Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 5369994" data-attributes="member: 4348">Yeah, like including TWO SEPARATE game lines as the same game like they attempted to do with BX and BECMI to AD&amp;D?That got on my nerves...As well as people doing spurious sidelining instead of actually addressing the main point of the OP, which was the bad job with marketing.Talk about a couple of spurious intellectual dishonesty going on...rather than point fingers and try to do strawman, as well as trying to win NOT by providing evidence or information, but the old adage of trying to discredit...why not actually do some profitable discussion on this topic?If you want to see two separate games as the same thing with revisions...then you have to see D20 (which was a LOT CLOSER IN MECHANICS WITH MODERN AND OTHERS then BECMI and AD&amp;D) as a revision as well.&nbsp; That's why I posted it, to show the ridiculous nature of the revision history someone tried to post there.Mayhaps we should call it...specifically a revision counts as a SPECIFIC DEFINED EDITION.&nbsp; AKA...1st Edition...2nd Edition...3rd Edition...4th Edition...With minor revisions being also defined specifically as have been recognized in the past as in 3.5 Edition...And yet you still go off trying to sideline the entire debate into a revision debate rather than actually address the original post of how terribly WotC is doing with their marketing.Revisions is only ONE of several points...and not really even the MAIN point of it all. So we can see people don't necessarily see revisions as a bad thing (though I think all those who still play 3.X or Pathfinder and refuse to touch 4e may be a SIGNIFICANT piece of evidence in my favor regarding some risks that can occur due to that)...we'll ignore any evidence and simply let that line drop.&nbsp; It's going nowhere.&nbsp; People are concentrating so much on that one point that they are trying to point out to the one cloud in the sky whilst missing the sun.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GreyLord, post: 5369994, member: 4348"] Yeah, like including TWO SEPARATE game lines as the same game like they attempted to do with BX and BECMI to AD&D? That got on my nerves... As well as people doing spurious sidelining instead of actually addressing the main point of the OP, which was the bad job with marketing. Talk about a couple of spurious intellectual dishonesty going on...rather than point fingers and try to do strawman, as well as trying to win NOT by providing evidence or information, but the old adage of trying to discredit...why not actually do some profitable discussion on this topic? If you want to see two separate games as the same thing with revisions...then you have to see D20 (which was a LOT CLOSER IN MECHANICS WITH MODERN AND OTHERS then BECMI and AD&D) as a revision as well. That's why I posted it, to show the ridiculous nature of the revision history someone tried to post there. Mayhaps we should call it...specifically a revision counts as a SPECIFIC DEFINED EDITION. AKA...1st Edition...2nd Edition...3rd Edition...4th Edition... With minor revisions being also defined specifically as have been recognized in the past as in 3.5 Edition... And yet you still go off trying to sideline the entire debate into a revision debate rather than actually address the original post of how terribly WotC is doing with their marketing. Revisions is only ONE of several points...and not really even the MAIN point of it all. So we can see people don't necessarily see revisions as a bad thing (though I think all those who still play 3.X or Pathfinder and refuse to touch 4e may be a SIGNIFICANT piece of evidence in my favor regarding some risks that can occur due to that)...we'll ignore any evidence and simply let that line drop. It's going nowhere. People are concentrating so much on that one point that they are trying to point out to the one cloud in the sky whilst missing the sun. [/QUOTE]

Verification