AWOL
40 Point Warrior
Warning: Kissing Chihuahua On Head Causes Sporadic Pooping, Urination, and Biting
Posts: 820
|
Post by AWOL on Jul 25, 2007 10:24:45 GMT -5
I personally will probably continue to buy and play Attacktix in what little free time I do have now (what with my increased playing habits of Guild Wars and City of Heroes, 3-6 nights a week! and the increase in coyote hunting lately....). But to say that the fanbase will continue to thrive is recklessly optimistic. I'm all for optimism, but not in the face of the harsh realities I'm witness to on a weekly basis (yes, I check Walmart at least once a week to see if anything is out there yet!). I'm not saddened by the lack of new Attacktix - I'm just getting into other things. If Hasbro's intent is to bore the crap out of us and lose its fanbase, it's working really really well.
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jul 25, 2007 13:13:43 GMT -5
It is time for the eternal Attacktix optimist known as Grievous to admit that he too is feeling the burn from all of this. I have been tempted many times to get into other games (Star Wars Miniatures and SW Pocket Models) but have always pulled through with cash intact.
However, the fact that I haven't played Tix in weeks, the fact that it is July which I swore would see new Tix yet we still have a glut, and the fact that I've gotten so much fun out of Epic Duels in the past few weeks makes the above two games look like great ideas (both can be converted to ED easily).
So, if Tix aren't out within this next month, I think I'm gonna start throwing my money other games' ways. I can completely understand other people getting out of the game but I think I'm going to hold on until I can't any more. If they aren't out by August's end, however, I'll officially join the ApocaTixians. It'll have been 8 months, far to long for a game to go without sight nor sound of new figures...
|
|
Megazarak
30 Point Warrior
Sad to see Attacktix has never returned.
Posts: 750
|
Post by Megazarak on Jul 25, 2007 15:47:26 GMT -5
Meh, I don't care that they're not showing anything, even if this goes on to December (please don't) I'll still stick to Attacktix. Honestly though, Hasbro's doing a bad job. I've always liked Hasbro so I'll say that they are currently too busy with TF stuff and they'll be working well on Attacktix shortly. Although I do not forgive their non-release of the TF movie Attacktix which should've been released at the beginning of the month with the other TF stuff.
I think they should give Attacktix to Wizards, who is a great company, and let them take care of it. In my opinion, all the sets should be released at separate times, one every 3 or 4 months. Possibly, when/if G.I. Joe Attacktix are released they could fill up the four months a year and release SW, TF, Joe and then Marvel. Wizards would probably release a little rulebook that would come with a Starter or something that would explain EVERYTHING with detail, for example Transform.
Although I like the idea it may not be good though since not everyone is like me and collects everything so if they only like one of the sets they'd have to wait a whole year before they could get the figures they want.
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Jul 25, 2007 15:53:32 GMT -5
Meh, I don't care that they're not showing anything, even if this goes on to December (please don't) I'll still stick to Attacktix. Honestly though, Hasbro's doing a bad job. I've always liked Hasbro so I'll say that they are currently too busy with TF stuff and they'll be working well on Attacktix shortly. Although I do not forgive their non-release of the TF movie Attacktix which should've been released at the beginning of the month with the other TF stuff. Yeah, the lack of release of the TF movie set seemed particularly...odd. I'll agree with the sentiment of giving it over to Wizards. If Hasbro is too busy with other lines to give Attacktix the TLC it needs, then let Wizards have a go at it. It seems like Wizards would be more oriented toward having a more complete ruleset, though I'm not sure how it'd go over with the kiddies. I wish they'd go back to including CD-ROMs in the starters, if nothing else - they had a lot of good info on there that wouldn't fit in something called a "quickstart guide". I'm one of those who'd likely be at least a bit irked by the "release one line every 3-4 months" option, as I'd be bored out of my skull between SW releases. However, it might spark my interest in other lines if I had to play them to get my Tix fix.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jul 25, 2007 16:21:00 GMT -5
I actually agree that it would be a good marketting strategy to release a new series once every 4 months, and in the interim between series (say, the year inbetween Star Wars releases) they should release 'Tournament Packs' for the other lines so that during the TF release period we can still await a new SW pack, and during the Marvel release they can release a TF 'tourney pack'. It makes no sense to me to release it all at once and flood the market - that's just poor marketting.
|
|
Ben Kenobi
40 Point Warrior
????????? ?
