GROUP 4 + ULTIMATUM !!!

Hello all, I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out in the Anarchs. Whether this is true or not isn't the point here (I'm not a playtester so can't be sure ; if I was I wouldn't speak about it yet). If you want to discuss it start a new thread. A few Group 4 Camarilla vampires isn't dramatical, it's just useless (they just re-released group 2 Cammies, and now you can't mix them anymore with the enw vampires ?!). But it needs to STOP NOW !!! The reason why I'm launching this now and not waiting for Anarchs is that I guess game conception needs time, and that by then the new extension will already be thought over. So I'm launching an ultimatum and a petition HERE and NOW : I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever comes out, I will : - stop buying new products - resign from my Princeship I ask EVERYBODY who shares these feelings to add a "me too" to this thread. If White Wolf sees that a product designed to "force us to buy" has the opposite effect, I think and hope that they will stop the insanity NOW. Up until now they have heeded our thoughts and needs, more or less, so we have to show them what we want, or rather what we DON'T WANT !!! I must say that I still love this game (just wait to see my new site...), am still motivated to continue my job of promoting it, and for now will still encourage people to buy new extensions. But I also know what will the difference in sales will be the day when I won't. Or, for that matter, the day when any of my players will see Group 5 Cammies or Group 4 Sabbat. It's up to us, guys, let's show the businessmen what we want. Sincerely yours, and more than a little pissed off, -- Orpheus http://cypheranima.free.fr http://no.exit.free.fr news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone "After all, what is an angel but a demon yet to fall ?" (Nancy A. Collins)

On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Orpheus wrote: > I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any > GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever comes > out, I will : What's so special about group 5? Isn't it the group 4 possibility that's got you pissed off? "I dare you to cross this line!" "OK, I dare you to cross *this* line!" "OK, I...." David Cherryholmes Prince of Durham, NC

> What's so special about group 5? Isn't it the group 4 possibility that's > got you pissed off? > > "I dare you to cross this line!" > > "OK, I dare you to cross *this* line!" > > "OK, I...." I get your meaning, and yes it's pissed me off some. But for now, it seems to concern very few vampires, and it's too late to do anything about it. It IS bad, as you can't play them with any of their Sabbat counterparts, any DS or AH Camarilla, any Independant or Bloodlines !!! But as long they're Cammies, only a few vampires are really interesting to play from group 2, so it IS a problem but not of the worst kind. Anyway, I play Sabbat most of the time. Trouble is, the first Camarilla vmapires weren't "anybody" in the WoD, while Sabbat introduced some very background vampires like Lucita, Gratiano, Lambach etc. It wouldn't make any sense playing without these. Also, many players have had no access to VTES vampires, only to re-issued (why in hell, then !!!) Group 2 Cammies, so they will be able to play Group 3 and 4. On the other hand, a Group 5 or Group 4 vampires would mean you can't use any of the newly printed or reprinted vampires, and that would be the end, for me and I think many others. In one word as in many : if group 4 really come out, we can't do anything about it except stopping it all right away, and I know some people will. But I prefer to prevent any further harm and to say : stop it now. We could even add the "no more Group 4" part, but I don't think that would be effective. Or would it ? How many of you would stop buying new extensions if they sprinkled them adition with new Group 4 Cammies ? I'm afraid it's too late for that one threat, but one never knows... Yours, Orpheus

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:apri1s$jru$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr... > I get your meaning, and yes it's pissed me off some. But for now, it seems > to concern very few vampires, and it's too late to do anything about it. It > IS bad, as you can't play them with any of their Sabbat counterparts, any DS > or AH Camarilla, any Independant or Bloodlines !!! But as long they're > Cammies, only a few vampires are really interesting to play from group 2, so > it IS a problem but not of the worst kind. Anyway, I play Sabbat most of the > time. Trouble is, the first Camarilla vmapires weren't "anybody" in the WoD, > while Sabbat introduced some very background vampires like Lucita, Gratiano, > Lambach etc. It wouldn't make any sense playing without these. Also, many > players have had no access to VTES vampires, only to re-issued (why in hell, > then !!!) Group 2 Cammies, so they will be able to play Group 3 and 4. On > the other hand, a Group 5 or Group 4 vampires would mean you can't use any > of the newly printed or reprinted vampires, and that would be the end, for > me and I think many others. Look, if you don't believe in grouping, you don't believe in grouping, but I'm not sure that boycott threats are going to change any decisionmakers' minds at White Wolf. The grouping rule is supposed to keep the playing field level for newer players who will never have access to group 1 vampires. In the future, they might also not have access to group 2, 3, etc vampires. The grouping rule guarantees that they'll always have access to a comparable pool of most-recently-printed vampires as the one that longtime players have access to. It also is supposed to keep "perfect crypts" from becoming too easy to build. If you don't believe that these are problems - and I think they are relatively small problems given the existing cardsets and the likely availability of vampires in the future - then grouping is a bad idea. But quitting the game over it seems kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's not like you can't keep playing with your existing vampires and crypts. You just wouldn't be able to mix in the highest-group vampires with some of the vampires you already own. Group 4 seems like it would be annoying because there would probably be only a few vampires in group 4 and they could only be used with group 3 vampires. This is quite a bit like the situation when Dark Sovereigns came out - there were only the original-set vamps, and then you got a few more vamps to add to them for the Camarilla clans in DS. It's just that we're so far past that point now that people would find it frustrating to have so *little* crypt diversity available in the new grouping combination. And I do think that grouping rules are probably a lot more bad than good for the game overall; since there's so much existing availability of vampires with particular disciplines already - especially at the lower capacity levels - adding more duplication seems like much less harm than pissing off a significant number of players by not allowing new vampires to mix with the old ones. Still, I'm not quitting the game over it. :-) Josh easy to please

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Group 4 seems like it would be annoying because there would probably > be only a few vampires in group 4 and they could only be used with > group 3 vampires. This is quite a bit like the situation when > Dark Sovereigns came out - there were only the original-set vamps, > and then you got a few more vamps to add to them for the Camarilla > clans in DS. It's just that we're so far past that point now that > people would find it frustrating to have so *little* crypt diversity > available in the new grouping combination. > > And I do think that grouping rules are probably a lot more bad than > good for the game overall; since there's so much existing availability > of vampires with particular disciplines already - especially at the > lower capacity levels - adding more duplication seems like much less > harm than pissing off a significant number of players by not allowing > new vampires to mix with the old ones. > > Still, I'm not quitting the game over it. :-) I know we're not supposed to post just to say me, too. But these last three paragraphs express my point of view pretty accurately. I would add one thing to your last sentence however: White Wolf has to give players a good reason to buy new cards even if they don't quit the game over it right away. Why does anyone want to buy a vampire they can't use very often? There aren't enough group three vampires out now to justify group fours, not by a long shot. I suppose it would depend on what else is in Anarchs to determine whether it would get bought as a set. Perhaps it will. I still hate getting cards you can't use in amongst the useful stuff, though. And I also think at some point, you have to look at whether you're needlessly irritating people. Fred

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3DC1642C...@removethis.com... > There aren't enough group three vampires out now to > justify group fours, not by a long shot. If you look at it there are almost as many group 3 as group 1 vampires. 15 from each clan (-1 clan) and no Catieff (but there are Sabbat in CE so it's pretty much a wash). So there are aproximitly even numbers of group 1 and 3 vampires currently. How many vamps would you say is enough for group 3? Group 1 has 125 (ballpark) and group 2 has 300 (ballpark), how many group 3 should we get Fred? Group 2 is the biggest group by far. It seems that keeping group 1 and group 3 the same size would be a logical idea as they both have access to group 2. One could speculate that grouping could follow a pattern: small group, big group, small, big.... and so on. If that pattern were followed you would have access to aprox 400 vampires in any combination of groups. If Group 3 never gets another vampire it would allow as many as 4 ( most likley 3) expansions to be released with group 4 vampires. That's a lot of expansions! I like expansions!

Dave Brereton wrote: > > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message > news:3DC1642C...@removethis.com... > > There aren't enough group three vampires out now to > > justify group fours, not by a long shot. > > If you look at it there are almost as many group 3 as group 1 vampires. I realize that. But that's not a workable criterion. The problem is the utility of a group 4 vampire both in a pure sense and in relation to other vampires. Actually, the latter is what I truly care about but I concede it's a bit unfair: the utility of a given group of vampires must necessarily change over time as new vampires in the same group and adjoining groups are printed. So I included the "in a pure sense" version to express the point that it's only right to print a card that has at least *minimal* utility even as it's printed - even if you promise to make it more useful later. In either case, the question is about how many potential crypt-fellows a group 4 vampire as it gets printed, not whether there's balance between groups 1 and 3. Group 1 and 3 vampires have all of group 2 to play with which, is a much larger group than group 3. Group 2 vampires have everything until new group 4s come out. Of course, there's a question of how likely you are to use, say, a group 1 vampire with a group 2 vampire given that they are often if different clans. So it's not really possible to compare the two situations. So the answer to your question is that it's a thoroughly subjective. But Josh's statement was on the money: any Group 4 vampire coming out at this point will be subject to so little diversity in its use that people will find it frustrating (to own). > One could speculate that grouping could follow > a pattern: small group, big group, small, big.... and so on. If that > pattern were followed you would have access to aprox 400 vampires in any > combination of groups. If Group 3 never gets another vampire it would allow > as many as 4 ( most likley 3) expansions to be released with group 4 > vampires. That's a lot of expansions! I like expansions! Sure. The *problem* with that view is that until more expansions come out, the usefulness of the early vampires printed in it will tend to suck. Fred

In message <3DC17F10...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes: >In either case, the question is about how many potential crypt-fellows a >group 4 vampire as it gets printed As has been pointed out, in a very real sense, things like the Ravnos were in a league of their own when printed - a whole 10 vampires who you could basically play with themselves or not at all. Sasha, can't cross unless you're just looking for 2 cap weenies. Tsigane, poor cross unless you *really* want Auspex weenies. (At the time, why? And even now, inferior Auspex wouldn't be great.) Salbatore Bokkengro - for/pro at 4 capacity. Ricki and Roman would be better choices, possibly Chandler (who came out in DS) (You could, conceivably, be SalBok a number of the above in Trap/Undead Persistence decks, but these weren't particularly well explored at the time.) Andre - getting too big to cross over just for the ani/for. Where does the Celerity fit in? Smallest ani/for/cel was Quinton McDonnell. (Potential ani/for/cel/chi with Constantin.) Joaquina - first non-Chimerstry superiors - ANI CHI FOR, with a +1 stealth equip. So with Ani/For you go to the Gangrel again. At 5 they have Raven and Camille (though at the time, many people played them as the same vampire) with ani/FOR/PRO, Bear Paw with ANI for pro; at 6, Zack with ani/for/pro/+1 strength and Badger with ani FOR PRO. So yes, the cheapest source of ANI FOR (Sarisha Veliku competes in AH), but not a stupendously good cross-over. Superior Animalism gave you +1 life on a number of retainers, Drawing out the Beast's damage at superior, optional presses with Conquer the Beast (a very poor card), destroy equipment with Canine Horde (better now than it was, equipment being very poor and unused), intercept from Cat's Guidance, not just untap (one of the best flexible cats in the set at the time), nothing on Army of Rats, a press on Aid from Bats (if you weren't getting pinged by S:CE, that's not bad) and Rats Warning (usable, but better for the Nosferatu/Spawning Pool). Shepherd's Innocence, introduced in Dark Sovereigns, gives you a very powerful steal card, but it's focused only at Animalism - you need other people to be playing Animalism, and you need to be able to get the action through, which is difficult if the Animalism cards on the table are Raven Spy with a cat guiding them for backup. There were, in fact, days before Carrion Crows and my love for the card. The only downside to Carrion Crows is that Gratiano can't play it. Vaclav - ANI CHI for pot. Well, the Potence might work reasonably well in a Nosferatu deck. At 6, he's a cheap source of ANI pot (Nigel and Calebros are cheaper, but aren't available right now). Unfortunately, ani/pot was generally regarded as pants relative to cel/pot and obf/pot, both potent forces. With only ANI/for, the Gangrel are really outclassing him at this point, unless you desperately need ANI. Only Bear Paw (5) has ANI for, neither of the sixes do, then you hit Gunther and Gitane. But you're probably using Protean too at that size. Natalia - +1 bleed, dom/for. Conceivably, that's a Ventrue deck. They don't have +1 bleed that small. But they do have DOM/FOR/PRE and titles at 7 capacity (Walter the Sweaty), though you could try some bizarre Animalism tag-team with Timothy Crowley. The Dominate works not badly with new Ravnos and stuff, but it didn't transfer well outside the clan back then. Tereza Rostas - with only FOR and three inferiors, 8 capacity is getting big. Ani/Aus isn't a big thing at the time, no Tzimisce, smallest is Thomas Thorne at 6. Ani/For/Pot/Aus. A Sheldon tag-team, maybe. Except Sheldon has ANI AUS for POT at 9 capacity, and three votes. Still, the FOR might come in handy. But you're really getting too big to not be using a special ability heavily (hers is pants) or lots of disciplines. Darius - with FOR/PRO/ani, and a fairly neat special - you get to see a card anyway - you could make a potentially convincing argument (even if you decided against it) for him to go in a Gangrel deck. But you have got competition from Gitane and Ingrid and Katarina, not to mention Wynn for a mere 1 capacity point more, with his built in rush. Doable, but not supremely pressing. Kostantin - well, you've got ANI/dom/FOR, for that Timothy Crowley deck, but it's not really that pressing. The steal equipment is nice if it happens, but you can't plan for it, so you're unlikely to put him in a deck thinking "Yes, I will bring him out and steal equipment and rule the world." That celerity isn't really making him a big out of clan fiend either. So, none of them are super, extra special madly needed out of clan, though you could make a case for some in some decks, just about. Who, if you're playing Ravnos, are you going to bring *into* the clan to mix? You're picking up a lot of Chimerstry, so maybe a few small ani/for types to weenify the deck slightly, using the bigger vampires for Sensory Deprivation. Use some ani for intercept retainers, maybe, and Fortitude to defend something. Maybe you have the Rack out and want it defended - the Ravnos were in dire problems with blood gain after all. They (the ani/for intruders) could use the Computer Hackings you put in for a bleed angle, but not the Fata Morgana you were using both for stealth *and* for bleed (if you had CHI). So how many decks could you seriously lend them to? And how many could you seriously get loans from? Not really very many at all. They were a clan without "many potential crypt-fellows". How many people quit the game because the Ravnos were printed though? I can't remember any for that reason. The V:TES angle, yes. The Ravnos angle? Not that I can recall. Later, with Ancient Hearts, you get Lazar Dobrescu - a very nice snaffle for the Ventrue or the Gangrel, to be honest. Sarisha - well, maybe you *can* do something with ANI/dom/FOR. You've got a small cluster now - Natalia, Timothy, Sarisha. Worth a go, perhaps. Still no Carrion Crows for Animalism fun when blocked on a bleed, though. You have to rely on Scorpion Sting (just came in), maybe, or Aid from Bats, pinging at them and preventing any damage to you, and throwing down Conditioning when they don't block. Doable, perhaps, at the time. Petru Sipos - well, the SER is incompatible with the Setites - nothing else makes him cross over. Stealing blood in torpor? Well, if you can get them to torpor, maybe. Slow, too. Might as well just hit them into torpor and use Taste of Vitae. Not a fantastic vampire for matching up crypt-mates. Yet I still don't know anyone who quit because the Ravnos were printed, even though they had extremely limited crypt-mate potential, even after 3 extra vampires were printed for them. -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D uk.* Committee Elections in progress EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 13D7E668C3695D623D5D See uk.net.news.announce for more details

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:IyoRy8mQ...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3DC17F10...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott > <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes: > > >In either case, the question is about how many potential crypt-fellows a > >group 4 vampire as it gets printed > > As has been pointed out, in a very real sense, things like the Ravnos > were in a league of their own when printed - a whole 10 vampires who you > could basically play with themselves or not at all. This is certainly true. But there you did have 10 new vampires who went together as a clan, with their "new clan skill" to lend them interest. If we were to get, say, 3 vampires for each Camarilla clan in Group 4 in Anarchs, you would only have 3 vamps that went together for any one clan - so the only time you'd want to use Group 4 vamps instead of Group 2 vamps for any particular deck is if those specific Group 4 guys fit *so well* into your deck idea that they'd be better than any number of Group 2 guys. The situation only gets "worse" (or "harder to use" or "more narrow") if there are fewer than 3 vamps per Cam clan, too. If there were 10, that'd probably be enough to make them pretty usable. That would require some 60 slots devoted to Cam vamps, though, which might be an awful lot for what may be a fairly small set. Josh vamp it up

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3DC17F10...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott > <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes: > >In either case, the question is about how many potential crypt-fellows a > >group 4 vampire as it gets printed > > As has been pointed out, in a very real sense, things like the Ravnos > were in a league of their own when printed - a whole 10 vampires who you > could basically play with themselves or not at all. Yes, but that was then and this is now. (As has also been point out.) Now, there are so many other things to play that don't have that problem that vampires who do are much more useless. Thus, arguments based on comparing the two situations are invalid. Sorry to dismiss your entire carefully constructed argument due to that one point, but unfortunately, it's got a huge flaw. Fred

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<apriku$4dltd$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... > It also is supposed to keep "perfect crypts" from becoming too > easy to build. One other effect of grouping is that it allows WW to redistribute Sect Titles where appropriate. I wouldn't be surprised if some group 4 vampires hold European Prince titles. This wouldn't bother me in the least. In any case, as long as all the Groups are legal for standard tournament play, no one can really accuse White Wolf of not listening to the concerns of its players. It may not be a perfect solution, but it's definitely reasonable. Jeff

