Whiz Kid
30 Point Captain
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 237
|
Post by Whiz Kid on Oct 28, 2007 15:08:41 GMT -5
First, let me apologize if this is not the place for this thread. I'm under the impression that those who are not in the Committee are not supposed to contribute to the Committee thread, and the wiki board itself seems the most likely place to put any challenges from non-Committee board members. If I'm mistaken on either of these, please inform me so that I know where to voice any future concerns.
I've been following a bit of the rules discussions, some of which I agree with, and some I don't, but the recent ruling regarding loading/reloading just leaves me frustrated. The ruling was as follows:
Now, in the Committee discussion regarding this, the three most credible points were that nothing clearly says that projectiles have to be loaded at the beginning of a game, the intent seems to be to say a player shouldn't reload after attacking, and that one cannot really be forced to reload a figure that has never been loaded.
Problem: Neither does the new ruling. Nowhere in that ruling does it say with any sort of clarity whether projectiles should be loaded at the start of a game, nor does it establish any reasonable difference between "loading" and "reloading." It barely and briefly touches on reloading after attacking, which only ends up covering ground that all sides agree is already in the QSG.
Why is this confusing, and in my mind a problem? It seems to me that the Committee lumped several different things into the ruling, and didn't really answer anything.
1. Should projectiles be loaded at the start of a game? This is not covered at all. It is a glaring oversight (on Hasbro's part more than the Committee) given that the second player has to set up figures and be available to be attacked before their turn ever comes up. The only assumption that can be drawn is that the second player is allowed to load nothing. Given that many figures have their defenses affected (often positively) by the respective projectiles, it seems to give the first player even more of an advantage.
2. This ruling seems based in an the assumption that there is an established difference in gameplay between "loading" and "reloading," yet the Committee has established no such difference, and Hasbro makes no distinction. It may seem like a silly quibble, but given that it relates directly to a basic gameplay function, it should not be overlooked. In fact, I'm browsing the Marvel QSG right now, and cannot find any form of the word "load" anywhere, and the word "reload" is only used in the sentence in question (see my third point). I would present the case that it's very important to define the concept before basing arguments and rules upon it. Without establishment and definition of the term(s), any ruling based on such must be considered a completely new rule. This would be a clear violation of the stated goals of the Committee (clarification/amendment).
3. In seeking clarification/amendment, looking to what has been established is crucial. Without reading into intent, the QSGs clearly state "Reload missiles at the start of your next turn" and show loaded figures on both sides at the beginning of play. The "Ask the Expert" section clearly says that if you forget to reload projectiles at the start of the turn, it should be done as soon as the player remembers it. It also says that Tournament Rules (will) say to load at the beginning of your turn; however, the actual tourney rules only mention loading at all during the attack phase when describing how launchers work. Sadly, the Game Demo is of little help- I find it hard to tell anything from the characters magically moving about on their own. It is notable that the projectiles only appear just before firing, but this is so easily arguable that I'm inclined to remove it as any sort of documentation entirely. Even with it, this presents 4-2 pictorial/stated exhibits in favor of having ALL figures loaded at the beginning of the game, and reloading figures at the start of the next turn. The ruling of the Committee claims "no compelling reason" yet flies directly in the face of the majority of available information. The onus is then on the Committee to illustrate a compelling reason to go with the ruling that it did, not to state why it went against the majority of information, which it fails to do.
4. The committee has left open the door for other variables in the game. The ruling brings up entirely new strategies and complications, such as never loading a figure at all, which can highly affect defense (an entirely new argument springs forth regarding whether the decision to load was intended to be a strategic consideration), or build further challenges/arguable viewpoints on future decisions (if Chirpa is fully able to attack without loading, and the Committee has declared loading to be optional, then why should he be forced to load in order to attack?).
5. It would seem that the ruling, as the committee has decided it, is in fact partially supported by the rules. However, in defining it, it has only raised more questions that require more definition and possibly even entirely new rules. The Committee has shown a desire to answer questions rather than raising new ones by the rulings (I point to the question "Are SPs optional..." as clear precedent), yet this ruling creates more questions and opportunity for conflicting understanding than any other. None of this seems to be within the spirit/goals of the committee.
