The Death of Shadow.

370 posts / 0 new
Last post
I have looked at the preview of the Heroes of Shadow, read it over and over. I like the section on Shadow Magic, but then we are shown three "essential" like builds that ignore the previous section completely.

I maintain that this product is the death of the Shadow Power Source. The only class with the Shadow Power Source is the Original Assassin (The class, not the various PP's in the books) in Dragon. It is sad that this power source is regulared to Keyword Status.
Terms you should know...
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner) Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level. Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds. Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
56902498 wrote:
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2. The new sub-sub-classes will be: * Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks. * Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank. * Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture. * Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things. * Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind. Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2). These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing. (Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
I think you meant relegated.

Which it may in fact be.  I am not entirely hopeful, but we'll have to see.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
While I too was bitterly disappointed with the preview of HoS, the more I think about it, the more it makes a strange kind of sense for the shadow power source to work as a sort of 'adjunct' to other power sources.

The Shadowfell is a dark reflection of the world: its 'shadow'. When a character accesses the power of Shadow, what he or she is actually doing is tapping into his or her own 'shadow-self', the dark reflection of his or her own soul. But you need to have some power of your own to start with, in order to have any 'shadow power' to access.

So, a paladin devoted in body and soul to a particular virtue finds in a moment of desperation that she can tap into another, perhaps even more potent, source of power: her virtue's 'dark side'. She goes beyond sacrificing her life for her friends and instead sacrifices her soul so that she might continue to live and protect them. She's still a paladin, but her power now draws both from the divine power of her virtue and from the shadowy power of her virtue's 'dark side'.

A wizard studying forbidden tomes at the dead of night in a locked vault beneath his academy's library discovers a way to harness the innate power of a part of his own soul he had not realised even existed: a dark reflection of himself that dwells on the other side of Death's veil. His spells are still fundamentally arcane, harnessing the magic that permeates the planes, but now there's something else feeding power into them too: a dark thread that links his soul to the Shadowfell.

A shaman's spirit companion is devoured by a death giant, its primal essence apparently lost forever. But then, a year and a day later, the spirit returns, corrupted by its sojourn beyond the borders of life and death. Cut off from the natural cycle, it instead taps into the endless, desperate, ever-tightening gyre of hopelessness, dissolution and ruin that is the Shadowfell. The shaman's powers are still primal, but are now tainted by shadow. Where his touch once brought boundless life, in harmony with the natural world, it now requires blood sacrifices to the ever-hungry spirit.

Don't get me wrong. I want to see some pure shadow classes as well, to represent those characters (such as shadow-dancers) who tap into the power of Shadow without using another power source as an intermediary. But I don't think the idea of dual-source shadow builds is, in itself, a bad concept.

ETA: It occurs to me that, Shadow being what it is, being 'dead' is not necessarily a handicap... ;)

"My flying carpet is full of elves."

I'm more worried about how the Necromancer will be handled. If it's a mage build, I can't envision it having any of the crazy class features that a Necromancer should have, like the at-will ability to summon undead or some form of life drain. Rather, from the preview, it looks like the Necromanccer mage build (or whatever it's called) will chiefly consist of "Your necrotic attacks ignore necrotic resistance" and another small benefit. Summons seem to be weak daily powers. The preview makes me think of a Shaman who could only summon a spirit companion via dailies.
I'm not unhappy with shadow magic (nethermancy?) being a branch of arcane magic but I do think the necromancer was well suited to a shadow-sourced class. 

I do think that they should have a shadow-sourced class other than the assassin or alternatively release a new assassin build that has more of a magey feel to it, call it the shadowcaster, make it a controller class, and give it riders on its powers that increase the number of targets, distance of teleports etc and some wizardy feats.  After all, the assassin class is just a placeholder name.  We have the thief build for the rogue as well as thief feat power swaps for all classes.  The name means little, it's the powers that define the class.
I'm more worried about how the Necromancer will be handled. If it's a mage build, I can't envision it having any of the crazy class features that a Necromancer should have, like the at-will ability to summon undead or some form of life drain. Rather, from the preview, it looks like the Necromanccer mage build (or whatever it's called) will chiefly consist of "Your necrotic attacks ignore necrotic resistance" and another small benefit. Summons seem to be weak daily powers. The preview makes me think of a Shaman who could only summon a spirit companion via dailies.