Posts: 931
|
Post by Ben Kenobi on Jul 25, 2007 16:36:31 GMT -5
I will gladly stake my account and all it's cash that at least one new Attacktix product hits store aisles by the end of July. You have 5 days, Grievous.
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jul 25, 2007 16:40:17 GMT -5
I will gladly stake my account and all it's cash that at least one new Attacktix product hits store aisles by the end of July. You have 5 days, Grievous. Nope, I already won that bet. The new starters have been spotted in Australia twice. I win by technicality due to the fact that the statement wasn't specific on whether said reports had to be confirmed and whether such items need to be widespread . Still, the fact that I was wrong makes me sad yet elated. Apparently, not only do the forces of luck and the universe go out of there way to make sure I'm always wrong but even the forces of capitalism rage against me. I just can't win when I make statements like the one I did .
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Jul 25, 2007 17:55:09 GMT -5
Nope, I already won that bet. The new starters have been spotted in Australia twice. I win by technicality due to the fact that the statement wasn't specific on whether said reports had to be confirmed and whether such items need to be widespread . Actually, in the spirit of technicalities, you said store aisle s. For all we know, the non-lizardrhinoshocker sighting could have been at the same store on the same toy aisle, and hence only one aisle - not the plural implied by aisles. You still have 5 days, grievous
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jul 25, 2007 18:02:39 GMT -5
Well, how did you expect me to word it? "Will hit store aisle"? That's horribly ungrammatical for the sort of wording I was looking for. Also, one must consider the size of Australia. Perhaps squallgoku and lizardrhinoshocker are in the same store aisle. However, there is no proof of this correlation between reports. There isn't proof otherwise either. In such a case of inconclusive evidence for either side of the bet, normally the result would likely be an agreed upon push in which both betters would keep what they bet. In this case of a one-sided bet, I keep my account. If you don't like that answer, how about this one: I said that new Attacktix products would hit store aisles (plural). One new product, the various new starters, were found in Australia. A product new to my Wal-Mart's aisle was also found. Therefore, two "new" products in two utterly different aisles.
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Jul 25, 2007 18:13:21 GMT -5
Well, how did you expect me to word it? "Will hit store aisle"? That's horribly ungrammatical for the sort of wording I was looking for. Well, when you play the technicality game, you should be more careful about "the sort of wording you want." If you wanted to have a single sighting be sufficient, you could have said something like "I will gladly stake my account and all its cash that at least one new Attacktix product hits the aisle of at least one store by the end of July." That way, one store is enough, and it doesn't even need to be the toy aisle - strictly speaking. And nope, I'm not buying your rewording, either. Your intent was clear from your previous post (and original post in a thread about SW S5) that you meant "new" as of the date of your initial post - that is, it hadn't been released anywhere yet as of June 27, 2007, 3:46 pm CDT No, a push is called when there is conclusive evidence that both sides are equal (e.g., both player and house have the same final card value in a blackjack hand). In the case of inconclusive evidence, arbitration is generally preferred, in which case the burden is on the plaintiff to win by a preponderance of the evidence. Since you're the one asserting the claim, you're the plaintiff. Prove your case - you still have 5 days
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jul 25, 2007 18:50:14 GMT -5
I don't know where you've been betting but everyone in my house at least agrees that this would be inconclusive enough that I wouldn't lose my account. ESPECIALLY when I never SPECIFICALLY stated that said figures had to be universally NEW figures.
The Wal-Mart aisle had never seen the figures therefore there is a new Attacktix item in said aisle.
I still win... or at least I don't have any compelling evidence that says I absolutely must lose ;D.
