homer_sapien wrote:
No offense meant Grambo, but I'm getting pretty tired of your constant posts about how this set is going to destroy the game and anyone who doesn't agree with you about that is some kind of rabid fanboy who refuses to see reason. Having a wait and see attitude and thinking that Rob and whoever else is behind the game will not completely destroy everything about the game with this new set when that hasn't happened with any of the other new sets is perfectly reasonable.
Never said you were a rabid fanboy... just that I haven't seen anyone attempt to refute any of the concerns I've outlined with anything concrete really. Lots of "Rob knows what he's doing"... lots of general hand waving dismissal of concerns and observations. Yes, the implication is there... but frankly, it feels somewhat deserved. If I've offended you, my apologies. I'm not trying to be a troll here... I've been just trying to point out what seems obvious to me... and respond when my observations are refuted. Nothing more.
As for wait and see attitude... I'll observe that we've now seen a pretty significant number of figures, hence my feeling that we're seeing enough to establish a pattern. Keep in mind most of the earlier "wait and see" was based on only seeing a half-dozen cards. Now we've seen a bunch... and the power curve keeps going up.
Simply put, homer, I'm shifting from the general concern I started at to genuine worry based on the stuff being shown. Some are awesome... some are insignificant... but some are just simply too much bang for the buck, and as noted will, in my opinion, largely invalidate many previous models.
Your faith is based on "well, they haven't broken before". Guess what... WotC has... FREQUENTLY. They've thrown out entire game systems because they screwed them up. Assuming they are immune to stupidity is... well... foolish. I'm NOT making assumptions, other than one... that now that we've seen a large percentage of the new models that the rest of the models are likely to be similar in power scope. This feels like a pretty reasonable assumption... but absolutely *could* be wrong. If it is... groovy... then perhaps it isn't going to be as large a shift as I fear. However, I think it will be... based on what we're seeing, I expect that I'll go through my list of prior models, and the list of models that are "revitalized" will be dramatically lower than the list of models that are "eliminated", for all intents.
Oh, and I will make one more observation, homer. I'm pretty much the only... THE ONLY... guy on either side of the argument admitting I may be mistaken in my assumptions and observations. Frankly... I'm begging to be. As I said before, I hope to hell Rob is a genius... because as it stands now, I feel he may well be about to make his biggest (and first apparently) significant blunder. It won't destroy the game... but it may well actually reduce the pool of playable models... which is precisely what a set should never, EVER do.
Anyway, I'll happily stop commenting, if I'm offending folks. Tried that before... but got re-engaged by a pile of folks seeming to want the conversation to remain alive. Perhaps I was wrong about that too.