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:621dd332.02103...@posting.google.com... > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<apriku$4dltd$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... > > It also is supposed to keep "perfect crypts" from becoming too > > easy to build. > > One other effect of grouping is that it allows WW to redistribute Sect > Titles where appropriate. I wouldn't be surprised if some group 4 > vampires hold European Prince titles. This wouldn't bother me in the > least. I think they could do that even without grouping, though? If you're referring to the practice of "reassigning" the vampire to which the title of "Prince of City X" belongs? Sure, without grouping you could have all the Princes of the same cities in the same crypt, but I personally doubt that that's too big a problem, given how many princes it's already possible to put in a crypt. Plus, the ones from the same city would contest titles if you brought them both out... > In any case, as long as all the Groups are legal for standard > tournament play, no one can really accuse White Wolf of not listening > to the concerns of its players. It may not be a perfect solution, but > it's definitely reasonable. If you believe that the problem is a serious problem, then yeah. I've kind of come to the conclusion that the problem's not large enough to need curing, compared to the other quirks the game has that aren't curable (or don't seem to be on the list for curing). :-) Josh eating the perfect bite

In message <aps4ml$4jp4u$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes: >This is certainly true. But there you did have 10 new vampires who >went together as a clan, with their "new clan skill" to lend them >interest. If we were to get, say, 3 vampires for each Camarilla >clan in Group 4 in Anarchs, you would only have 3 vamps that went >together for any one clan - so the only time you'd want to use Group >4 vamps instead of Group 2 vamps for any particular deck is if those >specific Group 4 guys fit *so well* into your deck idea that they'd >be better than any number of Group 2 guys. The very obvious alternative is that a different theme (or themes) is explored. Instead of, say, having Fortitude as a common out of clan discipline for <Clan X>, you give the new vampires Celerity instead, creating a new niche. Compare Euro-Brujah. You wouldn't use them - in Dark Sovereigns - because they were so much better than your Group One (V:TES) vampires, per se. You'd use them because they worked entirely differently to your group one vampires. Of course, bit DOM/POT at the time was *potentially* usable with the Giovanni. But, like the Ravnos, you'd find the inclusion of Necromancy on most of the Giovanni would mean that the Dominate/Potence angle would be slightly watered down, and for 8 pool, that's a lot of 'waste' you've got there. At this point, you don't have to make them *better* than the group 2 vampires, you just change the focus. Group 2 has <x> so let's give these <!x>. Say, instead of Brujah with Dominate as a little cluster, create, say, a cluster of Brujah with Dementation. (No-one has it so far.) Or give the Toreador a big Animalism side-line, maybe a splash of Vic on one of them. (Ira Rivers, [3], has ani. Alexandra [2] has ANI.) Maybe throw the Ventrue some Necromancy, as well as dom/for/pre. How about a cluster of Independent Ventrue, calling Free States Rant? Ventrue Headquarters in play, maybe even an Assembly. And these Necromancing Ventrue upstarts, having got into business with the Giovanni, manage to get the nasty vampires hunted down by the Society of Leopold and then raise them from the dead. Or Tremere with Serpentis, letting you, err, accelerate the usage of Temptation. Would any of those be useful? Perhaps, perhaps not. Obviously, you'd want to play-test and find useful canon vampires or get White Wolf to 'invent' some and so on. But they wouldn't be *better* than group 2. Donal and Constanza and Volker would still kick ass, just as they do now. But the Dementation Brujah would be able to do very different things. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<apre0s$2io$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr>... [ quoted text not captured ] > (Nancy A. Collins) Like I said so many times already, if your playgroup agrees, just ignore the grouping rules! That is what we are doing here and doing fine. Even the Camarilla-Clan haters don´t complain. This perfect-crypt-paranoia is just that, paranioa (for now at least). No amount of ranting and/or arguments until now have seemed to work with WW. So your boicott will probably be ignored. WW has its reasons for doing what it is doing (I REALLY hope so). So just enjoy the game, the best CCG there is in my opinion. Wait until WW does something you cant ignore so easilly to stop playing or actively boicott the game. The grouping rule is just a silly number on the card if you don´t let it get to you. It would have ruined the card´s look had the new layout and all the changes not been made. The way it is now, the little number does not even amount to that! You are not even sure that group 4 is coming in the Anarchs (or are you?). i wouldn´t be surprised if it did, although any group 4 vampires in the anarchs would surely be Independants, and less likely Sabbat, almost sure they wouldn´t be Bloodlines and pretty sure they wouldn´t be camarilla. So try not to stress just now, we are almost a year away from anarchs....

Daniel Figueiredo wrote: >"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message > news:<apre0s$2io$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr>... > > I ask EVERYBODY who shares these feelings to add a "me too" to this thread. > > If White Wolf sees that a product designed to "force us to buy" has the > > opposite effect, I think and hope that they will stop the insanity NOW. Up > > until now they have heeded our thoughts and needs, more or less, so we have > > to show them what we want, or rather what we DON'T WANT !!! ... > Like I said so many times already, if your playgroup agrees, just > ignore the grouping rules! That is what we are doing here and doing > fine. Even the Camarilla-Clan haters don´t complain. Without endorsing Orpheus's campaign, I really think your reply is hardly an answer for it. One can do anything desired with one's own cards, it's true. But with a game, you need like-minded people to do it. The shortcomings of "house rule" play, even when the house rules are fairly obvious, are well- documented: aside from the lack of tournament and tournament prize support, you deprive yourself of experience in the "real" game and thus - to some extent - cut yourself out of tournaments that exist that are supported by the central organization. You also make it difficult to play in non- tournament environments you run into while traveling. And CCGs have a much more serious issue in this sense than, say, board games or RPGs. CCGs involve deckbuilding, so you automatically create a serious inconvenience for yourself if you choose to jump back and forth between different environments. You can't just "forget one set of rules" and start playing by the other. You have to have separate decks built (or are somehow convertible on location) which are appropriate for each environment you play in. On a completely different tact, all the cards that get printed over time are designed, playtested, and are ultimately finalized under only one environment. I realize the grouping rule is somewhat subtle in terms of its balance issues, so I'm not sure any obvious problems caused by this will arise. (At least not soon, I would expect.) But over time, it might cause problems. And if it does, you can bet that the incentives for the designers to fix these will hover long about zero, as their obvious response to any such problems would be: "Use the real rules we give you." I wouldn't discourage you from doing anything you like that allows you to have fun with your cards. I just wanted to point out that the fact the grouping rule exists and is now part of the game is truly important. Like it or not, we now have to live with it and treat its implications as serious ones, whether any local group uses them or not. > No amount of ranting and/or arguments until now have seemed to work with > WW. So your boicott will probably be ignored. That might be true. I do think expressing displeasure about what they do when you can do so with good reasoning ultimately has an effect, though. And I don't think you can nor should wave your hand over the effects of the grouping rule so easily. Fred

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DC17F10...@removethis.com>... > Dave Brereton wrote: > > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message > > news:3DC1642C...@removethis.com... > > > There aren't enough group three vampires out now to > > > justify group fours, not by a long shot. > > > > If you look at it there are almost as many group 3 as group 1 vampires. For reference, there are 114 Group 1, 372 Group 2, and 100 Group 3 vampires (not counting Xaviar) according to the Monger. There are 7 Group 3 vampires with access to Protean by the way. > So the answer to your question is that it's a thoroughly subjective. But > Josh's statement was on the money: any Group 4 vampire coming out at this > point will be subject to so little diversity in its use that people will > find it frustrating (to own). Consider this: Sabbat War, Final Nights and Bloodlines each had roughly 60 new vampires. I would expect/hope the Anarchs to have somewhere in that neighborhood. Figure maybe 10 new vampires would be group 4? That leaves 150 Group 3 vampires to mix with the 10 Group 4 vampires. While this is hardly ideal, it isn't that terrible either. > > One could speculate that grouping could follow > > a pattern: small group, big group, small, big.... and so on. If that > > pattern were followed you would have access to aprox 400 vampires in any > > combination of groups. If Group 3 never gets another vampire it would allow > > as many as 4 ( most likley 3) expansions to be released with group 4 > > vampires. That's a lot of expansions! I like expansions! > > Sure. The *problem* with that view is that until more expansions come out, > the usefulness of the early vampires printed in it will tend to suck. My speculation is that only titled Gangrel will be in the Group 4 category, or perhaps those special vampires which are very new to the WoD storyline. Having the DS/AH titled Gangrel mixing with the new Anarch Gangrel just seems wrong to me. Perhaps this is a way they're fixing that problem. Granted, they won't have access to the 372 Group 2 vampires, but in my experience, the Gangrel didn't mix a whole lot with other clans, aside from the odd Malkavian Madness Network Table Dance craziness. Perhaps being Anarchs that's just as well. ;) My feeling is that we're just in a transition phase. White Wolf had to do SOMETHING, and this is what they chose so naturally there will be some growing pains associated with it. If they got on a regular track (ack!) where the odd-numbered Groups were generally Camarilla focused and even-numbered groups were Independent/Anarch/Sabbat oriented, that would be a "good thing." (tm) It may take us a while to get there (and I certainly hope they DO take their time (except perhaps with one more expansion). I think very few people want to recycle their entire collections every 2 years. Jeff

Jeff Kuta wrote: > My speculation is that only titled Gangrel will be in the Group 4 > category, or perhaps those special vampires which are very new to the > WoD storyline. Having the DS/AH titled Gangrel mixing with the new > Anarch Gangrel just seems wrong to me. Why is that? There were the group one set of Camarilla vampires that can mix with the group two Camarillas which, in turn, can be mixed with the group three Camarilla vampires. Although Gangrel are now independent (for really silly storyline reasons :-{, but that's a different subject), their clan is really spaced the same way as the Camarilla clans. So it seems totally reasonable that a new set of 10 Group three Gangrel is precisely what's called for. Group fours would not be able to mix with Group twos, which is certainly unfair compared to the other six original clans. I realize this would allow for Cammie Gangrel mixed with independent Gangrel, but I'm not sure that's as strange as all that. I think one would expect the process of pulling the Gangrel out of the Camarilla would not be an instantaneous thing, anyway. Such a crypt would seem to represent a set of conservative and radical Gangrel mixing during the changeover. > Perhaps this is a way they're > fixing that problem. Granted, they won't have access to the 372 Group > 2 vampires, but in my experience, the Gangrel didn't mix a whole lot > with other clans, aside from the odd Malkavian Madness Network Table > Dance craziness. Perhaps. They do mix fairly well with other Gangrel however. > My feeling is that we're just in a transition phase. White Wolf had to > do SOMETHING, and this is what they chose so naturally there will be > some growing pains associated with it. If they got on a regular track > (ack!) where the odd-numbered Groups were generally Camarilla focused > and even-numbered groups were Independent/Anarch/Sabbat oriented, that > would be a "good thing." (tm) It may take us a while to get there (and > I certainly hope they DO take their time (except perhaps with one more > expansion). I think very few people want to recycle their entire > collections every 2 years. Actually, I agree with all that (accepting the concept that grouping is a good thing at all notwithstanding) except for the part about Anarchs. As you point out, there are more group one vampires than current group threes. The reason for this is exactly because there aren't currently any Gangrel or any Caitiff, as there were in group one. These are precisely the subject matter for Anarchs, are they not? Hence, one would expect to find them also in group three. And if anything, group three ought to be larger than group one just because it would make the stress of the changeover to group four easier. There really ought to be a better way to this. To me, it would make more sense to wait until the next large expansion containing many independent vampires to start group four in bulk. Starting it as part of a small expansion featuring vampires that, by all rights, ought to be group three seems very strange. Not very well thought out, IMO. Fred

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<apre0s$2io$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr>... > Hello all, > > I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out in > the Anarchs. I suspect this is not true, but in any case, I don't buy Cam, and have no intentions of buying Anarchs, so the grouping rule already cost White Wolf my business with group 3. That, and the amateurish design changes. Maybe they'll eventually reprint some of the stuff from the old sets that is still hard to find, with the old design, and call it "VTES: Classic Edition" or something. That'd be something I'd buy. JSpektr

Hi again all, rather than answering many times to each of you I'll just try to answer on the whole. - First, I'm not really "campaining", as I don't run for elections and don't expect anything for my personnal profit here. I just protest in my name and the name of many players I know, because I want this game to stay what we love, and not to become progressively just another soulless commercial machine. I have nothing to win except the pleasure to see the game stay the way I deem best, and I put my Princehood on the stake (I am a man of word, and will do what I said no matter what) ; I also wanted to express what I think is the PoV of many players, but judging from your answers I may be mistaken, lots of you don't seem to care. - I didn't threaten to quit the game, Josh, just to stop buying and promoting it. You can't do something you don't believe in anymore, can you ? As of now, I still believe in this game, I'm just stating what will make me so disgusted I will have to quit. I will probably still play it (have enough cards to last me a century), but it won't give anymore more money to WW? so if enough people say the same it will give them something to think about. - Just ignoring the Group rules isn't a solution IMO because it won't be allowed in tournaments, and the game balance will be thought out with these rules in mind. Someone spoke of Brujah with Dem as opposed to Euro-Brujahs ? What if the group 4 give 5 new Brujahs with Dom ? 6 more Malks with Pre ? Etc. It just won't be worth playing Sabbat (or fucking Bloodlines !!!) anymore if your Cammie opponents can chose from 324 (random number) vampires, so you cannot just ignore grouping. - The reason "new players can't get their hands on old vampires" isn't valid. Old vampires can be reprinted, as they did with Group 2 in starters (even though most group 2 vampires stink and we could have done without, except for the freaks who want to try the dreaded qui/pro/tha combo, for example...). Good reasons for creating groups are : 1) we want to make new, better vampires than in the original edition without giving too big of an edge to Camarilla, and 2) we want to change who owns the titles (but then why reprint the old Inner Circle ?!), and as Joshua just said, even that is a half-valid reason. Bad reason is : we want to sell new cards, and don't care about the players, so we make lots of vampires not playable together, and sod'em all. I hope that's not the whole of the thing, and that's why I'm making this plea (turning into a War Cry) to WW. - Let's be clear : we don't NEED any new groups. I'd agree with the one saying that new discipline combos would be interesting, but that wouldn't justify a new group (who cares if there are 4 new Brujahs with Dem but without their 3 basic disciplines, they wouldn't count as 4 more Brujahs or as 4 more Malks, it's a whole new thing !!). As long as there are as many new Sabbat / Cammies / Indies, there can be lots of them without it creating any problem. The only ones who will suffer are Bloodlines, except of course if some new vampires from other Clans include their disciplines. But anyway, they won't suffer less with a Group 4 (not mixeable with them at all). - Now, Group 4 Sabbat and Indies would mean : all your old Sabbatics and Indies are to be thrown away and replaced, OR there is no interest in buying new vampires. It would stink, and there is no valid reason to this that I can see. Same can be said with Group 5, which would render obsolete all the new vampires that just came out. That, for me, would be the proof of the "screw you" politics. And PLEASE don't tell me that old vampires would still be tournament legal, we all know where it will end if we start on that road (for some people the thing is already done with Group 3, for others it will be with Group 4 ; I say some damage has been done but it's not a killing blow yet ; please stop it theren though !!). Did I forget anything ? Yes : please speak up, all who think that Group 4 Cammies are THE limit to what can be done without killing our game !!! Orpheus

On Thursday 31 October 2002 09:17 in message <apre0s$2io$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus mumbled something about: > Hello all, > > I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out in > the Anarchs. Assured? By who? And you *believed* them? Why? > The reason why I'm launching this now and not waiting for Anarchs is that > I guess game conception needs time, and that by then the new extension > will already be thought over. So I'm launching an ultimatum and a petition > HERE and NOW : God, what a fucking stupid idea. Let me rephrase this: WHAT A FUCKING STUPID IDEA. It has been demonstrated here for well over four years that ultimatums, ranting, and childish foot-stamping has little to no effect on the powers-that-be, other than to cause them to firm up their position. It has also been demonstrated here, for well over four years, that calm, well-reasoned, well-thought-out arguments which contain useful suggestions as to alternatives are, in fact, listened to by those same powers. So what do you do? Get up on your soapbox, like an IDIOT, and start ranting and jumping up and down like a maniac, as if it would ever have the slightest effect. You clueless twat. > I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any > GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever > comes out, I will : > > - stop buying new products > - resign from my Princeship Good. I always thought you were an incompetent anyway. I would like to request (of those involved with VEKN who are undoubtedly reading this) that Orpheus be removed from his Princeship immediately, as a person with this attitude is no longer a suitable ambassador for the game, nor is he capable of making the correct value judgements necessary to run tournaments and distribute information and/or prize support to a city. I'm sure someone will be glad to step up in Marseille and take his place. I believe that this should happen irrespective of whether group 4 vampires are present in the Anarch set or not -- this sort of attitude isn't what I want to see associated with this game, EVER. > I must say that I still love this game (just wait to see my new site...), I say you are a liar. I think you should stop work on your new site, and abandon all association with V:TES. Someone like you is simply out for his own glory, as opposed to the mythical "good of the game". You've heard a rumor (as yet unfounded) that something MAY happen that you won't like, and as a result you post crap like THIS? How pathetic. Disagreeing is one thing. A Prince should be capable of finding a FAR better means to express his disagreement than stupid-assed pulings such as this one. > am still motivated to continue my job of promoting it, and for now will I say you are a liar here, too. You are not motivated, as your words above show. You are, in fact, attempting to DE-promote V:TES. No Prince should ever act this way, especially in a PUBLIC FORUM. > It's up to us, guys, let's show the businessmen what we want. Let me make something clear to you, child. Business is not about what YOU want. Business is about making money. The best way to make money is to give people what they want. But most people don't know what they want. You certainly don't. As a result, businesses employ many people to study what people say over the course of time, and determine from that what they really want. And what they really want is for the game to continue as long as possible. That's what group 3 was designed to do -- to allow the game to continue as long as possible, without removing any parts of the game. So what if group 4 happens? Group 3 wasn't the end of the world, despite all the blithering and shrieking and sky-is-falling garbage posted here and on other forums. Why should group 4 be? > Sincerely yours, and more than a little pissed off, Get lost. -- Derek

