responsibility, or that I would even have the ability, to change their minds.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I hope I'm not one of those certain folks you have in mind.

You're not.

 

[Jim DelRosso]

I would think that if you want to attract new players, you want something a bit more evocative than "knockdown".

Agreed. "Knockdown" is boring, and as others have pointed out, Dragon's Tail Cut does more than knock the opponent down: Baker describes that effect as a "rider". So just calling it Knockdown could be problematic, because it's not the basic ability for putting your opponent on their butt. It's a special ability gained by fighters who follow a certain path/use a certain weapon.

Evocative names can be just as easy, or even easier, to link to specific effects. As hong pointed out, Baker managed to explain DTC effectively in about a sentence. And that explanation, tied to an evocative name, is quite memorable. It's also, frankly, a heck of a lot more interesting, and probably more likely to jump off the page at a new player trying to figure out what his fighter should be good at.

That being said, I'm not willing to take anyone to task if they think the name sounds silly. That's purely subjective, as even Baker realizes.

 

[BryonD]

"Knockdown" is boring

It is also a red herring since it isn't actually the alternative.

Beating on a straw man doesn't provide an response to the points which have been raised.

 

[Jim DelRosso]

It is also a red herring since it isn't actually the alternative.

Beating on a straw man doesn't provide an response to the points which have been raised.

Numerous people have suggested it; that's what I was responding to.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Good job, Informant #4519-b. Your check is in the mail. This private message is for your eyes only, please do not re-send.

Cheers, -- Big Wizard

Hey, quit stealing my joke!

Ironically, I think it was the Mouse that I used it on last time.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Well, I really dislike the name Mire of Minauros as well.

My point wasn't that it was a better-sounding name, only that it provided some clue as to what it did, making it functionally better.

 

[Korgoth]

That might be valid, if I'd made a blanket statement "blackening the detractors."

My point is simply that a lot of people have ignored a valid point. It's not one that's necessarily going to change their minds, but it's one they should at least consider.

Many people have done so, and still object to the name. I have no problem with them. (I'm actually not a fan of the name myself, though I don't hate it, either.)

My problem is with certain people--and no, I'm not giving names--who feel the need to respond to every piece of news with allegedly witty put-downs, but consistently ignore any possible counter to their initial reaction. I've seen more than a few people in this category, and frankly, it's starting to irritate me.

And that, in a nutshell, is the extent of any explanation I feel obliged to give. I've been around here long enough that people either trust my objectivity, or they don't. And I've been positive about most of what I've heard about 4E, but expressed a dislike about a few particular features, and that ought to be enough to tell people that I'm not simply parroting any hypothetical party line.

If either of those two points are still lost on anyone, I'm not convinced it's either my responsibility, or that I would even have the ability, to change their minds.

Fair enough.

For my part, I wouldn't want, even as a professed "grognard" (but not a 3E one, if there is such a thing), to be a member of one "party" or another. Even if I didn't like every single thing revealed about 4E from now until May, I wouldn't want to be seen as waving the Grognardican banner rather than the 4Eocrat one. It doesn't have to be a matter of these binary divisions. Everybody evaluates what they know based on their own set of personal insights (however expansive or limited, as the case may be). It goes without saying that everyone is trying to be right. Hopefully everyone will also try to be consistently honest and fair as well. Unfortunately I do see people settling into 'sides' and substituting polemic for dialogue. Maybe it's the culture?