In conclusion, I would like to make it clear that I am NOT trying to get the Committee to turn around their decision. On a personal level, I will admit to a bias toward having all projectiles loaded at the beginning of the game, and (re)loading all projectiles at the start of the turn. I simply feel that there was not enough consideration given to the ruling in question, and that it only seems to raise more questions and create more ill definitions, which is obviously not the intent. I would urge the Committee to revisit the topic and make sure that ALL elements of it are covered, and to follow precedence in erring on the side of logic and least complexity. It may well turn out upon examination that my preference is indeed more complicated, but I leave that conclusion in your hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Oct 28, 2007 17:59:21 GMT -5
Given that many figures have their defenses affected (often positively) by the respective projectiles, it seems to give the first player even more of an advantage.
1. I would not agree. Figures such as Spiderman, Electro, and Megatron G1 become a little top heavy and are easier to knock over with their projectile loaded.
This ruling seems based in an the assumption that there is an established difference in gameplay between "loading" and "reloading," yet the Committee has established no such difference, and Hasbro makes no distinction.
2. I think we all know what "load" and "reload" mean. I am not sure why this would need explaining. If a figure was loaded at one time and fired, then he would be reloaded later.
3. In seeking clarification/amendment, looking to what has been established is crucial. Without reading into intent, the QSGs clearly state "Reload missiles at the start of your next turn" and show loaded figures on both sides at the beginning of play. The "Ask the Expert" section clearly says that if you forget to reload projectiles at the start of the turn, it should be done as soon as the player remembers it. It also says that Tournament Rules (will) say to load at the beginning of your turn; however, the actual tourney rules only mention loading at all during the attack phase when describing how launchers work. Sadly, the Game Demo is of little help- I find it hard to tell anything from the characters magically moving about on their own. It is notable that the projectiles only appear just before firing, but this is so easily arguable that I'm inclined to remove it as any sort of documentation entirely. Even with it, this presents 4-2 pictorial/stated exhibits in favor of having ALL figures loaded at the beginning of the game, and reloading figures at the start of the next turn. The ruling of the Committee claims "no compelling reason" yet flies directly in the face of the majority of available information. The onus is then on the Committee to illustrate a compelling reason to go with the ruling that it did, not to state why it went against the majority of information, which it fails to do.
3. We are all mostly aware of what Hasbro has ruled on several different subjects. However the concern is the inconsistency of many of their covered subjects. For instance it is still foggy as to if the Emperor can "unpossess" a figure. This too we have covered (I think) or will cover in the future. The goal here is to make reasonable rules that are defined clearly enough for new to experienced players to follow.
4. The committee has left open the door for other variables in the game. The ruling brings up entirely new strategies and complications, such as never loading a figure at all, which can highly affect defense (an entirely new argument springs forth regarding whether the decision to load was intended to be a strategic consideration), or build further challenges/arguable viewpoints on future decisions (if Chirpa is fully able to attack without loading, and the Committee has declared loading to be optional, then why should he be forced to load in order to attack?).
4. Patience my friend. We cover one at a time. Currently I can see what you mean by Chripa being an optional loaded figure based off of what was previously ruled. But we haven't completely ruled out that you can't attack with Chripa w/o the rock either.
5. It would seem that the ruling, as the committee has decided it, is in fact partially supported by the rules. However, in defining it, it has only raised more questions that require more definition and possibly even entirely new rules. The Committee has shown a desire to answer questions rather than raising new ones by the rulings (I point to the question "Are SPs optional..." as clear precedent), yet this ruling creates more questions and opportunity for conflicting understanding than any other. None of this seems to be within the spirit/goals of the committee.
5. I would need you to make clearer explanations on what you mean.
I will admit to a bias toward having all projectiles loaded at the beginning of the game, and (re)loading all projectiles at the start of the turn. I simply feel that there was not enough consideration given to the ruling in question, and that it only seems to raise more questions and create more ill definitions, which is obviously not the intent. I would urge the Committee to revisit the topic and make sure that ALL elements of it are covered, and to follow precedence in erring on the side of logic and least complexity.