> > Hello all, > > > > I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out in > > the Anarchs. > > Assured? By who? > > And you *believed* them? > > Why? It doesn't matter, as I've said already, read again and try to understand. > > The reason why I'm launching this now and not waiting for Anarchs is that > > I guess game conception needs time, and that by then the new extension > > will already be thought over. So I'm launching an ultimatum and a petition > > HERE and NOW : > > God, what a fucking stupid idea. Ok, I'll cut your insults. I don't know who you think you are, but you have no idea who I am either, and nothing gives you the right to speak to me as you did. Whether or not this idea is stupid is just a point of view. Whether or not I am stupid is not in your power to judge, and if you want to get flaming re-read the usenet and this group's etiquette. To me you just proved one thing : you're a no-brainer only able to resort to insults rather than proving your points (which is stupid of you, because for a fraction of a second you nearly had an argument saying that ultimatums didn't get anywhere, but a) you're wrong, as the changes from the May Rulings proved, and b) you just proved your immaturity and inintelligence, not to mention lack of respect). I won't fall into your game. But if you really want to play the asshole, go do it somewhere else, or do dare tell me this to my face and see if I don't smash the brainless piece of ass that you use for a head into an even more useless clump of dried shit. Not greeting you, Orpheus

On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Orpheus wrote: > Did I forget anything ? Yeah. Why exactly are you so sure the Anarch set will be group 4? If I remember correctly, the Xavier card that was such a topic of debate a few weeks ago had a 3 on it. I'm thinking the Anarch set will be all group 3. I'd certainly be interested in evidence to the contrary. Maybe I missed something. -Matt

> > Without endorsing Orpheus's campaign, I really think your reply is hardly an > answer for it. One can do anything desired with one's own cards, it's true. > But with a game, you need like-minded people to do it. The shortcomings of > "house rule" play, even when the house rules are fairly obvious, are well- > documented: aside from the lack of tournament and tournament prize support, > you deprive yourself of experience in the "real" game and thus - to some > extent - cut yourself out of tournaments that exist that are supported by > the central organization. You also make it difficult to play in non- > tournament environments you run into while traveling. And CCGs have a much > more serious issue in this sense than, say, board games or RPGs. CCGs > involve deckbuilding, so you automatically create a serious inconvenience > for yourself if you choose to jump back and forth between different > environments. You can't just "forget one set of rules" and start playing > by the other. You have to have separate decks built (or are somehow > convertible on location) which are appropriate for each environment you > play in. > > On a completely different tact, all the cards that get printed over time > are designed, playtested, and are ultimately finalized under only one > environment. I realize the grouping rule is somewhat subtle in terms of > its balance issues, so I'm not sure any obvious problems caused by this > will arise. (At least not soon, I would expect.) But over time, it might > cause problems. And if it does, you can bet that the incentives for the > designers to fix these will hover long about zero, as their obvious > response to any such problems would be: "Use the real rules we give you." > Apart from the deckbuilding issues you put forth, not using the grouping rule is hardly a "house rule". When you play any given game of V:TES, the grouping rule only prohibits you to use certain group combinations within your own crypt, not within the game table. Vampires from non-compatible groups can by the "real rules" be in a same game, even a same methuselah愀 controlled area, if he manages to steal or borrow them. So the game already conforms 100% to using all and/or any vampires in a given game. Not using the grouping rule would only affect your deckbuilding, and nothing else in the game. After the game starts, 0% of the rules have to be changed or ignored. So it愀 not really a house rule. You get my point here? I HATE house rules. I really do. This is just using all the "real cards" with the "real rules", only building the crypt anyway we want to (again, conforming to all the other "real rules"). If limiting your crypt is limiting your fun or enjoyment of the game, don愒 limit it. However, you do make correct points on just about everything else you said. Mainly about how you would have to change your deck (just your crypt most of the time) when going from environment to environment. But it愀 not like we shift environments that much (at least most of us don愒), and when we do, It will probably be to play in a tournament. And the opportunity to play V:TES doesn愒 just pop out of the ground like that. So almost always, we will have time to make such changes to our decks. My point is, ignoring the grouping rule isn愒 as complicated or difficult to do like you make it sound. Just that. I惴 not trying to make people ignore the rule, just pointing out to them that for now, you can so easilly ignore it that it should be no reason to quit the game for. Not using the grouping rule is about as "wrong" as thinking you ALWAYS have to play exactly the same way, wanting everyone else to play exactly the same way or not play at all. The game gets played exactly the same with no grouping rule (for now, as no card or effect affects or pertains to the grouping rule). > I wouldn't discourage you from doing anything you like that allows you to > have fun with your cards. I just wanted to point out that the fact the > grouping rule exists and is now part of the game is truly important. Like > it or not, we now have to live with it and treat its implications as > serious ones, whether any local group uses them or not. > > > No amount of ranting and/or arguments until now have seemed to work with > > WW. So your boicott will probably be ignored. > > That might be true. I do think expressing displeasure about what they do > when you can do so with good reasoning ultimately has an effect, though. > And I don't think you can nor should wave your hand over the effects of > the grouping rule so easily. > What effect has expressing our displeasure had until now? Zip. Unless you call poeple quitting and getting all riled up and ranting an effect. I consider it a reaction, a reaction to not getting any effect from expressing displeasure. WW has not said a word about why or how they made the changes did they? Did they try to explain what their thought process was? Did they try to point out future developments of the game that would greatly benefit from the changes they have made? No. They even ignored any and all questions regarding any decision of theirs in the CE expansion during the developer chat. All they answered were questions pertaining to the future expansion(s) and broader aspects of the game. No specific or direct question regarding any CE "touchy" subject was answered, and i惴 sure most of the questions made were regarding them. Don愒 get me wrong here, i惴 not mad with you or anyone else and I completely understand your thoughts, but mine are that FOR NOW, yes, we can wave hands over the grouping rule. FOR NOW, yes, all our arguments and stuff will be ignored. I惻l be the first one to help WW if they ever ask for it, be it just with my opinions about the game or anything else. I惻l be the first one to stress out and threaten to quit or boicott if it will help the game. I don愒 think that ever will help though. Look forward to your comments on this. > Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] In general, people who aren't bothered by something don't say so. So, I can understand a company tuning out a certain level of complaint. I have some complaints relating to CE, but I'm not the least bit bothered by the grouping rule. I don't care if there are 4s, 5s, or whatever, though it seems to me that 5s are quite a long ways away. The game could very well stop being produced before they would come in. I just don't see why it's so important. It's no more a sales ploy than power rares, ultrarares, and the like. Those have far more effect on competitiveness from my perspective, making them much more important to worry about.

Derek <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<f.Cdnfpg0pj...@News.GigaNews.Com>... > On Thursday 31 October 2002 09:17 in message > <apre0s$2io$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus mumbled something about: > > > I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any > > GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever > > comes out, I will : > > > > - stop buying new products > > - resign from my Princeship > > Good. I always thought you were an incompetent anyway. Oh boy, here comes a REAL Command of the Harpies! ;) > I would like to request (of those involved with VEKN who are undoubtedly > reading this) that Orpheus be removed from his Princeship immediately... [snippage since I really know nothing about the French VTES scene]

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<apre0s$2io$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr>... > Hello all, > > I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out in > the Anarchs. if true, possibly Indy gangrels who don't want to mix with Euro-prince gangrels, or panders and caitiffs. in panders' case, if there were a lot (15+,) i'd want them to be group4. in caitiffs' case, they'd mix with group3 cammies and group5 cammies. long time before we'd need more weenpunes=possibly good? > Whether this is true or not isn't the point here (I'm not a playtester so > can't be sure ; if I was I wouldn't speak about it yet). If you want to > discuss it start a new thread. A few Group 4 Camarilla vampires isn't > dramatical, it's just useless (they just re-released group 2 Cammies, and > now you can't mix them anymore with the enw vampires ?!). But it needs to > STOP NOW !!! i'm not a playtester either, whether it's true or not could be germane to the point, and you're obviously leading up to the "ultimatum" promised in the thread title. > The reason why I'm launching this now and not waiting for Anarchs is that I > guess game conception needs time, and that by then the new extension will > already be thought over. So I'm launching an ultimatum and a petition HERE > and NOW : by your own admission, too late, if there happens to be a group4 pander. > > I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any > GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever comes > out, I will : > > - stop buying new products > - resign from my Princeship > > I ask EVERYBODY who shares these feelings to add a "me too" to this thread. NOT I. this "i'll suicide if you don't prove your love for me by doing exactly as i dictate" tactic is shit in life, as well as with respect to the game. orpheus, i don't know you, but i urge you to re-examine how dire the situation you're portraying actually is. i feel confident in saying that i could build a dangerous, fun, or even tournament-worthy deck with only Jyhad backs. i don't expect that to change, partly due to finite crypting, now ensured by the grouping rule. in other words, every expansion just adds permutations to the original fun, but we don't have to have every card to enjoy the game. HOW is this WW extorting us into buying new product? if i want a few weighted walking sticks (and i do,) then i can trade, buy singles, buy boxes and toss the ubercommons into a local free-box, or resist the urge to buy and put 30 free weapons + 25 new concealed weapon onto my 35-card core deck. there's more than 1 way to skin this "problem." yeah, in my perfect world, i don't get my 135th blood doll or one millionth enhanced senses in the same pack with my wwstick, but that's the informed choice i made. > If White Wolf sees that a product designed to "force us to buy" has the > opposite effect, I think and hope that they will stop the insanity NOW. Up > until now they have heeded our thoughts and needs, more or less, so we have > to show them what we want, or rather what we DON'T WANT !!! > > I must say that I still love this game (just wait to see my new site...), am > still motivated to continue my job of promoting it, and for now will still > encourage people to buy new extensions. But I also know what will the > difference in sales will be the day when I won't. Or, for that matter, the > day when any of my players will see Group 5 Cammies or Group 4 Sabbat. "my whole cult will suicide if you don't prove your love for me by doing exactly as i dictate" is a far stretch of your princely obligation to promote the game. i strongly urge you to re-consider almost everything you said. > > It's up to us, guys, let's show the businessmen what we want. > > Sincerely yours, and more than a little pissed off, > -- > Orpheus > i've had bad bitch-post days too. things are actually pretty good in this game. not saying we shouldn't object to that with which we disagree, but the drama and threats are counterproductive. > > "After all, what is an angel but a demon yet to fall ?" > (Nancy A. Collins) "nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'..." (billy preston) == ps other posters already had varied interesting posts in this thread, but i decided to respond to the original post. here, try this on for size: Doc ReTardis True Brujah 11 cap, group7 TEM, PRE, pot, aus, chi, for, san Independent. 2 votes. When Doc ReTardis enters play, you may choose a circle. Doc ReTardis counts as and may play cards as a Blood Brother of that circle. When Doc ReTardis is in your crypt, vampires of any combination of group numbers are allowed to be in your crypt. (If, during play, your crypt contains an illegal combination of group numbers of vampires, but no copies of Doc ReTardis, you are immediately ousted.) Scarce. Sterile.

Daniel Figueiredo wrote: > Apart from the deckbuilding issues you put forth, not using the > grouping rule is hardly a "house rule". When you play any given game > of V:TES, the grouping rule only prohibits you to use certain group > combinations within your own crypt, not within the game table. > Vampires from non-compatible groups can by the "real rules" be in a > same game, even a same methuselah´s controlled area, if he manages to > steal or borrow them. So the game already conforms 100% to using all > and/or any vampires in a given game. Not using the grouping rule would > only affect your deckbuilding, and nothing else in the game. After the > game starts, 0% of the rules have to be changed or ignored. So it´s > not really a house rule. You get my point here? Actually, I do not. All the facts you give are true but irrelevant. Lots of things are possible across a table that are not possible within one's own area. For instance, using Goth Band to move a counter from an opponent's Dreams of the Sphinx to your own Palla Grande doesn't make it meaningless to change the rules to allow moving counters from your _own_ Dreams to your own Palla Grande. What types of crypts are allowed and not allowed determine the makeup of your metagame, which makes it undeniably a different game. (See more discussion of the metagame issues below if you don't understand what I'm saying, here.) Any rules that are not the official rules are _by definition_ "House Rules". Denying this is a semantic argument. If you don't agree with my definition, call them anything you like. Call them "BIDZUNK RULES" or "COYFERTBURGER RULES" or use any term you like. It doesn't matter. The point I'm trying to make is simply that they're different from the universal rules that are understood in other places. By virtue of this fact, in turn, *automatically* leads to all the issues I raised in my previous post. These are serious issues and that leads me to conclude that simply ignoring any potential problems caused partially by the grouping rule by ignoring grouping itself is not an answer to them. > However, you do make correct points on just about everything else > you said. Mainly about how you would have to change your deck (just > your crypt most of the time) when going from environment to > environment. But it´s not like we shift environments that much (at > least most of us don´t), and when we do, It will probably be to play > in a tournament. And the opportunity to play V:TES doesn´t just pop > out of the ground like that. So almost always, we will have time to > make such changes to our decks. My point is, ignoring the grouping > rule isn´t as complicated or difficult to do like you make it sound. It may not be where you play. However, if you live somewhere where you would wind up popping back and forth between the two constantly, it gets a lot more irritating. And personally, I really would never want to play by house rules (or Coyfertburger Rules, if you will) just because I don't have mental horsepower to keep with two different game environments so I want to focus on the real one. Hell, I have a hard enough time just trying to keep up with the one without constantly falling on face. That, by itself, makes proposing such rules a poor answer for (I suspect) many people. > Not using the grouping > rule is about as "wrong" as thinking you ALWAYS have to play exactly > the same way, wanting everyone else to play exactly the same way or > not play at all. The game gets played exactly the same with no > grouping rule (for now, as no card or effect affects or pertains to > the grouping rule). I disagree, due to the metagame issues I referred to above. As certain decks become viable under your rules that would be illegal under the grouping rules, this affects all other decks in your metagame, whether legal under grouping rules or not. Grouping-legal decks that might be pointless to play under grouping rules may take on a critical role in a non-grouping environment and vice versa. Because of this, the game is actually *not* "played exactly the same with no group rule". > > > No amount of ranting and/or arguments until now have seemed to work with > > > WW. So your boicott will probably be ignored. > > > > That might be true. I do think expressing displeasure about what they do > > when you can do so with good reasoning ultimately has an effect, though. > > And I don't think you can nor should wave your hand over the effects of > > the grouping rule so easily. > > What effect has expressing our displeasure had until now? Zip. ... > WW has not said a word about why or how they made the changes did they? > Did they try to explain what their thought process was? Did they try to > point out future developments of the game that would greatly benefit from > the changes they have made? No. I think you make a lot of assumptions that may or may not be valid. No, they did not visibly react to complaints about the layout nor the grouping rules, if that's what you mean. That doesn't completely invalidate the concept that it's pointless to complain. First of all, by the time we discovered about these things, it was too late anyway. They were not going to recall card already printed. Granted, it wasn't a "good thing", IMHO, to spring this on us but it still doesn't automatically imply that complaining is pointless. Even if they didn't care to change their minds about some things, it doesn't mean they'll never change their minds about anything else based on various forms of customer feedback. Such a policy would be insane. I believe feedback on past issues has made a number of differences. For example, I notice they didn't use the rarity scheme from Final Nights that I and some others complained about in either Bloodlines or Camarilla Edition. (That was about there being a very few R1s in a set containing many R2s, which gives the feeling of "super-rares".) It might be coincidence, as no one has ever promised not to repeat the practice. But it might not be. Does this all mean it is or is not pointless to complain about cards in Anarchs being printed in group four? (Assuming the rumor is even true, of course.) I couldn't say. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't hurt to try, as long as the comments are constructive. > They even ignored any and all questions regarding > any decision of theirs in the CE expansion during the developer chat. "Ignored"? I think you mean that they didn't answer such questions, which is not the same thing. They don't want to expose how various kinds of decisions get made for various reasons. I don't know what those reasons are, exactly. But I might speculate that sometimes they have to do with not wanting to state who has what kinds of input into what kinds of decisions so that those exact people needn't come under undue scrutiny and pressure by the customer population. If we know such-and-such a person makes decisions about card rarity levels and an expansion comes out in which certain rarity decisions are rather unpopular, sometimes people have been known to start making very personal comments about that person. Many of us loved to hate Ryan Dancy, for example, because we knew various stuff about what he had control over which we didn't like the results. A *lot* of unflattering things got said about Ryan. Ryan was an executive, however - prepared to take the credit and the blame for the decisions he made. I have little doubt that Steve Wieck receives input on all kinds of things that might not have popular outcomes from people he doesn't want to get caught in the middle of huge flamewars taking personal blows. Hence, when asked how various decisions get made, exactly, the reply is likely to be, "No comment...". It's what I'd do. None of this means they never listen. They may listen or they may not. If they do listen, they may be persuaded or they may not. I know they will never be persuaded if we don't talk. Fred

Orpheus wrote: > I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any > GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever > comes out, I will : > > - stop buying new products > - resign from my Princeship > What's the point? The grouping rule has its advantages - changes to Majesty et al. aside, would you really want pre weenie decks to have yet another X unique vampires of capacities 1-4 available? Or how about pot weenies? Or how about 12 different Ventrue princes (and in the long run, 8 of those with obfuscate, too)? Or... It is, however, a question of whether or not the arrival of yag (yet another group) is sensibly timed. Personally I'd say, that particular line would be pretty much crossed by any group 4 vampires in The Anarchs, unless The Anarchs would be huge enough a set to have 3+ group 4 vampires per clan that gets any. [Effectivly being a DS replacement for CE.] There should be group 4 Independent/Sabbat vampires eventually - several Sabbat decks, for example, would gain too powerful a crypt if another Sabbat set with 15 vampires (goup 3) came out. There'd even have to be group 5 vampires some time down the road, when all group 3/4 option (and those are aplenty) are exhausted - it doesn't need to happen for a few years yet, and consequently shouldn't happen for a few years, but it'll be inevitable in the long run. (At 8 month intervals between sets and 4 sets [Anarchs, Sabbat, Independent, next Cammie], 32 months would be a quick estimate.) I'll be basing my personal decision on if/when to quit buying VTES on these considerations. Thomas

> Yeah. Why exactly are you so sure the Anarch set will be group 4? If I > remember correctly, the Xavier card that was such a topic of debate a few > weeks ago had a 3 on it. I'm thinking the Anarch set will be all group 3. As I said, I'm not sure of anything and don't give that much weight to rumors. But it seems important to me to anticipate, just in case, and say to WW what we think about what would happen, just in case it is true, so that we can avoid in advance that kind of things. If the rumor is wrong, then it is even time to say : "nay" even to the whole idea of Group 4, so let's do it !! I'm not the one who would be the more bothered about Cammie Group 4, because I don't play Camarilla most of the time ; on the other hand, when I do, I love to play Muaziz, Donal, Alexandra, Alexandra etc (there are few good DS and AH vampires, but they're very good). So speak up all of you before anything is done, and maybe we can change things "before they happen" (ah, Temporis...). Yours, Orpheus

Joshua Duffin wrote: :: :: The grouping rule is supposed to keep the playing field level for :: newer players who will never have access to group 1 vampires. you'll always have access to group 1 vampires. you can buy all this jyhad old stock on the internet, and old vampire will give eagerly give (or trade) lots of them to newbies. I don't see what the problem is with the grouping. If it's only the dial-a-vamp and weenie madness that may occur, i don't think it's a real threat.

