Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 5983454" data-attributes="member: 6696971">This is absolutely tedious.&nbsp; I cannot put this any more plainly.&nbsp; This is the 3rd time now.&nbsp; I asked you a very focused, specific question with clarifying points as to my incredulity.&nbsp; I did not ask you a general open-ended question that would prod you for a dissertation on your variance grievances with 4e.&nbsp; I actually was a 3e playtester and have lurked on these boards since this website's inception so I'm well aware of all of the dynamics and all the relevant players and their tastes/opinions/positions.&nbsp; I know where you stand on 4e and where you come from with respect to your gaming tastes.&nbsp; One more time.&nbsp; On this thread specifically (but you, and others, have done it in the past with absolutely ZERO movement by the opposing side), you stated that you felt &quot;4e was just a Tactical Skirmish Game.&quot;I am not going to recount the clarifying reasons for my incredulity at this statement and why it is nothing more than a non-sequitur (see my initial post but you really need no further evidence beyond the fact that its advocates use the RAW rules system to play something more than a shallow &quot;Tactical Skirmish Game&quot;).&nbsp; They are readily available above if you actually would like to read the posts.&nbsp; I think the main idea is pretty clear and expressed pointedly (but perhaps not as you continue to meander towards some general unresponsive retort of &quot;well, I don't like 4e and I can not like it all I want and I can say I don't like it all I want and dismiss it as a Tactical Skirmish Game all I want&quot;...that's great, I'm hardly interested in trying to convince you otherwise or convince you that you should play 4e).Focused Question:&nbsp; 1)&nbsp; If it has been proven to produce absolutely nothing constructive and causes conversations to devolve and go off-topic (should be well beyond obvious at this point), why do you insist on continuously posting that 4e is merely a Tactical Skirmish Game as it does nothing to compel 4e advocates to agree with you but rather it just serves (and has been plain to see every time it is invoked) as a&nbsp; gratuitous provocation?&nbsp; &nbsp; I am truly curious because I honestly would rather give you the benefit of the doubt and find a way to attribute your continuance of this to some odd interpretation of good faith rather than malice or bitterness or something to that effect.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 5983454, member: 6696971"] This is absolutely tedious. I cannot put this any more plainly. This is the 3rd time now. I asked you a very focused, specific question with clarifying points as to my incredulity. I did not ask you a general open-ended question that would prod you for a dissertation on your variance grievances with 4e. I actually was a 3e playtester and have lurked on these boards since this website's inception so I'm well aware of all of the dynamics and all the relevant players and their tastes/opinions/positions. I know where you stand on 4e and where you come from with respect to your gaming tastes. One more time. On this thread specifically (but you, and others, have done it in the past with absolutely ZERO movement by the opposing side), you stated that you felt "4e was just a Tactical Skirmish Game." I am not going to recount the clarifying reasons for my incredulity at this statement and why it is nothing more than a non-sequitur (see my initial post but you really need no further evidence beyond the fact that its advocates use the RAW rules system to play something more than a shallow "Tactical Skirmish Game"). They are readily available above if you actually would like to read the posts. I think the main idea is pretty clear and expressed pointedly (but perhaps not as you continue to meander towards some general unresponsive retort of "well, I don't like 4e and I can not like it all I want and I can say I don't like it all I want and dismiss it as a Tactical Skirmish Game all I want"...that's great, I'm hardly interested in trying to convince you otherwise or convince you that you should play 4e). Focused Question: 1) If it has been proven to produce absolutely nothing constructive and causes conversations to devolve and go off-topic (should be well beyond obvious at this point), why do you insist on continuously posting that 4e is merely a Tactical Skirmish Game as it does nothing to compel 4e advocates to agree with you but rather it just serves (and has been plain to see every time it is invoked) as a gratuitous provocation? I am truly curious because I honestly would rather give you the benefit of the doubt and find a way to attribute your continuance of this to some odd interpretation of good faith rather than malice or bitterness or something to that effect. [/QUOTE]

Verification