I think this is what is truly spurring on all of this. I understand not everybody is going to agree with what we are debating on. But that is why we vote and make our arguments. Not all of the ones I voted on won the argument, but I regressed to the committee as a whole that the right decision was made. I like the fact you wish to bring up your opinion, but I would argue that this whole thread was based off of the "load" "reload" ruling. If you wish for us to revisit that particular one, I would say you need to ask SUPERFLY. He is the chairman and ultimately would make the final decision on which topics need to be readdressed. I would also say that if a thread like this wishes to stay open, I wouldn't mind. However, I need to add that this thread could easily become a battle ground. I for one don't want to see that, AGAIN.
|
|
Whiz Kid
30 Point Captain
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 237
|
Post by Whiz Kid on Oct 28, 2007 20:02:12 GMT -5
1. I would not agree. Figures such as Spiderman, Electro, and Megatron G1 become a little top heavy and are easier to knock over with their projectile loaded. Hence why I said "many" and "often." It was never intended to be an all-inclusive statement. It needs explaining because it is part of one of the core concepts of the game. We can find disagreements as to whether "prodders" are strikers and "throwers" are launchers, and you honestly think that "load/reload" doesn't deserve mention? Especially with one word never appearing in the QSG that forms the "core" rules, and the (assumed) difference being used to support one of the viewpoints regarding the action? If it's going to be treated as a game term, then it needs to be defined as a game term. It is not. Clearly-defined game terms are a necessity exactly for circumstances like rules clarification. I understand that there is inconsistency. I also understand that the bulk of evidence does not lean in the direction the Committee chose. Again, it is not the Committee's responsibility to declare the majority of information has "no compelling reason," the responsibility is to declare why the minority of information is MORE compelling. It's a basic rule of procedure. Quite frankly, I fail to see how either one is more reasonable than the other. I mean, it pretty much boils down to "load the missiles on your turn" vs. "load the missiles when you need them". You're missing the point. It wouldn't be up for debate at all if he had to be reloaded. Interestingly, there's a several-page thread not too far back in which most of the board was firmly against S2 Spidey attacking in any form without his web ball... yet many of those same members are on the Committee and just opened the door to the very possibility! I'm not trying to get that answered, I'm using it as my illustration that the ruling did not end the argument, but opened more cans of worms. The question was answered without consideration of the questions it raised. Again, no one bothered to ask if the option to load/reload was intended to be a strategic consideration in the game, which it clearly and easily becomes. Points 1-4 give several clear examples. Point 5 is aimed directly at the Committee to illustrate that the intent, as you said, "is to make reasonable rules that are defined clearly..." and that the ruling in fact leaves unanswered more questions than it answers, creates new questions, and is utterly unsatisfying. Okay, you've actually lost me here. Of course my dissatisfaction is based on the ruling in question; I've made it no secret that it forms the basis for my entire post (check the title). My dissatisfaction, however, has very little to do with a personal agenda and much more to do with the fact that I feel the resolution is completely unsatisfactory, and in fact muddies the debate it was intended to resolve. I can deal with the "reload at will" concept. Heck, I'm already forming some new strategies around it, and adapting some of my old ones to it. It's the fact that the major points used to reach that conclusion were flawed, the answer generates more questions, and there seems to be no awareness of those things that is getting my goat. The suggestion to contact SF is definitely an excellent point. I'll gather my thoughts into a few (hopefully) simple questions and toss them at him. |
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Oct 28, 2007 21:00:27 GMT -5
I would urge the Committee to revisit the topic and make sure that ALL elements of it are covered, and to follow precedence in erring on the side of logic and least complexity. If I'm understanding the choir I'm in properly, I believe you're preaching to it  |
|
|
|
Post by ionicdesign on Oct 28, 2007 23:42:46 GMT -5
|
|
Whiz Kid
30 Point Captain
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 237
|
Post by Whiz Kid on Oct 29, 2007 2:35:03 GMT -5
"Many" is indeed an overstatement. I actually just went through the thread and tallied the "for" and "against." In the "for" column, I have one Committee member (GE) vs. 3 in the "against" column (Grievous, YB, and DoNP). All three in the "against" clearly vote #1 in the ruling, that option being that all projectiles had to be loaded at the beginning of the turn. Since that would, as previously stated, negate the question of attacking with an unloaded "thrower," I must amend my statement. None of those committee members opened the can of worms, as I previously claimed. My apologies to them, and my thanks to ID for keeping me honest. |
|
|
|
Post by ionicdesign on Oct 29, 2007 9:24:28 GMT -5