I think the daily in the preview may have been a class feature like the warlock's summon rather than a selectable daily based on the fact that it requires a specific school of magic and because the summon is persistent. However we do not know what the at-wills, encounter, and daily powers look like. At-wills could be attacks that use corpses as a primary target to deliver an attack, raise (minor action at-will attack for the raise and a standard for the corpse's attack?) corpses with 1 hit point in order to deliver a melee basic attack. Encounters could be sustain minor as long as the corpse doesn't have the negative hitpoints to destroy it's body, and average dailies might either be persistant, have instinctive effects, summon multiples, or/and have opportunity actions in order to keep you guarded or have the mob that you so much desire. Honestly I only judge a class as something I do or do not want to play based on what I can see it do 1.) every round 2.) every encounter. 
While I don't have a problem with the Necromancer being a Mage build... per se. Part of me would like to have seen a cleric build for it.
While I don't have a problem with the Necromancer being a Mage build... per se. Part of me would like to have seen a cleric build for it.


We haven't seen what the cleric build will be. Undeath domain and Death domain? Maybe a Subclass for cleric with darker powers- shadow or infernal 
While I don't have a problem with the Necromancer being a Mage build... per se. Part of me would like to have seen a cleric build for it.


We haven't seen what the cleric build will be. Undeath domain and Death domain? Maybe a Subclass for cleric with darker powers- shadow or infernal 


 
If there is a cleric build. I don't remember them mentioning one in HoS. 
We saw a preview for a vecna cleric's class ability that dealt with commanding undead (instead of turning undead). I think we are going to be seeing a "necromancer cleric" build in the near future as well.
We saw a preview for a vecna cleric's class ability that dealt with commanding undead (instead of turning undead). I think we are going to be seeing a "necromancer cleric" build in the near future as well.



I would love that. I always liked the cleric based necros better than the wizard based ones.
Maybe the necromancer and nethermancer wizard builds are simply the 4e updates of previous editions' necromancers and shadowcasters.  DUH, you say.  However......what I mean is maybe that means the devs have forged ahead into new design space with some other types of shadow classes.  Perhaps by having rules to add shadow to other characters and thus flesh out traditional archetypes they have freed themselves from expectations for the new shadow classes.

If the Shadow Leader isn't expected to represent the dark clerical necromancer and the Shadow Controller isn't expected to be the non-arcanist-but-arcanist-like necromancer (because those traditional shticks are already well accounted for via the previewed and hinted at methods), might other interesting options await us in the dark?? 
...might other interesting options await us in the dark?? 




People like this make me want to shoot myself.

Look at the facts. Essentials ate shadow, and shat out garbage. People keep telling me "I'm too hard on the company, they are trying ". BS they are full of unmitigated hacks that cannot do anything original.  




Dont you have a jug of moonshine you should be nursing?
...might other interesting options await us in the dark?? 




People like this make me want to shoot myself.

Look at the facts. Essentials ate shadow, and shat out garbage. People keep telling me "I'm too hard on the company, they are trying ". BS they are full of unmitigated hacks that cannot do anything original.  




And you know this because you have an advance copy?  Can I see it? I wanna play with shat garbage!!
My Blog, mostly about D&D.
57304548 wrote:
I imagine that Majestic Moose plays a more "A team" type game than most of us. By that I mean he allows his players to make tanks out of a backyard playground set since the players have more "fun" that way.
Actually I much prefer The Losers.
Show
When I and my friends sit down we want a game of heroic fantasy. Rare is the moment when I have cried out in a video game or RPG "that's unrealistic." (Unless there is no jump button. Seriously makes me mad, single handedly ruined the N64 zelda series for me, but that's a digression of a digression.) I mean, we play games with the force in galaxies far, far away, with supernatural horrors, dragons and demi-gods, alternate cosmologies, etc. Reality and it's effects hold little sway to what makes a Heroic fantasy game fun IMO. Just repeat after me: You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You are not how much you've spent on WotC products. You are not whatever RPG you play. You are one of tens of thousands of people that spend money on a hobby. You will not always get what you want
...might other interesting options await us in the dark?? 




People like this make me want to shoot myself.

Look at the facts. Essentials ate shadow, and shat out garbage. People keep telling me "I'm too hard on the company, they are trying ". BS they are full of unmitigated hacks that cannot do anything original.  




And you know this because you have an advance copy?  Can I see it? I wanna play with shat garbage!!



