Texas?

sauromatian wrote in UK Basic Set Mystery & Theory:
The contents of those editions are themselves different printings/editions. One rulebook has hobbits, the other halflings. (&nd let me tell you, don't ever confuse a halfling for a hobbit. Don't say anything about their mothers, either.) Is there any part of the sets described above that is unique?

I'm not sure that I am following the contents of this thread correctly, so I am still uncertain as to whether a unique box has been described. I looked at the photos for a box with both blue-painting sides & a bottom with the GW logo, but do not see it. Or maybe everyone's been talking about something else entirely. Is it politics? Is this another thread about social-justice warriors? Where am I?

But seriously, thats what we are trying to find out. Is there anything unique about that set or just a cool mishmash of parts while they waited for the black side boxes to arrive.

Mike

stratochamp wrote in UK Basic Set Mystery & Theory:Just so folks understand my point, I thought I'd make one more post on this topic.
It is possible (I would not know one way or another) that Games Workshop took existing TSR 2nd print Holmes boxes and put F-116R Rulebooks and GW versions of B1 inside them and sold them. But even if they did, that is not a different printing. That is an in-house Frankenstein, that while interesting (and thank you for bringing this interesting anecdote to us seodude) should not be listed as a separate printing. In my opinion.

So it would be interesting to know if this indeed did happen, so please someone do pursue this with Ian Livingstone.

Um, I am not sure if you are a threadcrapping troll or just genuinely confused.  You certainly have made no attempt to help prove or disprove the theory, but you seem intent on dismissing it simply out of turn.  However on the small chance you don't understand how time works, I will attempt to explain it  

The theory postulates that this "frankenstein" set was available BEFORE the UK 3rd Print Black Box set.    Therefore, if it did exist, it would have been the 1st printing, and unique, because the GW basic f116-R rulebook and the B1 GW module would have appeared in this set first(not to mention the first set available in box form in UK).   By your own definition, that would make it a unique print if you consider the UK 3rd print a unique print, because the theorized set featured the newly printed manual and/or module BEFORE the 3rd print.  

However the 3rd print woulds also be a unique print, since the box changed(the manual and module did not from the theorized set).  And the 4th UK print would also be a unique print because something in the manual changed(paraphrasing Sauromatian's post).   Thus all 3 would be considered unique prints.

Again, if the theory is false none of this matters.  But if it did exist, then it was the first to feature the F116-R manual and therefore is a unique print.  If the theorized set existed but came AFTER the 3rd or 4th print, then I am in agreement with you that by strict definition it would not be a unique print.

I apologize for calling you a TC troll if you are genuinely confused.  However it seems you either didn't read the theory, or you are applying your definition of a unique print in two ways.  I just fail to see how you could say this set would not be a unique printing if it were the first UK set to appear in box form and it featured the F116-R GW module first.

dbartman wrote in UK Basic Set Mystery & Theory:LOL - That's a good one.  Stratochamp is a "threadcrapping troll or just genuinely confused".  Dude, you have no idea who you are talking about do you?  Stratochamp is probably one of the most knowledgeable people on the planet when it comes to this topic.  He probably has the largest collection of fantasy RPG related items in the world.  If there was a source you could depend on to give you solid advice, he'd be that person.  Next time do a little homework before insulting someone.

Here is a link to part of his collection:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/Acaeum/ ... 163156240/

I did do my homework.   Do you think I can't see how many times he has posted or when he joined Acaeum?  And I completely agree with you in that he would appear to be quite knowledgeable about the hobby.  This is exactly why I said he had to be either tc or confused.  He is clearly a long time member who has contributed a lot to Acaeum, but he seems to either be purposefully threadcrapping, or he simply didn't read or misread the theory itself.  


Does that mean he is a terrible person? No.  
Does it mean he knows nothing about anything? No
Does it diminish in any way his contributions to this forum, the hobby, that he is a good, well meaning man, or your personal relationship with him? No  

None of that changes the fact that his argument is illogical and he has done nothing but poo-poo this thread from the start.  Has he offered a shred of solid advice on this thread or made any effort to prove or disprove the theory put forth?  No.  He has simply said he thinks it is supposition, and even if the set existed and it existed before the 3rd UK print, he wouldnt call it a unique print even though by his own definition of a unique print it would qualify as one.