Well in the end there was only 15 who commented from the board at large (who really were a fairly small sampling 15/1002) From the committee thread you do have Grievous, YB, and DoNP against and the main ones replying to your posts, but in the for column you have GE , Malform (though not definitively, he was the one who did the attack though  ) and Webhead, who is a sort of a committee in and of himself. I too would have been in general agreement with the idea, but deferred to bring it to the committee at large. And thus it is there currently being debated. |
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Oct 29, 2007 9:58:43 GMT -5
Silence! The Great SuperflOZ has Spoken!First, let me apologize if this is not the place for this thread. I'm under the impression that those who are not in the Committee are not supposed to contribute to the Committee thread, and the wiki board itself seems the most likely place to put any challenges from non-Committee board members. If I'm mistaken on either of these, please inform me so that I know where to voice any future concerns. Glad you put it in the can. You may at any point put something wherever you wish - I would suggest starting a "?s for the committee to look at" thread. I would think "Attacktix" forum would be as appropriate, but this place is ok as well. Ask a Moderator, and you can always PM me as I am the final arbiter of what ?s get placed on the docket. I see what you mean. The ruling states that you may load (optionally) during your turn. Technically it does not indicate whether or not you can optionally load at the beginning of the game. I will amend that. Will be fixing this oversight. I totally agree with you. This is a silly quibble. The text of the rule says it's optional to load your weapons at any point in your turn. It says nothing about RELOADING except for in the case of attackbacks/shootbacks. And the 'clarification' part yes, COULD be a violation, but the AMENDMENT part, well heck, we could rule that on every third turn you get a free move and attack, and that would be an AMENDMENT, wouldn't it. Thanks for playing though! I agree that some compelling argument should be evident for a drastic rule change. The 7 committee members are the ones who vote. I am the arbiter. I start the debate, allow for special discussions, and then illustrate possible options for the outcome of the rules. I do not vote. The thing is, guy, that if the arguments are compelling enough to have a majority come up with an answer, just be cause you disagree with it (as I do) doesn't really impress anyone. It is what it is. And per our rules, if 4 members hit me up and want to redress an issue, so shall it be. The trick is that we look at the gameplay side of things, and with this ruling (so sayeth the majority) this actually helps gameplay. Let's say you want to play with a figure that has a great gun, but makes it tip forward. Now you can play with the figure! Or, if you have S1 Anakin whose force blast makes for a great shield, GO FOR IT! Keep him loaded. The ruling offers choices. I may disagree with the overall reasoning, but I sure can see how having choices can make some figures playable again! Yes! More variables! More Strategies! And...you're complaining? Options are great! More ways to decimate an opposing force!! More choices on factions (see ACTUALLY USING A WOOKIEE SCOUT NOW!...maybe WOOKIEES may get some tix-time now!). Where's the problem? For the Chirpa (or really any figure) scenario, it's pretty clear. If the ruling on the next ? is that any figure may attack in any fashion it pleases, well then YES, why should you load up the rock. If the ruling goes as I THINK, then you have to load his weapon as any other attack is illegal. Where's the rub? You keep going back to the fact that the non-loading affects defense...HOW? By giving some figures the option to augment it? There really isn't too much of a downside here, cowboy. I am a strict adherent to the original rules, so I am riled here a bit too, but being what it is, I'd say that it's not that big of a deal, except it allows you to DECIDE which figures you want to keep loaded. I'm looking at these points you're attempting to make, and I love the fact that players are getting engaged. But specifically in the SP question, what has changed? Hasbro scrooed the pooch on this question, stating it was optional in the "Ask the Xpert", so in reality your beef is with Hasbro! Here's our answer: Q. Are SPs Optional, or MUST they be enacted? A. All powers are mandatory other than those that could be passed on during normal play. How does this raise ANY questions? It's pretty simple. If your guy dies and it's a sacrafice figure, you need to sacrifice a trooper (or whatever). If you have an Attackback, but don't have a clear shot, YOU CAN FORFEIT THE ATTACKBACK just as you could forfeit an attack normally. What's so challenging about understanding this? Here's the deal - make a thread for "Questions we'd like to see answered by the committee", and show me what question is raised by the SP answer. Maybe there is something, I'm always open, but I don't see it. Glad you're not trying to change the opinion, because I suspect you've pissed in some of the committee members' Wheaties on this and they will NEVER look at this again. Not naming GE any names, of course. Look, I'm on your side on this one. I think that the weapons should be mandatorily loaded at all times when within the confines of the rules. But, I don't make the rules. Or vote on them. BUT, your overcomplication of this ruling makes little sense to me. I just don't see the 'inherent questions raised' by this little argument, and why it's so important to clarify the difference between the phrase "Load" and "Reload". Maybe I'll see it more clearly if you explain your thought process, because I just don't see it. Thanks, though, and keep keeping them honest!