> > > I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any > > > GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever > > > comes out, I will : > > > > > > - stop buying new products > > > - resign from my Princeship > > > > Good. I always thought you were an incompetent anyway. > > Oh boy, here comes a REAL Command of the Harpies! ;) LOL. It would be if anybody granted him any Harpie authority, he's just a snotling Malkavian using his Clan ability. ;-) > > I would like to request (of those involved with VEKN who are undoubtedly > > reading this) that Orpheus be removed from his Princeship immediately... > > [snippage since I really know nothing about the French VTES scene] Be reassured, he doesn't know anything about it either. If he did he's know that I organise the second biggest tournaments of France (right after Paris) in a city where, before me, NOBODY played official rules. But then, I don't have to justify myself to people who speak without knowing anything nor respecting anyone, do I ? I liked your humorous view of the scene, though. Yours, Orpheus

> > I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out in > > the Anarchs. > > if true, possibly Indy gangrels who don't want to mix with Euro-prince > gangrels, or panders and caitiffs. in panders' case, if there were a > lot (15+,) i'd want them to be group4. in caitiffs' case, they'd mix > with group3 cammies and group5 cammies. long time before we'd need > more weenpunes=possibly good? I think new Caitiff would just have to be Group 3, as we don't want them to be mixeable with Group 1, so I'm not too worried about that. I agree that "lots of new Panders" would have to be group 4, but we don't NEED lots of new panders, as most of them were reissued in the already reprinted Sabbat War ; just a few maybe to make up for the ones from Sabbat never reprinted (and that most people will never have access to). > > The reason why I'm launching this now and not waiting for Anarchs is that I > > guess game conception needs time, and that by then the new extension will > > already be thought over. So I'm launching an ultimatum and a petition HERE > > and NOW : > > by your own admission, too late, if there happens to be a group4 > pander. Yes. But it's not too late to stop all the rest, is it ? If we never protest when we don't want a thing to happen or don't like a thing that happened, then things we don't like will keep on happening. > > I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any > > GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever comes > > out, I will : > > > > - stop buying new products > > - resign from my Princeship > > > > I ask EVERYBODY who shares these feelings to add a "me too" to this thread. > > NOT I. this "i'll suicide if you don't prove your love for me by > doing exactly as i dictate" tactic is shit in life, as well as with > respect to the game. orpheus, i don't know you, but i urge you to > re-examine how dire the situation you're portraying actually is. First, let me say I'm glad to "meet" someone who can expose his point intelligently and politely, taking into account the fact he knows nothing about me, after the attitude of some people here. Hello Spiney. Second, you DO have a point in comparing this reaction to "lovestruck suicidal" attitude and stating that this has never led to anything good, except that I'm clear-headed and adult enough not to attempt "suicide". BUT I would no longer be able to endorse a game I don't believe in anymore, so I'm trying to keep it the way me and my players love it. I agree that this may not have been the best way to do it, I was kind of pissed off just at the thought of what could happen if Group 4 Sabbat or Group 5 Cammies ever wame out (the infernal spiral, when will it stop etc.), and felt that something had to be done. I still feel that way, and seing tha tthe "ultimatum" thread doesn't work, let all discuss and see what would seem acceptable or not to us. I know this wouldn't be acceptable to me and, once and for all, I never said I'd quit playing and sell back all my cards (maybe I would but I don't know about that), what I said was : I wouldn't buy any new stuff and I wouldn't promote the game anymore. And yes, I'm aware that a firm has to sell new cards, and that power rares and groups are a way to do that, but I hate both these technics. Up to now, I feel that there isn't any obvious shift in power in the cards (more like anti-weenie ones), although there is such a shift in vampires, but that would be another discussion. > i > feel confident in saying that i could build a dangerous, fun, or even > tournament-worthy deck with only Jyhad backs. i don't expect that to > change, partly due to finite crypting, now ensured by the grouping > rule. in other words, every expansion just adds permutations to the > original fun, but we don't have to have every card to enjoy the game. I agree. Which is a good reason why many people, I think wouldn't buy an extension which would render totally obsolete the vampires which have been recently issued / re-issued, even if it had some good cards. > HOW is this WW extorting us into buying new product? if i want a few > weighted walking sticks (and i do,) then i can trade, buy singles, buy > boxes and toss the ubercommons into a local free-box, or resist the > urge to buy and put 30 free weapons + 25 new concealed weapon onto my > 35-card core deck. there's more than 1 way to skin this "problem." > yeah, in my perfect world, i don't get my 135th blood doll or one > millionth enhanced senses in the same pack with my wwstick, but that's > the informed choice i made. I agree with that, but it's not getting to the point. What you're saying is you won't have to buy any new extension, and it's exactly what I've been saying, adding the fact that I would not buy some extensions which would go contrary to what I like in the game (like, playing Lucita, Krassimir, Carlotta etc, and no amount of non-compatible power-vampires would make me drop my favourite vampires) ; therefor, I would adopt the trading tactics if a few cards interest me in such an extension. But htat wouldn't give WW as much money as if I really wanted to get most of the nesw cards. > > If White Wolf sees that a product designed to "force us to buy" has the > > opposite effect, I think and hope that they will stop the insanity NOW. Up > > until now they have heeded our thoughts and needs, more or less, so we have > > to show them what we want, or rather what we DON'T WANT !!! > > > > I must say that I still love this game (just wait to see my new site...), am > > still motivated to continue my job of promoting it, and for now will still > > encourage people to buy new extensions. But I also know what will the > > difference in sales will be the day when I won't. Or, for that matter, the > > day when any of my players will see Group 5 Cammies or Group 4 Sabbat. > > "my whole cult will suicide if you don't prove your love for me by > doing exactly as i dictate" is a far stretch of your princely > obligation to promote the game. i strongly urge you to re-consider > almost everything you said. LOL. No I won't, I'm a David Coresh fan. Seriously, I don't feel that I'm stretching anything. If we, Princes, have one thing to do, it is to be the link between WW executives and the playerbase. Therefore it goes two ways : we have to transmit what WW wants us to towards our players, but il also goes the other way around, and I know the feelings of my players on the subject. I totally agreed with the creation of Group 3, and explained the thing to some players who could have taken iot badly. As I wouldn't agree with a Group 5, I couldn't fill my role as is asked of me, nor would I want to. So allow me to reconsider nothing. > > It's up to us, guys, let's show the businessmen what we want. > > > > Sincerely yours, and more than a little pissed off, > > -- > > Orpheus > > > > i've had bad bitch-post days too. things are actually pretty good in > this game. not saying we shouldn't object to that with which we > disagree, but the drama and threats are counterproductive. You may be right about this. So, all drama taken out, let's talk about it and show our feelings (which doesn't mean I would change my position on what I would do, namely stop buying and promoting, but I think at this point it has become nothing but a personnal choice, and irrelevant to the whole of the discussion). But my "Whacko stunt" did have one merit, though : people reacted, albeit not in the way I would have thought, and that, in itself, is a good thing to me. I disagreed with the guy who said, before the release of CAMA ED, "I won't say anything because I'm a playtester but this future "3" thing is awful, let's all stop playing", because : a) as a playtester he should have shut his mouth b) the Group 3 thing wasn't bad IMO, except that it set a precedent that can be bad (the following months / years will tell us exactly how bad) c) he made a whole fuss over something that most people didn't find worth it. That is not what I'm doing here, because I'm working on an hypothesis and saying how I would react. And hoping some people who express themselves (I know you're out there) also would disagree with these things, and would react in a way or another, probably one bad for WW's sales. I know that there will be an enormous fuss on this forum every time a new group will come out, so I prefer us to anticipate and say "don't do it" rather than "oh, evil men, you shouldn't have done it" in 42 threads of 238 messages each. > ps other posters already had varied interesting posts in this thread, > but i decided to respond to the original post. > here, try this on for size: > > Doc ReTardis > True Brujah > 11 cap, group7 > > TEM, PRE, pot, aus, chi, for, san > Independent. 2 votes. When Doc ReTardis enters play, you may choose > a circle. Doc ReTardis counts as and may play cards as a Blood > Brother of that circle. When Doc ReTardis is in your crypt, vampires > of any combination of group numbers are allowed to be in your crypt. > (If, during play, your crypt contains an illegal combination of group > numbers of vampires, but no copies of Doc ReTardis, you are > immediately ousted.) Scarce. Sterile. And Senile ? ;-) Interesting concept, but for such a big vampire he lacks too many SUP disciplines, he would obviously need POT and either FOR or SAN (yes, he would be big, but for 3 more points than Hrothulf, he should be). Yours, Orpheus

> Orpheus wrote: > > I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any > > GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever > > comes out, I will : > > > > - stop buying new products > > - resign from my Princeship > > > What's the point? Already answered to previous poster. > The grouping rule has its advantages - changes to Majesty et al. aside, > would you really want pre weenie decks to have yet another X unique > vampires of capacities 1-4 available? Or how about pot weenies? Already answered... > Or how > about 12 different Ventrue princes (and in the long run, 8 of those with > obfuscate, too)? Or... I obviously agree, but your statement seems distorded to me. If we don't need more Ventrue Obf Princes, so let's just not issue any new ones !!! We can issue Ventrue Princes with Dem, San, Myt, new specials which remind you at your untap that you left the pizza in the oven and shouldn't forget to take it out before it's a lump of coal, etc, the possibilities are infinite. And when that runs out, as they will need to sell more cards, there are still infinite possibilities, as has already been suggested, with mixeable-or-not werewolves/mages/hunters/wraiths/changelings (in other words, current allies) extensions, or non-mixeable Dark Ages extension (but that would be something else thematically, even if the commercial purpose would be evident, it would be more than made up for by the thematic interest). > It is, however, a question of whether or not the arrival of yag (yet > another group) is sensibly timed. > Personally I'd say, that particular line would be pretty much crossed by > any group 4 vampires in The Anarchs, unless The Anarchs would be huge > enough a set to have 3+ group 4 vampires per clan that gets any. > [Effectivly being a DS replacement for CE.] I agree, although not to your last point : why reprint DS / AH vampires just to render them moot right away ??? If they really wanted to issue new Inner Circles or Euros Princes, the only thing they had to do was declare DS and AH Group 1, and there would have been no more problem !!!! So, bad timing, or bad planning ? Bad anyway. > There should be group 4 Independent/Sabbat vampires eventually - several > Sabbat decks, for example, would gain too powerful a crypt if another > Sabbat set with 15 vampires (goup 3) came out. Again, moot. A few more Sabbat vampires sprikled over each new edition will be enough, no need to make a whole set of new ones. > There'd even have to be group 5 vampires some time down the road, when > all group 3/4 option (and those are aplenty) are exhausted - it doesn't > need to happen for a few years yet, and consequently shouldn't happen > for a few years, but it'll be inevitable in the long run. (At 8 month > intervals between sets and 4 sets [Anarchs, Sabbat, Independent, next > Cammie], 32 months would be a quick estimate.) And where does it stop ? > I'll be basing my personal decision on if/when to quit buying VTES on > these considerations. Your choice, and I respect it. But let's be careful about not allowing gradually that anything goes. If we don't want some changes to happen, I think we'll have to be more strict than that. All "ultimatum" thing put aside, I think that if most of us show no interest in buying such new extensions, while we have already expressed what we WOULD buy, it seems sensible (and smart) to me that WW adapted its commercial planning to what players / customers would plan to do, if only to increase their future sales, wouldn't it ? Orpheus

Another thing comes in mind. 15% of Vtes sales are made in France (dixit : WW ceo in an interview in french mag "Black Lotus", assuming my memory is correct). For such a small country, regarding to the huge potential of US, it is a huge number. Let's see what happened some times ago with Magic. This CCG has been the most sold in France (I'm not considering Pokemon which is not the same marketing target). Expansions after expansions, WotCoast introduced a nasty selling system with Type1 and Type2. Tournaments are now almost exclusively played in Type 2. The definition of Type 2 is : a combination between the last 3 or 4 expansions sold in store. By this way, regarding the frequency of new expansions apparition, players wanting to play in tournaments are OBLIGED to buy new expansions to stay at the level. NOTHING can let us think such a commercial way will NOT be attempted when we will have groupe 4, 5, 6, which could occur, cause Vtes is well-sold around the world (dixit WW ceo...). As it is well-sold, it must be encouraged that way, taken care of. That is what the game brainers are doing (thank you LSJ...) by being there to answer to players, to introduce a community aspect in the game etc... But the commercial and marketing departments, in order to have the game grow, need to improve the sales. This is called the Raisonnement Marginal in economy (in french. Dunno the translation. Will never work in US -( ). SO, it is POSSIBLE, in few years, as the game will sales better again, that, in order to sale it better, such a "magic-style" tournament rule appears, letting us play only with some group vampires. In this case, we will be OBLIGED to buy expansions. As nothing of this could merely happen if no other group 5 and more are sold, I think it is clever to tell WW that some people want to buy expansions, merely if they are well designed like those ones we have got for the moment, but don't want to be obliged to buy them. One more time again, I'm just talking about a correlation to Orpheus' reflexion, and I thought people should think of that. Vtes won't live forever if it doesn't succeed in acquiring new players. Let's think what are the ways a CCG company has got to get them, and for that, look at the competitors' marketing actions, as companies often copy on each other. Arpeges (ready for Derek's flame)

the reason i would be opposed to group 4 camarilla is that the argument used by WW to print group 3 (overpowered camarilla crypts) would be pretty obsolete here. If there were to be group 4 sabbat/indep vampires printed i would like to see them only being incompatible with group 2 vampires and not with group 1 vampires as well. just my 2 ct.

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DC1D9AD...@removethis.com>... > Jeff Kuta wrote: > > There really ought to be a better way to this. To me, it would make more > sense to wait until the next large expansion containing many independent > vampires to start group four in bulk. Starting it as part of a small > expansion featuring vampires that, by all rights, ought to be group three > seems very strange. Not very well thought out, IMO. > > Fred Totally agree! Group 4 should only come into existence with new independent clan vampires. Since the Sabbat now have much less vampires for their individual clans. You can´t think of the grouping rule as only affecting the group as a whole, you have to consider the different clans that make up that group and what they need, how they stand. A very nice thing would have to have some more sabbat, cammie, even a few bloodline vamp or two still in group 3 (I really doubt any new vamp from now on will be group 2 or 1 again), and have the independents appear as group 4 in bulk in another expansion for them a-la Final Nights. 2 or 3 group 3 independants until then wouldn´t hurt either. And group 4 could also contain the much ignored and shunned until now antitribu clans still missing. The excuse that their numbers are small and such is simply NOT TRUE. After you print scarce bloodlines, ANY antitribu is worth printing. And, by the RPG standards, the Assamite Antitribu are one of the largest antitribu there are, clearly larger than the Ventrue antitribu, for example, and now much larger than the Tremere antitribu as well. Some other aspects of the game would do well to show up in future expansions, like the Black Hand (the sabbat one, not the "true" one) and mayne even a monitor or two from the Iconnu. And you can´t bring the Black Hand into the game without bringing the !Assamites into the game.