Also Blackguard's are fun. And so are necro-mages. Even if that and the shade race is all that's in it. Hey at least it's kind of cool. Not $20 cool, but if we have future copies laying around...
Characters currently: Abscense makes the heart grow fonder but the characters disappear.
Hm.  I didn't say anything about the company, I certainly didn't have you in mind when I was posting, and when people do X *you* feel a certain way...it's not about them.  So whatever it is you're reacting to, all I said was maybe there will be Shadow classes. 
I do kind of find it odd that Thax is upset about the state of the shadow power source. Before the Assassin was released, Thax was the one on these very boards saying how the class and the shadow power source were going to destroy games, because everyone was going to make evil characters and start killing their own party. Why the turnaround?
Now now.  Don't confuse the Shadow Power Source, with the Assassin.

Assassins are always evil and will kill their own party.  If they were just called Ninjas, they'd be perfectly fine. ;)

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

Now now.  Don't confuse the Shadow Power Source, with the Assassin.

Assassins are always evil and will kill their own party.  If they were just called Ninjas, they'd be perfectly fine. ;)



So I see you have the fond memories as well. Also the whole Dragonborn = Half-Orc thing as well.

I believe what I'm trying to say to Thax is... wait until it is released. 

This is just a silly thread. The book isn't even out yet and already it's begun killing things...


If there's rules for shadow magic in the book, and the necro/shadow mage don't use them, well, something must be in there that does use them. Otherwise, why make them at all? I'm all for advocating what you would like to see, but please, stop trying to tear down something that you've only seen the smallest portion of so far. Current evidence may indeed be disheartening for the shadow source, but there's more to come. Wait until you know the full contents of the book to claim it a failure.


This is just a silly thread. The book isn't even out yet and already it's begun killing things...


If there's rules for shadow magic in the book, and the necro/shadow mage don't use them, well, something must be in there that does use them. Otherwise, why make them at all? I'm all for advocating what you would like to see, but please, stop trying to tear down something that you've only seen the smallest portion of so far. Current evidence may indeed be disheartening for the shadow source, but there's more to come. Wait until you know the full contents of the book to claim it a failure.




This is the 3rd round for this type of thread from the OP. I wasn't gonna say anything, but it's kind of comical.
Kind of comical... that should be ThaX's tagline.
I also remember those hilarious times, which make the complaints about the lack of Shadow Classes and similar even more hilarious.
Isn't that the point, there is a section dedicated to the workings of Shadow Magic, then they show us a Divine Build and two Arcane ones. Where is the Shadow magic again? Oh! Wait!! the spells have "Shadow" keywords...
Terms you should know...
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner) Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level. Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds. Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
56902498 wrote:
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2. The new sub-sub-classes will be: * Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks. * Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank. * Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture. * Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things. * Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind. Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2). These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing. (Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
We already had two threads contaminated with all the whine and cheese about this. Did we REALLY need another one? Really?
We already had two threads contaminated with all the whine and cheese about this. Did we REALLY need another one? Really?


You've already fought back in one thread with "whine and cheese".  Did you REALLY need to do it again?  Really?

Just for a sense of irony.
Apologists are just tiresome. If WotC sold a box full of actual ,with the DnD logo on it, they would still call it the best product WotC produced or manage to find excuses or uses for it. I think some of them hope to become VCL, ORCs, become playtesters or even get hired at WotC.

They even have a thread in General where they shout how great they are.



People who claim that their opinions are empirical fact, and can't accept that others might love what they don't, are just tiresome.
Actually, I think it's more the idea that WotC seems to be taking a new direction and leaving the old one behind.  Removing?  No.  But it does look like they're tying up loose ends to encompass the new path (aka, swapping powers for class features).  By doing so, and continually previewing Essentials-type materials, they seem to show that this choice is taking over.

That, and the fact that "you're getting the love and we're not" stings a bit.  I wouldn't call that a primary cause of our concern, though.
@goldomark. So why can't HoS be awesome again? And where did it say there weren't new classes? The book isn't released it is to early to say if it is bad or good. (Though the preview many folks didn't like, a couple of paragraphs isn't enough to judge a couple hundred pages on.)
Characters currently: Abscense makes the heart grow fonder but the characters disappear.

Sounds like an opinion stated as empirical fact.



No, it sounds more like a parody of your original statement, in which I note that your actions are considered tiresome by quite a few of us as well.