|
|
Whiz Kid
30 Point Captain
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 237
|
Post by Whiz Kid on Oct 29, 2007 12:07:37 GMT -5
I totally agree with you. This is a silly quibble. The text of the rule says it's optional to load your weapons at any point in your turn. It says nothing about RELOADING except for in the case of attackbacks/shootbacks. And the 'clarification' part yes, COULD be a violation, but the AMENDMENT part, well heck, we could rule that on every third turn you get a free move and attack, and that would be an AMENDMENT, wouldn't it. Thanks for playing though! You're missing the point I'm trying to make too. I can only assume that I'm not explaining myself very well, so I'll try again. Every marketable game has a lexicon that all players are expected to universally refer to. This is especially the case in collectible games, where it is imperative to know the terminology so that you can keep up with the changes as new expansions come out. Attacktix doesn't have that. Again, the question of "how can a figure be forced to reload if they never loaded?" was actually brought up. This means that the Committee is making arguments based not on a misunderstanding of game terms, but based on an assumption of game terms that do not exist. In reality, this is actually a separate argument all on it's own. It's frankly baffling to me that coming up with "official" terms wasn't done in the first place, as it would have likely negated a few questions, or made them easier to debate. Hasbro pretty much dropped the ball on it (as they did with so many other rules) as well, so I'm not trying to point fingers at the Committee. I'm well aware that every last person here knows what "load" and "reload" mean when it is in perfect context. But in the game, and especially when you are hammering out the rules of the game, the words that are used to describe the game take on new meaning. The fact that everyone knows what it means to "buy" something does not prevent the Monopoly instructions from telling you how to do it. Or, for a more comparable game, I'm looking over my Heroclix rulebook, and it contains a five-page glossary full of gems like "attacker," "base," "cancel," "copy," "figure," "ignores," "KOd," "modifier," "optional," "starting area," "target," "terrain," and "use." The thing is that these words all mean exactly what you think they do. The general meaning is unchanged, but the glossary explains how these common words work in the context of the game. These things exist so that rules debates are settled according to definition and precedent, so that wording, terminology, and rulings are consistent, for the time being and in the future of the game. In the short time I've been here, I've seen debates on the applicability of any number of terms. Apparently I'm the only one who is uncomfortable with the committee basing rules decisions on the difference between two undefined game terms, one of which doesn't even appear in the document that was being argued from! I'm finding it harder to believe that I'm the only one that thinks that coming up with "reasonable rules that are defined clearly enough for new to experienced players to follow" means doing things like making sure that everyone is using the same terminology, and that those terms have their meanings spelled out. It's not about any personal disagreement with the rulings. It's about unsound arguments leading to them. You misunderstand... or perhaps I'm losing myself in my own words... I've been known to do that. I'm not complaining about enhanced gameplay. That's all fine with me. My issue rests with the clarification of rules based on questionable arguments and without consideration for what may come out of it. And again I raise the question: Was any of that intended when the game was created? Were figures created and costed with "at-will" loading in mind? Did the designers take into account the defensive boost it might add, or in some cases the defense it might negate? Does it "improve" more figures than it "impairs"? What are the strengths and disadvantages to each style of play? There were certainly enough Committee members who play each way to consider these questions, but they were never asked. That was merely an example I was making regarding the Committee's stated goal of creating clear, concise answers that did not raise additional questions. I have no problem at all with it. Yeah, I figured I'd be making myself unpopular with this one. I just see a lot of good intention (and great clarification), but that ruling in particular feels like everyone just made arguments at face value so that they could get to the voting and cast for whatever their personal preference was, without considering all sides and possibilities as they normally do. I would like to state again that I have no problem at all playing it as the Committee decides, and I generally feel they are doing a GREAT job... I just want to make sure that the Committee is deciding what they are based on the right information and proper examination of it. |
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Oct 29, 2007 12:43:20 GMT -5
A glossary will be at the back of the rulebook in an Appendix. Your ignorance of this is due to me not publishing the 'master plan' so I don't hold it against you.