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<apre0s$2io$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr>... > Hello all, > > I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out in > the Anarchs. > Whether this is true or not isn't the point here (I'm not a playtester so > can't be sure ; if I was I wouldn't speak about it yet). If you want to > discuss it start a new thread. A few Group 4 Camarilla vampires isn't > dramatical, it's just useless (they just re-released group 2 Cammies, and > now you can't mix them anymore with the enw vampires ?!). But it needs to > STOP NOW !!! > The reason why I'm launching this now and not waiting for Anarchs is that I > guess game conception needs time, and that by then the new extension will > already be thought over. So I'm launching an ultimatum and a petition HERE > and NOW : > > I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any > GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever comes > out, I will : > > - stop buying new products > - resign from my Princeship > > I ask EVERYBODY who shares these feelings to add a "me too" to this thread. > If White Wolf sees that a product designed to "force us to buy" has the > opposite effect, I think and hope that they will stop the insanity NOW. Up > until now they have heeded our thoughts and needs, more or less, so we have > to show them what we want, or rather what we DON'T WANT !!! > > I must say that I still love this game (just wait to see my new site...), am > still motivated to continue my job of promoting it, and for now will still > encourage people to buy new extensions. But I also know what will the > difference in sales will be the day when I won't. Or, for that matter, the > day when any of my players will see Group 5 Cammies or Group 4 Sabbat. > > It's up to us, guys, let's show the businessmen what we want. > > Sincerely yours, and more than a little pissed off, > -- > Orpheus > > http://cypheranima.free.fr > http://no.exit.free.fr > news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone > > "After all, what is an angel but a demon yet to fall ?" > (Nancy A. Collins) Definitely NOT ME. i'm absolutely BEWILDERED by this hostility to the groupings rule - i know it's not just you, so this is kind of a reply to everyone who thinks your way. Doesn't ANYBODY except, well, quite a few people see that this is the ONLY way to introduce new strategies into the game without breaking the old ones? Isn't it OBVIOUS that grouping creates an entirely-desirable chronological direction to the game, which could be extended backwards as well as forwards? i personally look forward IMMENSELY to the group 0/-1/-2 vampires of the Dark Ages expansion! You also need to think about Scott's Big Project of reintegrating ALL the cards into the game, and think about how that could be done, it seems to me. Meanwhile, i recommend putting less of that tasty crack cocaine into your next glass of pastis ;-)

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DC238A3...@removethis.com>... > Actually, I do not. All the facts you give are true but irrelevant. > Lots of things are possible across a table that are not possible within > one's own area. For instance, using Goth Band to move a counter from > an opponent's Dreams of the Sphinx to your own Palla Grande doesn't make > it meaningless to change the rules to allow moving counters from your > _own_ Dreams to your own Palla Grande. What types of crypts are allowed > and not allowed determine the makeup of your metagame, which makes it > undeniably a different game. (See more discussion of the metagame > issues below if you don't understand what I'm saying, here.) > > Any rules that are not the official rules are _by definition_ "House > Rules". Denying this is a semantic argument. If you don't agree with > my definition, call them anything you like. Call them "BIDZUNK RULES" > or "COYFERTBURGER RULES" or use any term you like. It doesn't matter. > The point I'm trying to make is simply that they're different from the > universal rules that are understood in other places. By virtue of this > fact, in turn, *automatically* leads to all the issues I raised in my > previous post. These are serious issues and that leads me to conclude > that simply ignoring any potential problems caused partially by the > grouping rule by ignoring grouping itself is not an answer to them. > Well, you may be right in THEORY, but in practice, when we play, group and no group rule has made no difference yet. And don´t think we wouldn´t know. We´ve been playing this game from day 1. And I never said anything about not using grouping rules in tournaments, as prince I always use 100% official rules, be the tournaments sacntioned or not. I am also not trying to discuss the merit of the grouping rule. It exists. Too bad, or great, whatever. I am fully aware of the implications of the group rule in the present game, and have as good idea as you do about any implications it might have in the future. I´ll try once more to get my point(s) across. Please remember that English is not my native tongue so don´t be mad if you don´t get it, it is probably just my fault for not using the best words for expressing myself. 1) We have the grouping rule. 2) We always use it in competitive play. 3) 90% of the time we don´t play competitively (I guess most people don´t most of the time either) 4) Yes, it is good to express our opinions about the game, whether WW listens, does something about it or not. (If they are listening and/or doing something about it, they should let us know don´t you think? Not WHAT they are doing if the don´t want to, but at least that they ARE doing something). 5) Not using the grouping rule has not yet affected any of our games, and we play once a week at least, and most of us have bought at least a booster or 10 from the CE. 6) We have decided that for now, we will play like this because it is more fun and enjoyable. Someone in some recent post mentioned nothing would keep him from using his favourite vampires. RIGHT ON!! 7) We are not ignoring any problems because we haven´t found any that are really happening yet, like I said, in practice, not using the grouping rule has led to nothing but more diverse crypts. 8) I agree with you that the group thing CAN and probably will become a problem in the future. 9) Fact remains that WW is either not listening or not letting us know that it is. Of course, how could they know we would react the way we did to the CE? They not only weren´t listening, they didn´t ask our opinion and/or thoughts about what they were about to do. I understand what you said about WW wanting to avoid problems with their people getting pressure from the players if they started to open all doors. but they don´t have to name names. They really don´t. All they need to do is say We, WW, are planning to do this and that, or We, WW WILL be doing this and that, or We, WW would like to know your thoughts on such and such. We can all guess that Steve and LSJ have some influence, probably a lot in the decision-making process. I don´t see hardly anyone flamimg them though. First, it would be childish to do so. (yes, some players would, and have done, childish things, but they will do them regardless) Second, it would probably be the most counter-productive thing we can do. To start criticising WW employees about their job if they ever DO decide to share who they are with us. It would probably just make them shut up again and leave us in the dark (where we are now). The changes to rarity schemes WW has made until now probably have nothing to do with complaints from people here. It has probably something to do with the fact that this is WW´s first card game, and they are experimenting with various rarity schemes. Every expansion of theirs until now had different ones. Every expansion has met some form of criticism regarding rarity schemes. Are they changing because of us? I don´t think so. I think they are changing to find something they are comfortable with, and maybe, something that won´t get flamed (highly unlikely due to the aformentioned childish players). but like I said, we are in the dark about all this. WW´s not commenting, not asking questiongs and not shedding any light on their thoughts. I hope you are right in thinking that this is best for the game. I really do. Some more cents (soon we´ll have a dolar!) And i´m very pleased to be discussing with sharp minds and educated people. :))

Orpheus wrote: > > I think new Caitiff would just have to be Group 3, as we don't want them to > be mixeable with Group 1, so I'm not too worried about that. I agree that > "lots of new Panders" would have to be group 4, but we don't NEED lots of > new panders, as most of them were reissued in the already reprinted Sabbat > War ; just a few maybe to make up for the ones from Sabbat never > reprinted (and that most people will never have access to). There were actually 11 original Pander in The Sabbat - the same as any other Sabbat clan. Only 5 were reprinted. The other 6 could be reprinted with a group two marker, I suppose. New ones would always be welcome, but not in group 4 in the absence of large number of new group 4 Sabbat vampires. Fred

Derek <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<f.Cdnfpg0pj...@News.GigaNews.Com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Mind you group 4, 5 plus would be a small price to pay for get Orpheus off the Conclave and STFU.

"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3dc26097$0$5274$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>... > you'll always have access to group 1 vampires. you can buy all this jyhad > old stock on the internet, and old vampire will give eagerly give (or trade) > lots of them to newbies. I agree that Jyhad and VTES vamps will be readily available to most new players in the near future. There may be a point where they are not, though. > I don't see what the problem is with the grouping. If it's only the > dial-a-vamp and weenie madness that may occur, i don't think it's a real > threat. It seems that someone at the R&D team feels that both of those ideas are a potential problem. With all of the complaints/flames that appear whenever someone posts a weenie Dominate or weenie Presence deck, I'd stake a claim that many players feel that weenies don't need any more help. -Snapcase

> Mind you group 4, 5 plus would be a small price to pay for get Orpheus > off the Conclave and STFU. Fuck you assholes. You don't know me and don't know of my work promoting this game. You have no right to judge me. And your opinions, or the bunch of crap you're shitting from the assholes you use as mouths, are worth nothing to me. I take the time to read the very interesting, even if sometimes contrary to my opinions, posts some people have put here, and answering them. I won't waste my time and energy reading another line from simpletons like you ; if you won't to mess with somebody, find one you can't look at in the eyes and let's see if you're so bold. Will all absence of respect due, Orpheus

[snip] > create, say, a cluster of Brujah with Dementation. !!!!!!!!!!!!! drool Oscar Garza Prince of College Station Tx The Crazy Aggie

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<apre0s$2io$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr>... > I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out in > the Anarchs. By who? Is this a credible source? How did they come by their information? > A few Group 4 Camarilla vampires isn't dramatical, it's just useless (they > just re-released group 2 Cammies, and now you can't mix them anymore with the > enw vampires ?!). I'd be upset but a good portion of the DS/AH Camarilla vampires suck. And group 4 Cammies can be combined with the group 3 Cammies (which they're likely meant to be). > If White Wolf sees that a product designed to "force us to buy" has the > opposite effect, I think and hope that they will stop the insanity NOW. Up > until now they have heeded our thoughts and needs, more or less, so we have > to show them what we want, or rather what we DON'T WANT !!! Hmm... I didn't feel "forced to buy" Cam Ed. I thought "hey, those new (insert clan here) look pretty cool. Lemme buy a box and trade all the Malkavians I get for the (insert clan here) vamps I didn't get in the box." > But I also know what will the difference in sales will be the day when I > won't. Or, for that matter, the day when any of my players will see Group 5 > Cammies or Group 4 Sabbat. This begs the question, "What's the big deal?". I'm more disappointed with the library backgrounds than anything. I'm putting forth a request to at least have the master card background reverted to the old one (so I can tell what the hell something is across the table). -Snapcase

Derek wrote: :: Good. I always thought you were an incompetent anyway. utterly false. Orpheus is one of the coolest princes on the planet. I attended his first tournament and it was far better than expected. :: I would like to request (of those involved with VEKN who are :: undoubtedly reading this) that Orpheus be removed from his :: Princeship immediately, as a person with this attitude is no :: longer a suitable ambassador for the game, nor is he capable of :: making the correct value judgements necessary to run tournaments :: and distribute information and/or prize support to a city. [...) Orpheus has started to gather the scattered players from south of france and his tournaments become more and more popular. He's promoting the game in a way you cannot imagine. What he won't support is the commercial abuse the introduction of group 4 and 5 may represent. Don't misjudge him. I know you're good at flaming people, sometime some bozo just need a kick in the ass to start to walk in the right direction. But the problem is orpheus's worries are shared by more than one player. I don't want to have to cycle my vamps every six months. I don't like the grouping idea for starters, but i'll use it since tournament rules require it. :: I say you are a liar. :: :: I think you should stop work on your new site, and abandon all :: association with V:TES. Someone like you is simply out for his :: own glory, as opposed to the mythical "good of the game". no, no, you're wrong my friend =) Orpehus seeks entertainment thru V:tes and glory thru music. :: [...] You are not motivated, as your :: words above show. You are, in fact, attempting to DE-promote :: V:TES. No Prince should ever act this way, especially in a PUBLIC :: FORUM. A prince is still a human being, not a robot under the order of WW or any other company. Besides this, the prince work is on a benevolent basis, meaning he's not even paid to promote the game. Nothing forces him to agree every WW decision. :: Business is about making money. The best way to make money is to :: give people what they want. Another way is to give them new expansion every 6 months, with more and more power cards to collect, and suppres previous sets from the competition, as Magic the gathering does. Magic is making money and has a solid player base, i understand it can be a model for those marketing guys at WW. But which v:tes player would like to see v:tes walk that way ? If we have to protest , it's now or never, and its on this forum where WW actually reads our stuff. Period. reyda

"skippy" <ski...@dontspammetamu.edu> wrote in message news:apubhe$47j$1...@news.tamu.edu... > > [snip] > > > create, say, a cluster of Brujah with Dementation. > > !!!!!!!!!!!!! > drool No kidding. Play Lunatic Eruption on your PREDATOR'S vampires, sit back and watch them hurl themselves at you. Fun!!! [ quoted text not captured ]

>Doc ReTardis >True Brujah >11 cap, group7 > >TEM, PRE, pot, aus, chi, for, san >Independent. 2 votes. When Doc ReTardis enters play, you may choose >a circle. Doc ReTardis counts as and may play cards as a Blood >Brother of that circle. When Doc ReTardis is in your crypt, vampires >of any combination of group numbers are allowed to be in your crypt. >(If, during play, your crypt contains an illegal combination of group >numbers of vampires, but no copies of Doc ReTardis, you are >immediately ousted.) Scarce. Sterile. There are thematic elements here I don't get, though maybe it's because they weren't intended to be thematic. Potence? Sanguinus? And, I'd just have his circle text be "Doc is a member of all Circles."

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<aps6g6$4indc$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... > "Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:621dd332.02103...@posting.google.com... > > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:<apriku$4dltd$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... > > > It also is supposed to keep "perfect crypts" from becoming too > > > easy to build. > > > > One other effect of grouping is that it allows WW to redistribute Sect > > Titles where appropriate. I wouldn't be surprised if some group 4 > > vampires hold European Prince titles. This wouldn't bother me in the > > least. > > I think they could do that even without grouping, though? If you're > referring to the practice of "reassigning" the vampire to which the > title of "Prince of City X" belongs? > > Sure, without grouping you could have all the Princes of the same > cities in the same crypt, but I personally doubt that that's too big > a problem, given how many princes it's already possible to put in a > crypt. Plus, the ones from the same city would contest titles if > you brought them both out... What I really was trying to get at is I don't think it would necessarily be appropriate for titled Camarilla Gangrel to be mixing with titled Anarch Gangrel in the same crypt. IMO the Group 4 designation should ONLY be used where there is a significant Storyline problem they are trying to solve. I would expect there are a handful of "transitional" Gangrel in the mix which are the Group 3 bunch, some Cammies, most not. I really haven't followed the storyline one bit so I am purely speculating. I guess it's to late to argue now. :) Jeff

In article <621dd332.02110...@posting.google.com>, Jeff Kuta <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote: >What I really was trying to get at is I don't think it would >necessarily be appropriate for titled Camarilla Gangrel to be mixing >with titled Anarch Gangrel in the same crypt. Why? >IMO the Group 4 >designation should ONLY be used where there is a significant Storyline >problem they are trying to solve. That's strictly an aesthetic backstory problem -- I'd strongly object to using the club of rules mechanics to prohibit a mere aesthetic problem. It is currently legal to have minions from clans and sects that (in backstory) loathe each other powerfully in the same crypt; how much less jarring is it, from a backstory perspective, to have cam Gangrel and indep Gangrel together? gomi -- Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy. --Theodore Roosevelt

Ok, here's my thought too: 1 - I think that "grouping" vamps was a disgusting commercial choice since the born of CE 2 - We usually shun that stupid rule during our league here in Bologna, and I personally refused to play according to it in any tournament...sadly...just skipping tournaments. 3 - Orpheus is definitely right ! I think that to ignore the rule "en masse" will be a good choice, but I'm really, (REALLY), thinking to give-up any further buying too if WW will do the same disgusting choices previosly done by Wizards of The Coast with "Magic". 4 - Go On Orpheus ! Akaisuisei

[ quoted text not captured ] Thanks a lot for your support, but I don't want this thing to become too personnal. It's not like I'm leading a crusade against WW or anything. I'm just trying to bring them to what I think is reason (and I have many confirmations, including private mail, that I'm not the only one thinking this ; but we've also seen that some people think the opposite). Also, when Group 3 came out, I didn't think it was a bad thing, but as many people said, the trouble is with the precedent, and it can go to lengths where lots of us won't follow. I do not, and will not as long as I'm a Prince not endorse playing by houserules, be it in tournaments or friendly games. I also think that, if ever the group 5 comes out, I won't suddenly decide to mix them with the Group 3 : it would be too easy, and once you choose which rule to apply and which not, it's like when you start creating groups : there's no reason for stopping. I just won't play them, period. I think and hope that WW is not turning into Wizards. Time only will tell. Yours, Orpheus

On Thursday 31 October 2002 23:12 in message <apsuuo$o92$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus mumbled something about: >> > Hello all, >> > >> > I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out > in >> > the Anarchs. >> >> Assured? By who? >> >> And you *believed* them? >> >> Why? > > It doesn't matter, as I've said already, read again and try to understand. It certainly does matter. If there aren't any group 4 vampires in Anarchs, then you look even more of a blithering idiot than you already do, and your inability to run a Princely domain is even more demonstrated, because you did all this on... inaccurate information. Now YOU go read, child. > Ok, I'll cut your insults. I don't know who you think you are, but you I'm Derek Ray. I've been playing this game for a long damn time, and I love it just as much as you say you do. The difference is that I actually THINK about things and why they may need to happen, and you appear to just cry like a little baby. > have no idea who I am either, and nothing gives you the right to speak to > me as you did. Whether or not this idea is stupid is just a point of view. You posted. That gives me the right to respond. I don't know who you think YOU are, as a matter of fact. You think you know what's best for this game? You haven't been involved anywhere NEAR enough to know what's best for this game, nor do you have anywhere NEAR the full picture of what's actually happening (for example, you do not know what the sales figures for this game are)... making your post just a pile of blithering CRAP. YOU ARE (were) A PRINCE. YOU ARE AN AMBASSADOR OF THIS GAME. What can you POSSIBLY believe gives you the excuse to stand in a public forum, AS AN AMBASSADOR AND PROMOTER OF THIS GAME, and take the position that you have? HOW can you possibly consider this to be putting the game in a good light? What new player who sees this is going to want to buy any V:TES at all, whether it be Sabbat War, Camarilla Edition, Anarchs, or the new Yer Mom expansion being released in 2004? > Whether or not I am stupid is not in your power to judge, and if you want > to get flaming re-read the usenet and this group's etiquette. To me you > just proved one thing : you're a no-brainer only able to resort to insults > rather than proving your points (which is stupid of you, because for a I demonstrated all the points that needed to be made in my previous post; that ultimatums do nothing, reasoning does everything, and your first post contained NOTHING but ultimatums...per its title. > fraction of a second you nearly had an argument saying that ultimatums > didn't get anywhere, but a) you're wrong, as the changes from the May No, I am CORRECT. Did you not read anything from May? No rulings were even considered for change until Josh Duffin posted his well-reasoned arguments for the changes to occur. You can ask LSJ directly, but I've talked to him about MANY different things over the past few years, both in person and on the net; let me assure you, if you don't have actual good reasons, you're going to get a blank stare and a facial expression that reads "so what?" All the ranting, crying, and foot-stamping proved nothing. And let me assure you, there was a lot more of that for the 7/7 rulings... and NONE of those changed as a result. I don't know where you get off thinking anything was "proved", but you need to go back and do more research, because you are DEAD WRONG here. Ultimatums do nothing, and never have. > Rulings proved, and b) you just proved your immaturity and inintelligence, > not to mention lack of respect). I won't fall into your game. But if you > really want to play the asshole, go do it somewhere else, or do dare tell > me this to my face and see if I don't smash the brainless piece of ass > that you use for a head into an even more useless clump of dried shit. Speaking of immaturity, I see that you degenerate into the typical USENET response of threats over a computer. I couldn't care less; I would repeat anything I said on USENET to someone's face. And yes, I would repeat it to your face if I were ever to see you. Rest assured I will definitely let you know when I finally get around to visiting the UK, and if I manage to make it down to Europe/France at the same time (would really like to meet reyda one of these days), so much the better. -- Derek