And who said I didn't like what others do? I just think that calling people whinners for a legitimate opinion is tiresome. WotC could have made an awesome product by splitting the apple in two and creating new classes with the shadow power source and by creating new builts for old classes. But this is just a tautology. WotC prefere to loose customers and some people like to stick close to WotC. They can't be wrong, since this is the direction WotC is taking for the game.



WotC is already making an awesome product. It just happens to not be the product you want. Which doesn't mean it is a bad business decision. Whether it is a good business decision or a bad one remains to be seen. And those of us that like the concept of the product do not like it because we believe that WotC can't be wrong, but rather because we like the concept of the product. Your conclusion is a non sequitur. In fact, it is one that is objectively provable as false. I am a huge defender of the Heroes of Shadow book. I love the concept. But I have pages and pages of posts in which I complain about the way Gamma World includes a CCG element to its rules. I think WotC did "wrong" (which in this case doesn't equate to WotC actually doing wrong, but rather WotC releasing a product I don't like). I am boycotting Gamma World as a result.



I've complained about no Mac support forever.  Now I've got Mac support.

WotC isn't perfect in my PoV.  There are many problems I would say.  But I enjoy the books, and I'm buying them. 

I'm not saying don't complain.  I'm saying don't expect your complaining to DO anything – that's something only your dollar or boycott can do, or if WotC actually asks about it.

And wait until the product comes out before making that judgement.  I may still think the product isn't a very good book.  But from what I've seen, I think it will be good.  From what you've seen, it looks like crap.  But regardless, we've seen only a tiny bit.  You need to learn patience, and wait to see what is actually in the book, before you go proclaiming it the best thing ever or the worst book in the history of D&D and Roleplaying.  Otherwise, you're just setting yourself up for dissapointment – by either expecting too much of it, or by deciding it's evil before learning what's in it, and feeling bad about it regardless of the quality of the contents once they're fully revealed.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

It's your own fault if you're the own projecting some result in the book.

Some people prefer to see what's ACTUALLY in the book before judging it. 

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

Try again goldomark. I didn't say I love the product. I say I love its concept (as previewed). I have no idea whether I will or will not like the book as of yet. I need to buy it and read it first.

Also, pardon me for reading lines such as "it could have been an awesome product" and coming to the conclusion that you thus do not find (what you have seen of) it to be great. If you do like the concept of the product (as previewed), you were not very clear.

Me, I love what I have seen of the product in its preview. It seems to be exactly what I was hoping for. Though, I won't know for sure until I own it.

And that seems to be about all there is to say to you goldomark... but please, feel free to keep ranting if it makes you feel better.
The non-formal usage of the word awesome (which is how it is being used in this thread) and the word great are synonyms goldo. That means that, for all intents and purposes, in the context they were used in, awesome does "equal" great. Try again. 

Now, philosophical discussion surrounding positive and negative emotions and their impact on the world around oneself aside, I see no reason to believe that loving the preview is more justified then hating it. It is a subjective value judgement one way or the other. But, when someone comes here to make empirical statements about about the quality of a product, despite the fact that their empirical statements are nothing but subjective value judgments, they are in effect being rude to the people who do not feel the way they do. I see no reason to be nice to such people. Mind you, not everyone who dislikes the preview is such a person. Some recognize their subjective value judgement for what it is, and I take no issue with those posters.
I agree with Cyber-Dave ( you are missing out Gamma World by the way). You have the right to say that you don't like something, but this is bordering on hysterics. We can keep going around and around on this subject with whine and complaining, but we have not seen the final product. No wonder why they are calling this nation a bunch of whiners.
Please stop putting words into my mouth.  I have never said that I've seen it, and until I have my hands on it, I won't make a judgement of it.  I never said I love HoS. I said I honestly have no opinion of it until I see more.  I like what I currently see, but I've seen so little that I can't judge it.  Because I barely know what will be in it. 

I support everyone who want a change in the direction, even if I like this direction.  Go out and push for it!  Show WotC where your dollars go, to what products.  But a few people whining here doesn't do anything.  They put out those surveys (at least, I believe) because they want to know what the consumerbase as a whole thinks, and it has more to do with sales and other data than people saying they like a product or they hate a product on the WotC forums.  We're only a small percentage of it.