Here's where we part company:
1. Player gets killed.
2. Player has Attackback
3a. If player isn't loaded, see sentence 1 of ruling, load up.
3b. If player IS loaded, then just shoot.
3c. If player already shot this/last turn, see sentence 2 of ruling, load up.
This isn't all that hard.
As for Hasbro's pointing and theorizing on the game being played as "X", let's be realistic. Hasbro pointed these based on speed, base size, weapon, SP, effect, and the other reasons. Do you REALLY believe that they even considered whether or not (assuming tripoding was even on their radar) the bullet was in the gun was of any concern? Let's take a look at this....
1. Figure shoots.
2. Figure no longer has a weapon loaded.
3. Figure that shot killed enemy with attackback power.
4. Enemy shoots back figure that initially killed the attackback-wielding figure.
Upshot: Is it now unfair? Should the figure who originally fired now be forced to reload as Hasbro calculated the bullet weight into the point value assigned? NO.
The point of the illustration is to show the absurdity of the notion that the bullet's condition (loaded/unloaded) was a huge factor. The fact is that I think that the bullet should ALWAYS be in, except after a shot (immediately) until next load cycle or turn. But, that being said, I cannot fathom how the verbiage (which I did change to be more clear, and thank you for pointing out the 'first turn scenario') can be so overwhelmingly nebulous to ruin the game and force players into hiding.
I just don't see this as a big issue. Take a look at some of the other rules, specifically the "KD=D" rule. That DRASTICALLY changed the way I play. That SUCKED. But, it made sense to the panel.
And finally, on the 'sound arguments' comment, that is truly a matter of opinion. I'm sure there are people looking at your arguments noting that you are insane. That's their opinion. Don't make blanket statements that people's opinions are or are not sound if you expect to incite them to action on your behalf. I'd rather point out that there are differences in opinion, state your opinion, and be on with it.
I bear no ill will with you, nor do I think anyone on the panel would. You've not offended my sensibilities, at least, and I appreciate the fact that in 3-4 months of doing this you're the only one (really) that put a ruling on blast. It's nice to hear from people that play how the ruling is viewed. Feel free, as I said, to put anything you want in the "Questions to..." thread.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
Post by YodaBreaker on Oct 29, 2007 15:05:12 GMT -5
Every marketable game has a lexicon that all players are expected to universally refer to. This is especially the case in collectible games, where it is imperative to know the terminology so that you can keep up with the changes as new expansions come out. I fail to see lexicons in the instructions for Monopoly, Operation, or Scrabble, which I believe to have been rather marketable games (the first and third of which have recently been targets for fast-food promotions). However, the target audience for these games is much younger and less strict about rule interpretation than the target audience for collectible games. Thus, I think it's reasonable to conclude that Attacktix was pitched for a younger demographic than that which would typically care greatly about these issues. Then again, I don't even see a comprehensive glossary for HeroScape, so they might just be bad at this sort of thing. It's also important to note that the SW Series 1 and 2 starter sets came with CD-ROMs that provided more detail about these sorts of gameplay mechanics. These CD-ROMs have been the basis for at least some of at least one committee member's votes Agreed, but the apparent target audience for this game is much younger than the typical board member who posts about such things, it would seem Including that much documentation would probably overwhelm the typical 7-to-10 year old who just wants to pick up his/her figures and start bashing. Nevertheless, I think it's silly that the 'bro wouldn't bother to include an up to date online supplement to the rules that are included with the starter sets to assuage the sticklers among us. "Ask the Expert" isn't well indexed, and I've yet to see a comprehensive rulebook promulgated for public consumption straight from the 'bro to us. |
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Oct 29, 2007 15:26:45 GMT -5
Posted by superflytnt on Today at 10:58am
Glad you're not trying to change the opinion, because I suspect you've pissed in some of the committee members' Wheaties on this and they will NEVER look at this again. Not naming GE any names, of course. |
Not sure why I am targeted as to being "pissed off"? I am not at all to be honest. I was trying to type, tie my daughters shoes, and take care of my 6 month old. I had to proof read and re-type several times because I lost my thought so often. However, I thought G. was the most obstinate member. LOL! J/K ;D After reading everything that was posted today I just wish to reiterate that I love the idea of members being able to ask for subjects to be looked at again. I just want to make sure that it doesn't become a brawl like we have already experienced in the past. WhizKid wasn't here for that episode, so he doesn't know what I am talking about. But, everyone on the committee remembers, I am sure. What I would like to suggest is that if members would like subjects looked at again that it is done in a more organized fashion. Maybe like, state your point once and be done. Maybe mix one rebuttal after wards, but not like what is being done right now. What we are doing today is boggling IMO. We are pounding a subject to death and over analyzing it. Just a suggestion. What if we (The Committee), maybe right before we go to voting, post what we are debating on this, or another thread, and let other members have a designated amount of time to express their views on the subject? Obviously they (non-committee members) have no final vote on the subject. But they will get to express their views non the less. I would also like to reiterate that "Don't beat on a dead horse". You are never going to make everyone happy with your ideas. That is just a lesson in life you must learn at an early age. Just because you don't get your way, doesn't necessarily mean the way it was voted is wrong. Humility needs to always be in the front seat with you while you are driving. (And no, that is not a slam against anyone, just words I like to live by) |
|
Whiz Kid
30 Point Captain
????#??? ?????????? ?