On Friday 01 November 2002 06:52 in message <aptpu1$t6c$1...@news-reader11.wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus mumbled something about: > whole of the discussion). But my "Whacko stunt" did have one merit, though > : people reacted, albeit not in the way I would have thought, and that, in > itself, is a good thing to me. I accept your admission that you have no idea what is actually happening, or what the opinion of most people is about this game and the possibility of group 4. I know far more about what is occurring in V:TES France than you think, by the way; don't be so quick to blow your own horn. I also accept your admission that your ultimatum is a "whacko stunt". I assume you will be retracting the ultimatum now, with an apology? > That is not what I'm doing here, because I'm working on an hypothesis and > saying how I would react. And hoping some people who express themselves (I > know you're out there) also would disagree with these things, and would > react in a way or another, probably one bad for WW's sales. I know that So if you can't have it your way you want to ruin it for everyone? Is that what you're saying here? It sure looks like it to me. -- Derek

On Friday 01 November 2002 07:20 in message <3dc271a3$0$261$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr>, Arpeges mumbled something about: > Vtes won't live forever if it doesn't succeed in acquiring new players. > Let's think what are the ways a CCG company has got to get them, and for > that, look at the competitors' marketing actions, as companies often copy > on each other. > > Arpeges (ready for Derek's flame) Why? You made the counterpoint quite effectively. V:TES will die without new players. Grouping rules encourage new players to join the game, because they will be able to compete with old players without having to have all the old cards. The V:TES grouping rules are significantly better than many other options (such as type 2) for grouping, as players can still use their old cards. I can make an Anvil/Tura Vaughn/Theo Bell/Donal/Constanza/Don Cruez deck, for example, using the new Will of the Council and Tension in the Ranks, and it runs much better than it EVER did previously. Orpheus just doesn't like it because it isn't what HE wants. Spinney99 said it superbly: the tone of his entire post was "my cult and i will suicide if you don't do what I want." I can't possibly respect a person who conveys that attitude, much less a person who is ostensibly an ambassador and promoter of this game. -- Derek

> I accept your admission that you have no idea what is actually happening, or > what the opinion of most people is about this game and the possibility of > group 4. I know far more about what is occurring in V:TES France than you > think, by the way; don't be so quick to blow your own horn. I never said I had no idea. I said I am no playtester, and therefore have no proof or can't be 100% sure. Even if I was, I wouldn't want to start a "oh my god they're doing it" panic thing. I prefer to prevent than heal. Good for you if you're informed. > I also accept your admission that your ultimatum is a "whacko stunt". I > assume you will be retracting the ultimatum now, with an apology? Not at all. Retract ? No, I expressed my opinion and said what I would do in the face of the events I described. Apologize for what ? I didn't insult anybody in anyway (except in answer to provocations), and only put some myself on the line. So I don't think I own anyone an apology. Now, that my move was bolder than needed, maybe so. But it didn't harm anybody but myself, and even now I think it was worth it. It's a free planet, ain't it ? > > That is not what I'm doing here, because I'm working on an hypothesis and > > saying how I would react. And hoping some people who express themselves (I > > know you're out there) also would disagree with these things, and would > > react in a way or another, probably one bad for WW's sales. I know that > > So if you can't have it your way you want to ruin it for everyone? > Is that what you're saying here? > > It sure looks like it to me. Sorry Derek (by the way, hope you're not the same Derek who previously insulted me), but we don't seem to speak the same language (but then, I'm no english native). I don't want to ruin anything for anybody. My only goal is to express an opinion, which many players here and elsewhere share, and to try to change things from within, to keep alive the game I and these people love. Is saying that we don't want new groups popping up on a regular basis "ruining" anything for anyone ?? I'm ready (and willing !) to buy whole new inventive extensions for Jyhad (even if they are not compatible at all with the old extension, like a Dark Age version) as long as I will feel that it will bring something new and interesting to the game, and not be motivated only by commercial purposes. Playing Dark Ages versions of the Lasombra is one thing, playing modern Times Lasombra and not be able to play Gratiano or Lucita would royally suck. And if I have to chose between new Lasombras, no matter how overpowered, and these characters from the novels and books of WW, my choice is already done. Does that example make my PoV clearer to you ? Also, I already pointed out that I would find it silly and disgusting to render obsolete vampires that just got reprinted, hence my desire not ever to see Group 4 Indies or Sabbat (Bloodlines would be worse than anything, as they could need some more help, and not a variation of crypt). Yeah, I know, you can still play the old vampires in different groups. Right. So why bother buying the new ones ? I'm no Rockfeller, and if I bought so many vampires I intend to play them as long as I enjoy it (and I hope that will be a very long time), including new guys, but not throwing all the old ones away. Group 3 Cammies I could understand, for me that's qhere it's got to stop. Now, I never said I'd burn all the Group 5 (or 584,678 for that matter) vampires I would see, nor did I threaten to put a bomb in WW's building if they issued new groups, did I ? I just said my involvment as a consumer and a promoter of the game would stop, and that I thought (and hoped, for I hate blind followers) that I wouldn't be the only one to react so. Does this hamper in any way your freedom to spend all your money for Group 6 Austin Circle Blood Brothers ? Methinks not. So I won't ruin anything for you (couldn't even if I wanted it, and don't see why I could want such a thing). But I won't ruin myself buying cards I don't need just because of an intelligent but disgusting commercial strategy. I just hope WW will not take this turn for the worse. Orpheus

> V:TES will die without new players. Grouping rules encourage new players to > join the game, because they will be able to compete with old players > without having to have all the old cards. Although this may be true for VTES vampires, it is not the case for recently printed / reprinted vampires. Why, for instance, make DS / AH vampires group 2 and reprint them in starters if, for example, WW intends to soon make new Group 4 Inner Circles ? This would, to me, lack all logic except the "we don't care about our customers' logic. The V:TES grouping rules are > significantly better than many other options (such as type 2) for grouping, > as players can still use their old cards. I can make an Anvil/Tura > Vaughn/Theo Bell/Donal/Constanza/Don Cruez deck, for example, using the new > Will of the Council and Tension in the Ranks, and it runs much better than > it EVER did previously. No dispute on that point. > Orpheus just doesn't like it because it isn't what HE wants. Wrong. It is what all my players told me they didn't want. As soon as Group 3 came out, we all had the same reaction (except the ones who were instantly allergic to Group 3) : this can be a nice way of getting on with the game, but it has to stop right there, for at least some years, because if it doesn't it will turn into Magic. And you may have noticed that I'm not the only one to think that, even here. Spinney99 said > it superbly: the tone of his entire post was "my cult and i will suicide > if you don't do what I want." I can't possibly respect a person who > conveys that attitude, much less a person who is ostensibly an ambassador > and promoter of this game. I am and will be the ambassador of the game I love and believe in. I am not paid to do this, have no material advantage, and invest time and energy in promoting this game, for one reason only : I like doing it. My reward is getting new players to the game, hearing that people had fun at my events, etc. If I was an employee with a salary, I'd do what my boss wants and shut up. As I'm not, I only do what I enjoy doing, and you should understand that I could not keep on going if I felt utterly betrayed. That is the feeling I would have in the aforementionned situations. Humor put aside, I have no cult, and am not the least bit suicidal. But I'll only do what I believe in. Is taht clearer to you now ? As for the respect, I had private and public proofs of it from some people I didn't know who felt that my plee was theirs. Guess you can't be everyone's idol, uh ? Nor do I want it or care about it. Ok, I don't think I'll have time to answer so many (often personnal) arguments over the next days, so don't think I retreat, but I feel like I've said all I needed to. The rest is only empty rethorics, and far too personnal attacks (at least you argumented calmly here). Let some other people express themselves on the subject, I've done my part. Orpheus

On Friday 01 November 2002 21:40 in message <apvduq$ikh$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus mumbled something about: >> V:TES will die without new players. Grouping rules encourage new players > to >> join the game, because they will be able to compete with old players >> without having to have all the old cards. > > Although this may be true for VTES vampires, it is not the case for > recently printed / reprinted vampires. Why, for instance, make DS / AH > vampires group 2 and reprint them in starters if, for example, WW intends > to soon make new Group 4 Inner Circles ? This would, to me, lack all logic > except the "we don't care about our customers' logic. And do you know that WW is intending to make new group 4 ICs? Of course not. This is silly, random speculation. Your logic is functional, but is based on certain assumptions that simply don't hold water yet; namely, that group 4 ICs will exist. You don't know that; nobody does. You give WW's designers and playtesters little credit for identifying obvious conflicts between its most recent printing and later printings, and as a result are demonizing WW un-necessarily and pre-emptively. >> Orpheus just doesn't like it because it isn't what HE wants. > > Wrong. It is what all my players told me they didn't want. As soon as However, what your players told you they didn't want was based on even less information than you yourself possess. > Group 3 came out, we all had the same reaction (except the ones who were > instantly allergic to Group 3) : this can be a nice way of getting on with > the game, but it has to stop right there, for at least some years, because > if it doesn't it will turn into Magic. And you may have noticed that I'm > not the only one to think that, even here. That's fine. But you have no knowledge of whether or not any group 4 vampires exist, no knowledge of what those vampires ARE, ...and making rabble-rousing ultimatums based on rumors (because that IS all you've got, is rumors) is simply poor judgement, plain and simple -- and EXTREMELY inappropriate for a Prince. I don't agree that it has to "stop right there", but others have made that argument more eloquently than I care to at this point. However, I will note that printing a group 4 vampire named "ROSCOE P. COLTRAIN" with OBF/DOM/PRE/FOR/cel/vic, and a special ability that reads "+2 bleed. 4 votes. Your prey burns a pool on their untap for each locations they control, or burns the location." is hardly going to be the end of the world, is it? > Spinney99 said >> it superbly: the tone of his entire post was "my cult and i will suicide >> if you don't do what I want." I can't possibly respect a person who >> conveys that attitude, much less a person who is ostensibly an ambassador >> and promoter of this game. > > I am and will be the ambassador of the game I love and believe in. I am Then believe in the game you love -- don't assume that its creators, who have carefully put out four expansions that did not suck, are going to suddenly put out a fifth expansion that DOES suck. I recall a significant hue and outcry over group 3... what happened there? I am minded to quote something about "storm in a teacup", and the famous "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", but I'm old and decrepit and too lazy to look up the source. > suicidal. But I'll only do what I believe in. Is taht clearer to you now ? Then do your game a favor: think before speaking. > I've said all I needed to. The rest is only empty rethorics, and far too > personnal attacks (at least you argumented calmly here). Let some other > people express themselves on the subject, I've done my part. Many careless people assume that because I am capable of loading a post with two handsful of vitriol, I am incapable of making a rational argument. This simply attests to some sloppy thinking on the part of those posters. However, I would disagree with the last four words of your sentence... you still have a LOT more work to do. -- Derek

Orpheus wrote: > Why, for instance, make DS / AH vampires group > 2 and reprint them in starters if, for example, WW intends to soon make new > Group 4 Inner Circles ? Why print the AH and DS vampires as group 2? Because it gives all the "middle" players (people who got in after AH and DS were hard to get but before CE came out) access to these previously non reprinted vampires. 'Cause they are completely useable with CE, and will continue to be so, even and if they print group 4 vampires. If there is a particular group 2 vampire from AH/DS that was reprinted in CE that you really want to use, there is going to be a crypt that makes them worth using, even if it is only made of group 2 and group 3 vampires. Peter D Bakija PD...@bigplanet.com http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6 "I need a doctor, kinda, sorta. What's wrong with me? He said there's a skid mark on my aorta and there's no remedy." -The Donnas

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20021101163358...@mb-cr.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] if you choose to have him be a member of a circle, he is additionally a blood brother, and therefore must pay his scarceness for them as well. picture him as a vampiric "doctor who," a tardis-wielding fiend who obviously has some sort of affinity with going back and snagging vamps of any era, and who may do a special time-loop to be there at the formation of a blood brother circle, as an "extra" participant. a methuselah using his services can find herself ruing the day she met this "ultrapowerful" vamp. orpheus said he needed more superiors at his capacity, but like so much of what he's said lately, i strongly disagree. he's grossly overpowered, if anything. with each new expansion, his power grows. certainly, he was mostly meant to show that even the loathesome (?) grouping rule could spur game mechanics to allow babies their bottles, if desired. i can't believe that this view that the grouping rule is a terrible thing has even the support it has. IT PROTECTS US FROM EXACTLY WHAT ORPHEUS/REYDA/&co. CLAIM IT PROMOTES!!! my old cards will always be competitive and any buying i do is strictly my own desire for MORE. black cat has yet to be fully explored, same with many other original vamps. so if i buy a group5 vamp, it's my own inability to resist buying, not the fault of the company trying to balance a desire for sales with inclusion for us oldsters. then again, a lot of hatfields and mccoys play with card limits, too, and that has little to do with the reality of the game, WW, VEKN, or me. -john sporemage. "i didn't expect the improvised flame-thrower to draw its fuel from there..."

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20021101163358...@mb-cr.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] you might want to look up the background on blood brothers here ;)

Daniel Figueiredo wrote: > > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in > message news:<3DC238A3...@removethis.com>... > > > Any rules that are not the official rules are _by definition_ "House > > Rules". ... > > The point I'm trying to make is simply that they're different from the > > universal rules that are understood in other places. By virtue of this > > fact, in turn, *automatically* leads to all the issues I raised in my > > previous post. These are serious issues and that leads me to conclude > > that simply ignoring any potential problems caused partially by the > > grouping rule by ignoring grouping itself is not an answer to them. > > Well, you may be right in THEORY, but in practice, when we play, > group and no group rule has made no difference yet. And don´t think we > wouldn´t know. We´ve been playing this game from day 1. Sorry...I think you wouldn't know. From the other thinks you wrote in your posts, I do not think you could know because you don't jump back and forth between environments constantly. Doing it once in a while in official VEKN tournaments does not allow local players a reasonable amount of experience with which to create a separate metagame. > And I never > said anything about not using grouping rules in tournaments, as prince > I always use 100% official rules, be the tournaments sacntioned or > not. I wasn't accusing you of anything. In a non-sanctioned tournament, however, you are allowed to do as you like. Thus I was simply making no assumptions about what rules you used in your tournaments. > I´ll try once more to get my point(s) across. Please remember that > English is not my native tongue so don´t be mad if you don´t get it, > it is probably just my fault for not using the best words for > expressing myself. (elided list of points) I believe I understand what you're trying to say and I'm not at all mad. These doesn't really seem to be anything new, here, so there's no point to respond to it as I believe I have already responded to them. > I understand what you said about WW wanting to avoid problems with > their people getting pressure from the players if they started to open > all doors. but they don´t have to name names. They really don´t. All > they need to do is say We, WW, are planning to do this and that, or > We, WW WILL be doing this and that, or We, WW would like to know your > thoughts on such and such. No, they don't. They can reveal or not reveal anything they like about their decision-making process and it says nothing about whether anyone listens to us. I will repeat: if we talk, White Wolf may listen or they not. And if they listen, they may be persuaded or they may not. No failure to be persuaded at any time ever proves that they may not be persuaded the next time. It's that simple. You seem to keep trying to read into their actions more than what these actions actually prove. That is a mistake. > The changes to rarity schemes WW has made > until now probably have nothing to do with complaints from people > here. It has probably something to do with the fact that this is WW´s > first card game, and they are experimenting with various rarity > schemes. Every expansion of theirs until now had different ones. Every > expansion has met some form of criticism regarding rarity schemes. Are > they changing because of us? I don´t think so. I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Of course they make mistakes. Determining the popular rarity for cards is another one of the many subjective things in a CCG and certainly impossible to ever please everybody. And each of their four expansions has been printed under completely different conditions, attempting to do completely different things. Sabbat War was a kind-of, sort-of, mostly reprint of The Sabbat with a few new cards. Final Nights was a balls-out expansions of the independent clans. Camarilla Edition was intended as a new base set. And Bloodlines was completely different than everything else. Of course they make changes every time. I don't know if they listen to what we say, but I'm pretty well impressed by how they've avoided what I would personally consider the worst mistakes. Just for that alone, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. There's companies out there that act like "Blunder" is their middle name. Fred

legbiter wrote: > > Definitely NOT ME. i'm absolutely BEWILDERED by this hostility to the > groupings rule - i know it's not just you, so this is kind of a reply > to everyone who thinks your way. Doesn't ANYBODY except, well, quite a > few people see that this is the ONLY way to introduce new strategies > into the game without breaking the old ones? I try not to be too hostile to it despite disagreeing with it. But I had to post in response to this because...well...I don't actually see that this is the "only way to introduce new strategies into the game without breaking the old ones". I'm not even sure what you could mean by such a claim. > Isn't it OBVIOUS that > grouping creates an entirely-desirable chronological direction to the > game, which could be extended backwards as well as forwards? i > personally look forward IMMENSELY to the group 0/-1/-2 vampires of the > Dark Ages expansion! I guess I can see the potential for things like independent Gangrel replacing Camarilla Gangrel over time - for whatever it's worth. But I don't think your Dark Ages expansion idea works without some more futzing, frankly. Otherwise you're going to need to explain things like .44 Magnums and RPG Launchers in the dark ages. > You also need to think about Scott's Big Project of reintegrating ALL > the cards into the game, and think about how that could be done, it > seems to me. Didn't see it. Fred