I have nothing to gain by posting or attempting to prove the theory.  In fact, I am completely open to it being disproved and have stated as much.  You may ask Foul, but he offered to give me credit for the "theory" in a future update and I told him I do not want any.  I cannot prove the theory myself. I need Acaeum members(particularly long time, knowledgeable people like Stratochamp) to help prove or disprove it. Therefore I am not due credit for anything except perhaps noticing the unusual.  I also have reservations about the set itself beyond its mere existence that I shared with him and left for him to decide as a keeper of the hobby.  I can make a great argument as to why this set should never be acknowledged or listed.  But it is Foul's job to decide whether to list it or not, not mine, If he wishes to share anything I discussed with him, he is free to do so.  I posted this simply to put it to Acaeum members and allow the wealth and depth of knowledge here to determine the validity.

Now if you want to defend your friend by also threadcrapping, fine.  However, selectively quoting as to imply I am insinuating he is universally a threadcrapper or confused, as opposed to it applying to this specific thread, is just lame and taking it completely out of context.  But if I take a picture of part of my collection and it is equal to or better than his, do I then have the right to call you both threadcrappers when you are guilty of it?  Is this really the measure you wish to use?  

Do you disagree with anything I said in the post other than inferring he was tc or confused? Was the argument I presented as to why it would be a unique print if it existed before the UK 3rd print nonsense?  If so, by all means call me an idiot and rip the theory to shreds.  You won't hurt my feelings.  It wont be the first time I was an idiot or the last.

Look mate, you and Strato and anyone else has the right to be a Doubting Thomas.  This is actually necessary and healthy when it comes to making changes to the bible of any hobby or science.  But if that is the only contribution you can make to a thread that is attempting to make an argument based on evidence and fact, and you do so repeatedly, I'm calling it threadcrapping.  You may not.  Neither of us is wrong, we just differ in opinion and/or the definition of tc.

Now can we use this thread to figure out whether this set existed or not?  My PM is open to anything you, Strato, or any other member want to say to me outside of that.

Thank you Doug and Cory, I appreciate your words.
seodude sent me a thoughtful PM explaining his take on this.
Cory, I like how you put it at the end of your post, a "new box set configuration", if I had used such carefully selected words, fewer words would probably have been typed. In short that is how this would seem to me, if it was shown that GW actually was having empty US 2nd print Holmes boxes sent to them and were putting F-116R's and UK rulebooks inside. Not a newly discovered printing, but a "new box set configuration". As I said before I would like to know if this actually happened, that would be very interesting new history if true. I do not personally know Ian, so I leave that to someone that does.

sauromatian wrote in UK Basic Set Mystery & Theory:After that, I felt much better. I felt that no matter what life throws at me, I can always count on imaginary Ian Livingstone's homespun wisdom to see past it all. So I decided to ask him about this girl I've been talking to on Tinder. "She's actually an 8th-level dire harpy," he told me. "The minute you get close, she's planning to cast a co-dependency spell all over your sorry ass." "Gee thanks, imaginary Ian Livingstone" I said as he vanished in a flash & a twinkle. "You're the greatest!"

Holy cow!  That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time; thanks for brightening my day.  

Glad you were able to avoid that encounter.

smarmy1 wrote in UK Basic Set Mystery & Theory:Holy cow!  That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time; thanks for brightening my day.  

I also like strange takes ....

The countdown stalled at T-Minus 69 seconds when Desiree, the first female ape to go up into space, winked at me slyly and pouted her thick, rubbery lips unmistakeably - the first of many such advances during what would prove to be the longest, and most memorable, space voyage of my career...."

 

chromaticknight wrote in UK Basic Set Mystery & Theory:
Very good point and I agree, but the two foreign prints listed for the UK basic set differ by whats inside the box.

Mike

seodude wrote in UK Basic Set Mystery & Theory:

However the 3rd print woulds also be a unique print, since the box changed(the manual and module did not from the theorized set).  And the 4th UK print would also be a unique print because something in the manual changed(paraphrasing Sauromatian's post).   Thus all 3 would be considered unique prints.

One point that I think needs to be cleared up (to me at least) is whether the box changed or not between the 3rd and 4th UK printings.

At first glance it appears that the box did not change, but I do note one difference in the descriptions:

Third UK printing: "Bottom of box shows rulebook, module B1 (US pre-production print), five dice, and has the Games Workshop logo"

Fourth UK printing: "Bottom of box shows the US-version box (!), rulebook, module B1 (US pre-production print), five dice, and has the Games Workshop logo" (bolding added for emphasis)

Is this truly a difference or just an omission from the Acaeum description of the Third UK printing?

Thanks, CK. What is shown on the bottom of those that you have, the UK or US version of the box?