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Jul 25, 2007 19:53:50 GMT -5
I don't know where you've been betting but everyone in my house at least agrees that this would be inconclusive enough that I wouldn't lose my account. ESPECIALLY when I never SPECIFICALLY stated that said figures had to be universally NEW figures. Good thing your house doesn't go to Vegas, then. Oh, how quickly you forget context Your original post, in its entirety, from the thread entitled "Why is SW S5 taking so long?" I wish there was a "bang head against wall" smiley. The average length of time between Attacktix releases seems to be about five months. Here's my listing with very rough estimates of each release. My memory is very fuzzy so anyone with better numbers, feel free to whack me in the head: SW1: April '05 SW2: September '05 (5 month since previous release) SW3: February '06 (5 months since previous release) SW4/TF2: July '06 (5 months since previous release) M1: Late December '07 (roughly 6 months since previous release) Current Date: June '07 (5 months since previous release) The new sets are right on time, especially when compared with M1. Heck, we've even had new stuff like the Spider-Man 3 set show up in the mean time. Be patient and it will come. Laugh at me if I'm wrong but there is far to much pessimism going around lately. I will gladly stake my account and all it's cash that at least one new Attacktix product hits store aisles by the end of July. Seriously, stop with the doom-and-gloom and turn those frowns upside down. So, what about that post would make one conclude that you meant any of those products that would be new to your idiosyncratic Wal-Mart? You never specifically stated that you did mean this would count, and there's a good amount of information from the context of your post here that would suggest you meant universally new, at least as of the date and time of that post. Except that it's not the sort of "new item" to which you were referring in your original post But you're the claimant, so it's up to you to prove your case with a preponderance of the evidence. Or would you like to try to find a statute in northern Indiana jurisprudence that would suggest even that standard of evidence isn't necessary to prove such a claim? (Hint: there is at least one way to attempt to get out of this, using legal concepts, but I'm not going to hand it to you ) Thus far, I think I've discovered some evidence that would at least demonstrate that your particular Wal-Mart wasn't meant to be used as the benchmark. Ambiguity...the devil's volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jul 25, 2007 20:07:52 GMT -5
Fine, done playing around. The simple way out using Australia and the legal system: Reasonable Doubt In a court of law, if this was an actual bet/contract that escalated to this point, I would have the very strong evidence of two separate encounters of 100% new Attacktix items. You, however, would simply have the statement of "Well, they could be in the same store". You have no evidence in your direction besides that which is very weak evidence compared to two independent statements that show absolutely no correlation besides the claimants being in the same country/continent. If you were to try and use this to link two murders you would get laughed out of the courtroom. You have no other evidence and because you would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those two starter sets were found in the same store aisle, you would lose your case. If you took this to ANY court of law, I'd win. You'd have to have one of those crazy judges who let child molesters out in sixty days to get my account to close. If that doesn't satiate you... Legal Gambling/Betting/Contract-Signing Age The legal age in Indiana for any of the above is 18 (except for Casino games where it is 21). Therefore, I am technically not allowed to make any contractual wagers without parental consent. I did not have parental consent when typing out that post and, therefore, the wager is null and void. Still not happy? No Opposite Party No one ever took me up on my bet. Saying I have to hold my deal is like saying that an empty contract requires the writer to hold up to his end of the bargain. Happy now or do I need to get my paralegal grandmother involved and/or make a joke about being drunk at the time of the wager which would get me off the hook as well? ;D Also, I'll admit I forgot the context my post was in. Didn't help my "Wal-Mart" case much to do so, now did it?
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Jul 25, 2007 20:47:46 GMT -5
Sorry, "reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof used in criminal court, rather than in civil court, which is where this sort of matter would go. Civil court typically relies on the "preponderance of the evidence" standard (note that I've been using that phrase consistently). You're also confusing the burden being on the plaintiff or complainant as opposed to the defendant or respondent - you're the one making the claim, so you're the one with the burden of proof. Thus far, I could still win (and no, the original context didn't help much, and it'd probably hurt a "technicality"-based interpretation) Furthermore, the registrant that corresponds to the other user's IP address is registered in Canberra, so you can't say I have no evidence that they're not connected: % [whois.apnic.net node-1] % Whois data copyright terms www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.htmlinetnum: 124.176.0.0 - 124.191.255.255 netname: TELSTRAINTERNET44-AU descr: Telstra Internet descr: Locked Bag 5744 descr: Canberra descr: ACT 2601 country: AU You may certainly get your paralegal grandmother involved; I'll go next door to the law school and see if some of my department's collaborators can help out And while I'm at it, we'll sue Hasbro for breach of implied contract by teasing us with the promo figures so many months ago and not delivering their end of the implied contract - namely, the delivery of those figures to the stores ;D
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jul 25, 2007 20:57:04 GMT -5
*points upwards towards edit* At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if I wake up in five days to have my account locked as a joke. ;D Also, I have more than enough proof for any sane person (at least at first glance). The problem is that I'm messing with someone who enjoys poking at flaws in jokes and has access to IP addresses . Oh and one more thing (I love the edit button . You may have been able to thwart my court arguments but one must remember that, since no one took me up on the bet, I do not have a bet with anyone but myself. Your argument doesn't qualify past my own burden of proof. Therefore, I do not say that I lost my bet with myself. I still win. ;D
|
|