Curevei wrote: >>Doc ReTardis >>True Brujah >>11 cap, group7 >> >>TEM, PRE, pot, aus, chi, for, san >>Independent. 2 votes. When Doc ReTardis enters play, you may choose >>a circle. Doc ReTardis counts as and may play cards as a Blood >>Brother of that circle. When Doc ReTardis is in your crypt, vampires >>of any combination of group numbers are allowed to be in your crypt. >>(If, during play, your crypt contains an illegal combination of group >>numbers of vampires, but no copies of Doc ReTardis, you are >>immediately ousted.) Scarce. Sterile. So if you draw all 4 of your Doc's into your uncontrolled region and you only had 4 in your crypt, your going to be ousted. Perhaps this should read, if you do not have Doc in your crypt ot uncontrolled region whould be better. However, this card means that a Judge would have to periodically stop by and check out your cards. Thats just too much work. Raille

Derek wrote: > On Thursday 31 October 2002 23:12 in message > All the ranting, crying, and foot-stamping proved nothing. And let me > assure you, there was a lot more of that for the 7/7 rulings... and NONE of > those changed as a result. I don't know where you get off thinking > anything was "proved", but you need to go back and do more research, > because you are DEAD WRONG here. Actually a lot of the complaints created by the 7/7 rulings and the subsequent attempts to correct the alleged inconsistancies by the NJL and other parties, have be incorporated into the current game play in bits and pieces. Not 100% mind you, but it happened. Player involvement CAN make a difference. It just has to be rational and fit within the game structure. Raille

> >> V:TES will die without new players. Grouping rules encourage new players > > to > >> join the game, because they will be able to compete with old players > >> without having to have all the old cards. > > > > Although this may be true for VTES vampires, it is not the case for > > recently printed / reprinted vampires. Why, for instance, make DS / AH > > vampires group 2 and reprint them in starters if, for example, WW intends > > to soon make new Group 4 Inner Circles ? This would, to me, lack all logic > > except the "we don't care about our customers' logic. > > And do you know that WW is intending to make new group 4 ICs? I don't know at all, and don't pretend at all. It is a working hypothesis. It is also, as someone pointed out, the only valid reason I would find for creating a group 4, to stick with the WoD storyline. > Of course not. This is silly, random speculation. Your logic is > functional, but is based on certain assumptions that simply don't hold > water yet; namely, that group 4 ICs will exist. You don't know that; > nobody does. Repeat : working hypothesis. If I knew for sure that they will come out, or won't, I wouldn't tell anyway. You can replace IC with Euro-Princes, Obf Ventrue, San !Tremere or what the heck you like. Try to see the meaning behind the words, and not to stop at some rethoric details. I know you can do it. > You give WW's designers and playtesters little credit for identifying > obvious conflicts between its most recent printing and later printings, and > as a result are demonizing WW un-necessarily and pre-emptively. I don't demonize anyone. Did you hear me say "WW sucks, they're assholes, they lead this game to shit" ? No. What I said was : I'm afraid this is a possible way for things to go, and I don't want it, as many players don't. As for the designers credits, I think hearing what players want or do'nt may only be useful to them. And I prefer to intervene pre-emptively than say later "oh, man, it's too late but hey, that's bad !!". They didn't warn us B4 making any major change lately, right ? So it's up to us to warn them of what we'd like or not. > >> Orpheus just doesn't like it because it isn't what HE wants. > > > > Wrong. It is what all my players told me they didn't want. As soon as > > However, what your players told you they didn't want was based on even less > information than you yourself possess. Wrong again. We agree on things based upon what we know : the group rulings. And as much as most of the players accepted the Group 3 thing without problem, everyone said at the time, and still says, that Group 4 and up would open the way to many, many abuses. This is based on only one type of information : the Group rules. > > Group 3 came out, we all had the same reaction (except the ones who were > > instantly allergic to Group 3) : this can be a nice way of getting on with > > the game, but it has to stop right there, for at least some years, because > > if it doesn't it will turn into Magic. And you may have noticed that I'm > > not the only one to think that, even here. > > That's fine. But you have no knowledge of whether or not any group 4 > vampires exist, no knowledge of what those vampires ARE, ...and making > rabble-rousing ultimatums based on rumors (because that IS all you've got, > is rumors) is simply poor judgement, plain and simple -- and EXTREMELY > inappropriate for a Prince. Man, can you read ? Did I EVER say : "I'm sure that WW will issue Group 4 and warn you all" ?! No, I didn't. What I did say was : "this rumor brings a question about how we would react to new groups. This is how I would react, and why." As for what a Prince should or not do, I totally agree with Reyda's post on the subject. And I think we HAVE to bring back to WW the thoughts of our playerbase. As the Conclave Mailing List isn't made for this, here is the most appropriate place to do so IMO. Hey, if / when WW employs me and pays me whole lotta bucks to find new ways to sell you loads of cards, be assured that I'll conceive every possible way to make you empty your wallet, and you'll probably like it. For now, all I care about is me, my players, and this game in general from the player and buyer's viewpoint. My Princeship means I'm appointed to promote the game, which I do. It doesn't prevent me from having opinions or expressing them. > I don't agree that it has to "stop right there", but others have made that > argument more eloquently than I care to at this point. However, I will > note that printing a group 4 vampire named "ROSCOE P. COLTRAIN" with > OBF/DOM/PRE/FOR/cel/vic, and a special ability that reads "+2 bleed. 4 > votes. Your prey burns a pool on their untap for each locations they > control, or burns the location." is hardly going to be the end of the > world, is it? LOL. Yeah, sure !!! Especially for a cost of 6. And seeing as every vampire in group 8 will be like him, nobody will want Group 6 anymore, so the playerbase will split between : 1) the ones who buy and buy 2) the ones who refuse to play group 8, and after a while get tired of getting their asses kicked by the ones who do, and in turn split into 2 more categories : a) the ones who play among themselves with no vampire of group 8 b) the ones who make the houserule of ignoring groups (that already happened) How is that supposed to help the game in any way ? > > I am and will be the ambassador of the game I love and believe in. I am > > Then believe in the game you love -- don't assume that its creators, who > have carefully put out four expansions that did not suck, are going to > suddenly put out a fifth expansion that DOES suck. Everyone can make mistakes, so it is up to us to tell them what is the game we love to play. Which I did. > I recall a significant hue and outcry over group 3... what happened there? > > I am minded to quote something about "storm in a teacup", and the famous > "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", but I'm old and decrepit and > too lazy to look up the source. I wasn't against group 3. And believe me, if ever Group 4 or 5 gets out, the outcry will be much, much worse. As for the "old and decrepit" part, you should try a Giant's Blood, this out to get you up. ;-) > > suicidal. But I'll only do what I believe in. Is taht clearer to you now ? > > Then do your game a favor: think before speaking. I do. Do me a favor : read before answering. The way I launched this thread may not have been the best one, but as I said people make mistakes. Mine was to underestimate the way people just follow with what is given to them. It seems that many here want only to buy more and more, not caring about the contents. Too bad. > > I've said all I needed to. The rest is only empty rethorics, and far too > > personnal attacks (at least you argumented calmly here). Let some other > > people express themselves on the subject, I've done my part. > > Many careless people assume that because I am capable of loading a post with > two handsful of vitriol, I am incapable of making a rational argument. > This simply attests to some sloppy thinking on the part of those posters. Many people assume that, because I prefer rational, calm and interesting discussions, I am incapable of flaming. Now you know better. But even when you're not flaming, you display an enormous amount of "mauvaise foi", which is an intranslatable (or I don't know the word) way to say that despite being, I think, intelligent, you see only what you wanna see, and overlook anything that wouldn't suit your thoughts (which I try not to do, and some interesting counter-arguments have been displayed, to which I have answered in honesty). In other words : you brass the air and make me lose my time. Not a very nice thing to do, Derek, time is precious to me, Temporis or not. > However, I would disagree with the last four words of your sentence... you > still have a LOT more work to do. Yeah, if I want to get to you, sure. For the rest, I know what I have to do, thank you. -- Orpheus http://cypheranima.free.fr (goth band) http://no.exit.free.fr (online novel) http://necrobones.free.fr (card game site) news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone "And the corridors of Power, they're an ocean away We're the 51st State of America" New Model Army

> Definitely NOT ME. i'm absolutely BEWILDERED by this hostility to the > groupings rule - i know it's not just you, so this is kind of a reply > to everyone who thinks your way. Ok. > Doesn't ANYBODY except, well, quite a > few people see that this is the ONLY way to introduce new strategies > into the game without breaking the old ones? Isn't it OBVIOUS that > grouping creates an entirely-desirable chronological direction to the > game, which could be extended backwards as well as forwards? No, it is not obvious at all. Rather the opposite. It has been and will be argued enough that you may see there are quite different, and valid opinions about it. > i > personally look forward IMMENSELY to the group 0/-1/-2 vampires of the > Dark Ages expansion! Not speaking about groupings, I would look forward to Dark Ages too. But this is an entirely different thing !! Can't you see ? Dark Ages would be a totally different and mostly uncompatible (except for some neutral cards I guess) extension, which makes you speak of groups in the minus (or maybe you have inside info ? by the way, Group 0 wouldn't exist because it would allow mixing with Group 1...). People who don't want to play Dark Ages won't HAVE to, and it would be more like in the RPG : "well, what do we play tonight, Dark Ages or modern times ? Of COURSE you can't play you DA Crusader in New York 2003 !!!). I have absolutely no problem with that, and think it would be a smart commercial move, and still respectful to the players. What wouldn't be is getting into WotC stuff like "buy the new extension or you can't play (or at least not as well as the ones who will). Do you get the difference in my book ? > You also need to think about Scott's Big Project of reintegrating ALL > the cards into the game, I don't know about that. What is it about ? Has it been said on the Dev's Chat ? > and think about how that could be done, it > seems to me. Meanwhile, i recommend putting less of that tasty crack > cocaine into your next glass of pastis ;-) LOL. I take my pastaga pure with ice, it's quite enough. But seriously, I don't feel like the one who's been smoking crack here. Or the drug addict. But some people here obviously are addicts, and want their dope no matter how badly cut. I don't. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out in > > the Anarchs. > > By who? Is this a credible source? How did they come by their > information? Ok, for the last time : I AM NOT SURE OF ANYTHING ABOUT SUCH A RELEASE, BUT THINK IT HAS TO BE DISCUSSED NOW ANYWAY. Sorry for shouting, but maybe this way everyone will see it and stop asking the same questions. For the details see numerous previous answers. > > A few Group 4 Camarilla vampires isn't dramatical, it's just useless (they > > just re-released group 2 Cammies, and now you can't mix them anymore with the > > enw vampires ?!). > > I'd be upset but a good portion of the DS/AH Camarilla vampires suck. Yes, they do. Some others are great and seen at every tournament, though, like Arika, Muaziz, Donal etc. And as I've already said, if they sucked so much, why make them Group 2 and reprint them ? Because WW was afraid of the players reaction and preferred to fuck them in the ass later, but with more vaseline ?? > And group 4 Cammies can be combined with the group 3 Cammies (which > they're likely meant to be). Sure. But not with the hundreds of Group 2 vampires that have been printed in the last 3 years, and the latest only what, 6, 9 months ago ? > > If White Wolf sees that a product designed to "force us to buy" has the > > opposite effect, I think and hope that they will stop the insanity NOW. Up > > until now they have heeded our thoughts and needs, more or less, so we have > > to show them what we want, or rather what we DON'T WANT !!! > > Hmm... I didn't feel "forced to buy" Cam Ed. I thought "hey, those > new (insert clan here) look pretty cool. Lemme buy a box and trade > all the Malkavians I get for the (insert clan here) vamps I didn't get > in the box." Same here, because they were compatible to most of the vampires I'd bought (I joined the game with SW). Even if I understand and sort of approve Group 3, I can also understand why people who had all the vampires in Group 1 could be pissed off by this. But the more Groups come, the worts the situation will become, is all I'm saying. > > But I also know what will the difference in sales will be the day when I > > won't. Or, for that matter, the day when any of my players will see Group 5 > > Cammies or Group 4 Sabbat. > > This begs the question, "What's the big deal?". Ok, if you have to ask I can't do anything for you. Now, if you really want to know, read what people have written on this thread, newsgroup etc. If you still don't see the big deal, I'll have to ask you your monthly income. > I'm more disappointed with the library backgrounds than anything. I'm > putting forth a request to at least have the master card background > reverted to the old one (so I can tell what the hell something is > across the table). > > -Snapcase THAT is a lost case. They have made this decision, once again, without asking anyone, and it may have been a mistake or not. I'm getting used to the new layout, but the thing I cannot get used to is having old and new vampires side by side and not looking like they belong in the same game, not mentionning the same Clan. And Masters layout suck. But I don't think WW will ever turn from this decision. Hell, it will even be an argument to sell more Group 4 Sabbat, like "See, they have the new layout !!!". :-( [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote in message news:<3DC3A664...@mich.com>... > Curevei wrote: > >>Doc ReTardis > >>True Brujah > >>11 cap, group7 > >> > >>TEM, PRE, pot, aus, chi, for, san > >>Independent. 2 votes. When Doc ReTardis enters play, you may choose > >>a circle. Doc ReTardis counts as and may play cards as a Blood > >>Brother of that circle. When Doc ReTardis is in your crypt, vampires > >>of any combination of group numbers are allowed to be in your crypt. > >>(If, during play, your crypt contains an illegal combination of group > >>numbers of vampires, but no copies of Doc ReTardis, you are > >>immediately ousted.) Scarce. Sterile. > > So if you draw all 4 of your Doc's into your uncontrolled region and you > only had 4 in your crypt, your going to be ousted. Perhaps this should ousted immediately. one of the drawbacks to such a powerful pan-grouping ability. intentional deterrent to playing this cheeser. > read, if you do not have Doc in your crypt ot uncontrolled region whould > be better. > > However, this card means that a Judge would have to periodically stop by > and check out your cards. Thats just too much work. amen. it's (as stated) mainly a junk card-suggestion, designed to show that there _could_ be a card mechanic based on groupings. also, i'm not very familiar with the magical process of Blood Brother creation, so the Doc must've found some process in his time-travels that provides him the ability to count as a member of said circle... what that is, or even could be, is beyond me. -spinspore perhaps he was originally a last-surviving member of said circle, who over long years and Tardis use became a trujah... circa 3250ad. > > Raille

On Saturday 02 November 2002 05:23 in message <3DC3A7B0...@mich.com>, Raille mumbled something about: > Derek wrote: >> On Thursday 31 October 2002 23:12 in message > >> All the ranting, crying, and foot-stamping proved nothing. And let me >> assure you, there was a lot more of that for the 7/7 rulings... and NONE >> of >> those changed as a result. I don't know where you get off thinking >> anything was "proved", but you need to go back and do more research, >> because you are DEAD WRONG here. > > Actually a lot of the complaints created by the 7/7 rulings and the > subsequent attempts to correct the alleged inconsistancies by the NJL > and other parties, have be incorporated into the current game play in > bits and pieces. Not 100% mind you, but it happened. Which ones are you thinking of? The only complaint made by the NJL that has been addressed (off the top of my head; please add in any I've missed) was the complaint about errata, and "cards don't do what they say they do" making it difficult for new players. NOBODY disagreed with the premise -- of course it'd be nice to play a game where the cards did what they said! But if you recall, when the 7/7 rulings were issued, WotC was still in control of the game and there were going to be NO new printings. It was either play a broken game, or issue errata. Given that choice, the game was preserved with errata. The demands of the NJL for no errata on the spot were unreasonable given the current circumstances, and were correctly ignored. Once the circumstances changed (WW took the game back over and printings started to happen again), reprints of old cards matching the errata issued for those cards started to happen -- WWEF being the first and most obvious. > Player involvement CAN make a difference. It just has to be rational > and fit within the game structure. Yes, I agree completely. But the loud shouting and ranting created by 7/7 didn't accomplish a single thing. What accomplished far more was the return of the game to White Wolf, where suddenly the entire baseline from which to begin assessing things changed. -- Derek