Currently, I'm happy with Essentials.  That doesn't mean I'm an appologist.  It means I'm not going to push for a change at this time.  I supported a Necromancer class, but I'm fine with a Necromancer Mage if it's done well.  I think it can be done well.  I know next to nothing about the Necromancer Mage build, however, since very little of it was previewed.  Similarly, I know next to nothing about the Blackguard.  Similarly, I know next to nothing about what else is in the book.  I'm not saying people who are angry the Necromancer isn't its own class should be quiet and that their opinion doesn't matter.  In fact, I would urge said people to push WotC (or submit to Dragon themselves), in order to make material that will support the actual options they want.  But that isn't done by whining, and all this talk of "WotC Appologists" seems like a big whine to me as well, casting certain users as unintelligent sheep who just will buy anything and won't think about if something is good or not, and thus opinions such as mine or Cyber-Dave doesn't matter.  That is frustrating, and frankly, disrespectful, in my opinion.

What I have been saying is that I'm upset that people are acting like the Shadow Power Source is dead in the water, that pure shadow classes can't exist anymore, simply because the Necromancer isn't a pure shadow class, but a build of a build of Wizard, and because the Hexblade is a build of Warlock, and because the Blackguard is a build of Paladin.  These are concepts that players suggested as possible Shadow concepts, but they are not the be-all and end-all.  We really don't know yet what is in the book, so writing it off so easily because one thinks that the book won't have something in it seems silly to me.

Also, I did not say that everyone whining, but some people sure seem to be making statements like, "Shadow is Dead; I'm quitting D&D!" or "Shadow is Dead; WotC ruined everything again!"  These are whines.  Then there is trolling and baiting, which I almost feel you are bordering on, Goldomark.  Please don't go there.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

Not really. They have ranks. Like good and great, great and awesome.



No, they really don't. The notion that these words come attached with some sort of empirically valid "rank" is a load of bologna. You may have attached some sort of ranking system to those two words. The English language, however, has not. Great and (the non formal usage of) awesome are synonyms. They mean the exact same thing.

...you haven't demonstrated your empirical facts that was soooo easily demonstratable. /Waiting



...what are you talking about? Are you referring to your conclusion that anyone who says they like the product exactly as it is is just an "apologist" who believes that WotC can do no wrong? Because, I have already demonstrated that that conclusion is objectively false.

Like calling people whinners isn't rude? Please, indulge me. What isn't rude about that? Please answer me. I spend time answering your answers, now answer mine. Is saying people are whinners rude or not?



I have no problem being rude to someone who is themselves being rude. I am not a christian. I do not believe in turning the other cheek.

Like whom?



Kalnaur, FitzNighteyes, Foxface, and a few others, specifically strike me as being mature posters who also dislike Essentials. I don't agree with everything they say, but they don't tend to make empirical statements about subjective matters.

Like me? Certainly not like you, since you love HoS even if it hasn't came out yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



You have just made another objectively false statement. I have quite clearly said that I do not "love" HoS. I have no opinion on the product yet, because I do not own the product yet. What I love is the concept of HoS as previewed. Unlike the words great and awesome, which do equate, the statements that, "one loves HoS," or, "one loves the concept of HoS as previewed," do not.
They (the apologist) are reacting to the people (thaX and you who keeps this argument going)who post in five to six threads about the same thing. I have read most of these people complaints and they do not have a foundation to stand on other than an excerpt.  If you think it is funny to constantly harass people like Cyberdave and Malhandir, you will reported.
I agree with Cyber-Dave ( you are missing out Gamma World by the way).



I just can't bring myself to play a CCG. I really hate CCGs. I am sure Gamma World is a great game, but its CCG aspect puts it squarely in the "not my cup of tea" category.
This thread has been edited and disruptive content has been removed. Please continue this conversation in a polite fashion that stays within the guidelines of the Wizards Online Code of Conduct. Debates can be constructive and fun if they are conducted with posts that are not personal in nature. Thanks!
I agree with Cyber-Dave ( you are missing out Gamma World by the way).



I just can't bring myself to play a CCG. I really hate CCGs. I am sure Gamma World is a great game, but its CCG aspect puts it squarely in the "not my cup of tea" category.



But it is only a CCG if you want it to be.  You can just ignore the optional expansion cards and then it's not a CCG anymore.

Which reminds me of what you have suggested some of us do with Necromancy/Nethermancy to make the Necromancers we want. ;)
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Sign In to post comments