Posts: 237
|
Post by Whiz Kid on Oct 29, 2007 15:29:57 GMT -5
A glossary will be at the back of the rulebook in an Appendix. Your ignorance of this is due to me not publishing the 'master plan' so I don't hold it against you. So the plan is to hammer out the rules, then figure out what to call everything? To be honest, that seems a bit backward to me, but if it works for you, and as long as it gets done, I'm not going to whine about it... anymore. Do I believe it? Honestly, I could go either way. I think the base size is definitely more of a factor to them than the sculpt itself, which seems like quite an oversight. What I'm trying to get at is that it's not even a consideration with the Committee, and since the entire point is to correct Hasbro's oversights/mistakes, it's the sort of thing that probably SHOULD come up every now and then. The majority of the board is above legal drinking age, spends their free time playing a game that we all fully understand and recognize is made for six year olds, and comes here on a regular basis to talk about it at length... I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume anyone here ISN'T insane. That sarcasm aside, your points are well-taken, even if I am showing some major snippage. I fail to see lexicons in the instructions for Monopoly, Operation, or Scrabble, which I believe to have been rather marketable games (the first and third of which have recently been targets for fast-food promotions). Touche. However, it is notable that the way the instructions are set up (I'm referring specifically to Monoploy) clearly defines each part of play, and sticks to the language that it sets down. They do not start out using the word "buy" and then substitute "purchase" or "acquire," they use "buy" consistently throughout the document. Quite frankly, Attacktix instructions are a complete and utter failure in that regard. That's what makes it boggling to me that anyone would argue wording as though it were clearly established terminology. But, as other members have pointed out, there comes a time when you have said your piece, and you can either let your words work for you, or continue talking until you guarantee that no one is listening. I'll give this one a rest. I can't promise I won't make a snarky comment or elaborate some detail, but no more posts that take up multiple screens. In this thread, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Turkish Van Cat on Oct 29, 2007 17:50:50 GMT -5
Hmmm, well I'm naive too (anyone want to enlighten me?), and I've been on the boards since February. I only really started following the wiki discussion and committee decisions a few weeks ago, after I had more free time as the craziness of school starting passed. That would definitely be nice. I also agree that it would probably be better to not lengthen out the arguments/debates so much; I have to admit that I've only glossed over some of the posts in this thread. My only worry with having a member's-opinion thread is that it could make the progress of the committee a lot slower. I don't know how many more questions you guys have to go through, or how many you've done so far for that matter, but regardless, it could lengthen the time to get through the rulings. Then again, it doesn't look like the hiatus is letting up any time soon . |
|
|
|
Post by malform on Oct 29, 2007 21:40:53 GMT -5
Hmmm, well I'm naive too (anyone want to enlighten me?), and I've been on the boards since February. I only really started following the wiki discussion and committee decisions a few weeks ago, after I had more free time as the craziness of school starting passed. I think he may be referring to the great transform debate/argument. Not exactly my personal greatest time of composure for sure.... But oh well. |
|
) and Webhead, who is a sort of a committee in and of himself. 