On Saturday 02 November 2002 07:49 in message <aq0hks$677$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus mumbled something about: >> And do you know that WW is intending to make new group 4 ICs? > > I don't know at all, and don't pretend at all. It is a working hypothesis. > It is also, as someone pointed out, the only valid reason I would find for > creating a group 4, to stick with the WoD storyline. It is not a "working hypothesis"! It is foolish speculation. I repeat, you KNOW NOTHING. When your baseline argument is random guessing, how can you possibly expect to produce anything useful from it? "If WW prints ICs for all the bloodlines and makes them group 4, that will suck!" Well, of COURSE it will! For god's sake, man, wake up and smell the coffee. You can speculate for years, and you won't get anywhere. >> Of course not. This is silly, random speculation. > Your logic is >> functional, but is based on certain assumptions that simply don't hold >> water yet; namely, that group 4 ICs will exist. You don't know that; >> nobody does. > > Repeat : working hypothesis. If I knew for sure that they will come out, Repeat: RANDOM GUESSING. > or won't, I wouldn't tell anyway. You can replace IC with Euro-Princes, > Obf Ventrue, San !Tremere or what the heck you like. Try to see the > meaning behind the words, and not to stop at some rethoric details. I know > you can do it. Orpheus, what I'm pointing out to you is that there IS no meaning behind your words. All you demonstrate is more rhetoric along the lines of "THE SKY MAY BE FALLING!" > > You give WW's designers and playtesters little credit for identifying >> obvious conflicts between its most recent printing and later printings, > and >> as a result are demonizing WW un-necessarily and pre-emptively. > > I don't demonize anyone. Did you hear me say "WW sucks, they're assholes, > they lead this game to shit" ? No. What I said was : I'm afraid this is a > possible way for things to go, and I don't want it, as many players don't. No, Orpheus, this is not what you said. You waved your flag in the air and said "If it goes this way, it will DEFINITELY BE WRONG, and I will LEAD A CRUSADE to BOYCOTT the future sets! All who are with me, stand now!" It was very dramatic, filled with hyperbole, and it was a total crock of shit. One doesn't lead crusades against things which aren't demons, Orpheus. You cannot pretend that your initial post was a rational argument; please do us both the favor of not trying. > As for the designers credits, I think hearing what players want or do'nt > may only be useful to them. And I prefer to intervene pre-emptively than > say later "oh, man, it's too late but hey, that's bad !!". They didn't > warn us B4 making any major change lately, right ? So it's up to us to > warn them of what we'd like or not. Your second attempt at doing this was a far better means of broaching the subject than declaring an ultimatum. >> However, what your players told you they didn't want was based on even > less >> information than you yourself possess. > > Wrong again. We agree on things based upon what we know : the group > rulings. And as much as most of the players accepted the Group 3 thing > without problem, everyone said at the time, and still says, that Group 4 > and up would open the way to many, many abuses. This is based on only one > type of information : the Group rules. Right. And you know nothing about whether there will be group 4 vampires, or what those vampires will be. Can you not see that there are many ways to implement a group 4, and not ALL of them are wrong? But you attempted to paint the entire situation as bad. You were sadly incorrect there, and you are sadly incorrect now. You jumped to conclusions based on wildly inaccurate information, and now you are paying the price for it. >> That's fine. But you have no knowledge of whether or not any group 4 >> vampires exist, no knowledge of what those vampires ARE, ...and making >> rabble-rousing ultimatums based on rumors (because that IS all you've >> got, is rumors) is simply poor judgement, plain and simple -- and >> EXTREMELY inappropriate for a Prince. > > Man, can you read ? Did I EVER say : "I'm sure that WW will issue Group 4 > and warn you all" ?! No, I didn't. What I did say was : "this rumor brings > a question about how we would react to new groups. This is how I would > react, and why." Yes, Orpheus, I can read. This is what you said: "I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out in the Anarchs." So there's one open lie. You DID, in fact, say that you were sure that WW would issue Group 4. And the rest of your message certainly reads like a warning to us... "Whether this is true or not isn't the point here ... A few Group 4 Camarilla vampires isn't dramatical, it's just useless (they just re-released group 2 Cammies, and now you can't mix them anymore with the enw vampires ?!). But it needs to STOP NOW !!!" And from there, you went RIGHT downhill... "I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever comes out, I will : - stop buying new products - resign from my Princeship I ask EVERYBODY who shares these feelings to add a "me too" to this thread." Now, if this isn't a crusade, then I don't know what it is. It certainly isn't just a statement of your own opinions -- it's a call to arms. Trying to pretend otherwise at this point to save face is just pathetic, and assuming that we'll all believe you is even more pathetic. > As for what a Prince should or not do, I totally agree with Reyda's post > on the subject. And I think we HAVE to bring back to WW the thoughts of > our playerbase. As the Conclave Mailing List isn't made for this, here is > the most appropriate place to do so IMO. Hey, if / when WW employs me and There was NO appropriate place for your previous message. > players, and this game in general from the player and buyer's viewpoint. > My Princeship means I'm appointed to promote the game, which I do. It > doesn't prevent me from having opinions or expressing them. Can you not see that declaring a crusade to boycott the product if things don't go your way is the complete opposite of promoting the game? Are you really this stupid? >> I don't agree that it has to "stop right there", but others have made >> that >> argument more eloquently than I care to at this point. However, I will >> note that printing a group 4 vampire named "ROSCOE P. COLTRAIN" with >> OBF/DOM/PRE/FOR/cel/vic, and a special ability that reads "+2 bleed. 4 >> votes. Your prey burns a pool on their untap for each locations they >> control, or burns the location." is hardly going to be the end of the >> world, is it? > > LOL. Yeah, sure !!! Especially for a cost of 6. And seeing as every > vampire in group 8 will be like him, nobody will want Group 6 anymore, so > the playerbase will split between : More foolish, unfounded speculation and "sky-is-falling" crap. What if he cost 11? What then? It seems you're shifting focus here, Orpheus. Is the REAL concern of your players that there will be unwarranted power escalation in future groups? Now THAT's a possibly valid concern -- but why not address that issue directly, instead of tilting at windmills? > 1) the ones who buy and buy > 2) the ones who refuse to play group 8, and after a while get tired of > getting their asses kicked by the ones who do, and in turn split into 2 > more categories : > a) the ones who play among themselves with no vampire of group 8 > b) the ones who make the houserule of ignoring groups (that already > happened) All of this is foolish speculation, and based on the assumption that WW will make a series of poor business decisions, and that the game designers will do a whole bunch of stupid things (such as create a power escalation curve). > How is that supposed to help the game in any way ? It wouldn't. But again, you're giving absolutely no credit to WW or its designers here; you are assuming the worst, where you should be assuming the best. Again, FOUR EXPANSIONS which didn't suck... and a group 3 rule that everyone swore would be the death of the game, and in fact has turned out to be absolutely insignificant. >> > I am and will be the ambassador of the game I love and believe in. I am >> >> Then believe in the game you love -- don't assume that its creators, who >> have carefully put out four expansions that did not suck, are going to >> suddenly put out a fifth expansion that DOES suck. > > Everyone can make mistakes, so it is up to us to tell them what is the > game we love to play. Which I did. How very Napoleonic. You should wait until someone actually makes a mistake before telling them they've made one, Orpheus. Right now you've got no indication that a mistake is even being MADE. >> I recall a significant hue and outcry over group 3... what happened >> there? >> >> I am minded to quote something about "storm in a teacup", and the famous >> "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", but I'm old and decrepit >> and too lazy to look up the source. > > I wasn't against group 3. And believe me, if ever Group 4 or 5 gets out, > the outcry will be much, much worse. More unfounded speculation. You haven't the slightest idea about this, because you haven't the slightest idea what group 4 or 5 might contain. What if group 5 were all Dark Ages Camarilla clans? That would make an awful lot of sense, now wouldn't it -- you wouldn't want those vampires to be playable with ANY of the previous Camarilla vamps, would you? > The way I launched this thread may not have been the best one, but as I > said people make mistakes. Mine was to underestimate the way people just > follow with what is given to them. It seems that many here want only to > buy more and more, not caring about the contents. Too bad. You are a fool, Orpheus. If you read ANYTHING anyone else has posted here, then you would know that this isn't true. It's just that everyone else THINKS, and UNDERSTANDS how a business must run... and also understands how a game of this complexity needs to be designed in order to be viable. > But even when you're not flaming, you display an enormous amount of > "mauvaise foi", which is an intranslatable (or I don't know the word) way (un)Fortunately for you, I do not require the translation. A literal translation would be "bad faith", but that's not correct and means something entirely different in English. The closest equivalent in English might be "poor judgement and excessive confidence in that judgement", and even that doesn't quite capture the meaning. > to say that despite being, I think, intelligent, you see only what you > wanna see, and overlook anything that wouldn't suit your thoughts (which I > try not to do, and some interesting counter-arguments have been displayed, > to which I have answered in honesty). In other words : you brass the air > and make me lose my time. Not a very nice thing to do, Derek, time is > precious to me, Temporis or not. No, Orpheus, I see EVERYTHING, and I assess EVERYTHING... and THEN I speak. I considered the potential impact of group 4 a long, long time ago, and dismissed it as irrelevant if done properly. Group 5 isn't even on the horizon yet, and is not worth considering, as there are also many ways to do group 5 properly. We have no indication at this time that group 4 is going to be done improperly, or that group 4 even exists yet. We do, however, have four indications (one per expansion, including the group 3 rulings) that WW and the game designers are capable of making intelligent decisions that don't screw the playerbase. It is only logic, Orpheus. But it's non-hysterical logic, based on solid assumptions and foundations. >> However, I would disagree with the last four words of your sentence... >> you still have a LOT more work to do. > > Yeah, if I want to get to you, sure. For the rest, I know what I have to > do, thank you. Don't misunderstand your situation right now, Orpheus. You stuck your neck out carelessly, and now you've got to convince EVERYONE that it shouldn't be chopped off. I'm far from the only person who believes that you're making a huge, unwarranted outcry over nothing. -- Derek

orph...@wanadoo.fr writes: > I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any >GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever comes >out, I will : >- stop buying new products >- resign from my Princeship Grouping is a brilliant idea, the best fix for a hard problem. There's no way I could honestly suggest new players start the game without grouping (unless they're very rich). I will continue to enthusiastically support V:tES as long as WW continues with it's excellent work at improving balance and playability with great ideas like grouping. I'll even support it more enthusiastically by pointing out to newbies that grouping is making suitcases quit because they can't lord it over the newbies with their collections. I'll probably buy more too. Currently there's about 15 vamps per clan per group. That's exactly where it should stay. If any group goes substantially over this the game is in serious trouble. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DC39027...@removethis.com>... > legbiter wrote: > > > > Definitely NOT ME. i'm absolutely BEWILDERED by this hostility to the > > groupings rule - i know it's not just you, so this is kind of a reply > > to everyone who thinks your way. Doesn't ANYBODY except, well, quite a > > few people see that this is the ONLY way to introduce new strategies > > into the game without breaking the old ones? > > I try not to be too hostile to it despite disagreeing with it. But I > had to post in response to this because...well...I don't actually see > that this is the "only way to introduce new strategies into the game > without breaking the old ones". I'm not even sure what you could mean > by such a claim. Because the old guys and gals have all the old cards and would gain from the new cards [so that their already-functional old decks would get even better]; whereas the new, incoming people would only have the new cards, and could not compete except [a] is everone was playing new cards, or [b] if the new cards and vampires were better than the old ones. But under groupings, everyone is equal, no-one is better, and the old guys n gals do not lose their good ol' decks. > > > Isn't it OBVIOUS that > > grouping creates an entirely-desirable chronological direction to the > > game, which could be extended backwards as well as forwards? i > > personally look forward IMMENSELY to the group 0/-1/-2 vampires of the > > Dark Ages expansion! > > I guess I can see the potential for things like independent Gangrel > replacing Camarilla Gangrel over time - for whatever it's worth. But I > don't think your Dark Ages expansion idea works without some more futzing, > frankly. Undoubtedly you are right. But this is a concept thing, as i'm sure you understand. Otherwise you're going to need to explain things like .44 Magnums > and RPG Launchers in the dark ages. GREAT man, that Leonardo da Vinci. > > > You also need to think about Scott's Big Project of reintegrating ALL > > the cards into the game, and think about how that could be done, it > > seems to me. > > Didn't see it. What, the project, or why grouping is good for it? > > Fred

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<aq0i48$4s8$1...@news-reader11.wanadoo.fr>... > > Definitely NOT ME. i'm absolutely BEWILDERED by this hostility to the > > groupings rule - i know it's not just you, so this is kind of a reply > > to everyone who thinks your way. > > Ok. > > > Doesn't ANYBODY except, well, quite a > > few people see that this is the ONLY way to introduce new strategies > > into the game without breaking the old ones? Isn't it OBVIOUS that > > grouping creates an entirely-desirable chronological direction to the > > game, which could be extended backwards as well as forwards? > > No, it is not obvious at all. Rather the opposite. It has been and will be > argued enough that you may see there are quite different, and valid opinions > about it. Sorry brother, but i do not see the validity of the objections to it. Rather, i see the conservative Scumbag Gamer rampant. in fact i would even count myself in that group; my INITIAL reaction to the groupings rule and to the changes in card appearance was hostile, but now i have undergone a TOTAL conversion and am WHOLLY in favour of them. As for WHY i think it is OBVIOUS that this is the only way forward, see my reply to Fred. For those who can't be bothered to look, i believe the groupings rule keeps the old deck-styles intact but allows new people to compete - something that couldn't be achieved in any other way that i can see. > > > i > > personally look forward IMMENSELY to the group 0/-1/-2 vampires of the > > Dark Ages expansion! > > Not speaking about groupings, I would look forward to Dark Ages too. But > this is an entirely different thing !! Can't you see ? Dark Ages would be a > totally different and mostly uncompatible (except for some neutral cards I > guess) extension, Maybe, maybe not. i used to think like you. Groupings now makes me think the whole thing could be done in such a way that ALL the expansions could be compatible. i'ld prefer that. which makes you speak of groups in the minus (or maybe you > have inside info ? No by the way, Group 0 wouldn't exist because it would allow > mixing with Group 1...). Sure, what's wrong with that? People who don't want to play Dark Ages won't HAVE > to, and it would be more like in the RPG : "well, what do we play tonight, > Dark Ages or modern times ? Of COURSE you can't play you DA Crusader in New > York 2003 !!!). Alright, but you know as well as i do that in the typical RPG session it is the clash between the ancient and the modern which is half the fun. Groupings imposes a certain integrity upon that in the card game, so i'ld have thought it would be welcomed with open arms by the RPGers. I have absolutely no problem with that, and think it would > be a smart commercial move, and still respectful to the players. Right, so we agree, basically. i knew we would. What > wouldn't be is getting into WotC stuff like "buy the new extension or you > can't play (or at least not as well as the ones who will). Do you get the > difference in my book ? Not really, and sorry if i am being dim ... but i just don't see that ANY of the old decks i built has been nuked by the new expansion, rather it seems to me a load of old cards that were gathering dust in my folders suddenly look awfully tasty, and that this would be true whether or not i had bought new cards. > > > You also need to think about Scott's Big Project of reintegrating ALL > > the cards into the game, > > I don't know about that. What is it about ? Has it been said on the Dev's > Chat ? Not on developer's chat AFAIK, but it's kinda obvious from what he has done in rehabilitating Rowan Ring, the Monocle and Concealed weapon. i'm sure he would like to go further, if he could and if the new cards could be balanced. i will say no more. > > > and think about how that could be done, it > > seems to me. Meanwhile, i recommend putting less of that tasty crack > > cocaine into your next glass of pastis ;-) > > LOL. I take my pastaga pure with ice, it's quite enough. What, not even water? <awestruck silence> But seriously, I > don't feel like the one who's been smoking crack here. Or the drug addict. > But some people here obviously are addicts, and want their dope no matter > how badly cut. i'll confess to being an addict, right enough. i don't accept that i patronise dodgy pushers. > > I don't. Cool, so you are sticking to the best-cut dope and you aren't an addict, right? ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip> Rest assured I will definitely let > you know when I finally get around to visiting the UK, and if I manage to > make it down to Europe/France at the same time (would really like to meet > reyda one of these days), so much the better. > > -- Derek Cool, so please let me know when and where to pick you up, brother. And you DID remember to give Lasombra Jeff his 16 USD, right?

<snip praise of Orpheus, who has always struck ME as a dam' fine fellow> > > I know you're good at flaming people, sometime some bozo just need a kick in > the ass to start to walk in the right direction. But the problem is > orpheus's worries are shared by more than one player. I don't want to have > to cycle my vamps every six months. I don't like the grouping idea for > starters, but i'll use it since tournament rules require it. But you DON'T have to. ALL your old decks still work except for the ones based on abusing Second and Fifth Tradition, Embrace or ToGP/Hostile takeover, and that's not because of the grouping rule, but because of much-needed changes to individual library cards. Some of them may work better because of new cards; and some decks that you would NEVER have dreamed could be competitive now are, because of cards like harass, high ground, [new] rowan ring, [new] concealed weapon, tension in the ranks and weighted walking stick. Scott is EXPANDING the game, or maybe rehabilitating it is the right phrase, and you don't have to spend a single euro-cent to benefit from his work. > <snip> > > :: Business is about making money. The best way to make money is to > :: give people what they want. > > Another way is to give them new expansion every 6 months, with more and more > power cards to collect, and suppres previous sets from the competition, as > Magic the gathering does. Magic is making money and has a solid player base, > i understand it can be a model for those marketing guys at WW. But which > v:tes player would like to see v:tes walk that way ? > If we have to protest , it's now or never, and its on this forum where WW > actually reads our stuff. Period. Though i accept the right to protest, i STILL find this particular spat bewildering. You can still play all your old decks. If you want, you can spice them up with some of your old cards that you wouldn't otherwise have played. People who invest in CE won't necessarily be able to make better decks than you can, because of grouping. So you gain from CE whether you buy it or not. On the other hand, if you WANT, you can buy into the expansion and make some funky new decks, equally as powerful as, but different from, the old decks you built. Whatever your decision, you need to beware the bright-eyed and bushy-talied young 'uns with their all-group 2/3 crypts and totally new [but NOT more powerful] strategies. This seems to me to be win, win and thrice win, for all concerned. How is this cynical marketing? How is it pushing the power-curve? What am i missing? > > reyda

Derek Ray wrote: >>Actually a lot of the complaints created by the 7/7 rulings and the >>subsequent attempts to correct the alleged inconsistancies by the NJL >>and other parties, have be incorporated into the current game play in >>bits and pieces. Not 100% mind you, but it happened. > > > Which ones are you thinking of? Well we first used something akin to the table win. We called it the last man standing, which measured simply the ability of a player to have staying power and that person of course always got 2 vps, which in the current game setting usually means a table win. Then we also started to run calculations of how well rated a player was as a % of wins. <ego> There have been a lot of bits of errata made to cards that paralleled changes teh NJL worked on. Of course these cards had already been highlighted by all parties involved that they needed corrections, so We can't really claim anything here, but as a long time player involved in many aspects of the game, these little bit seem to indicate that in our breif heydey we were not simple making waves we actually help set the template for the furture game. Ok. The drugs are wearing off and the ego is deflating. :) </ego> Raille

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<NM6dnXYVluP...@News.GigaNews.Com>... > On Friday 01 November 2002 21:40 in message > <apvduq$ikh$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus mumbled something about: > note that printing a group 4 vampire named "ROSCOE P. COLTRAIN" with We already have a card "Flash" so I'm all for Roscoe!

[ quoted text not captured ] Per my recollection; our stance on this particular topic was that if a card needed to be completely rewritten so as not to be broken, that it should be banned rather than to receive errata. At a time when it didn't appear that there would ever be another expansion printed, the stance was quite reasonable. >changed (WW took the game back over and printings started to happen again), >reprints of old cards matching the errata issued for those cards started to >happen -- WWEF being the first and most obvious. > >> Player involvement CAN make a difference. It just has to be rational >> and fit within the game structure. > >Yes, I agree completely. But the loud shouting and ranting created by 7/7 >didn't accomplish a single thing. What accomplished far more was the >return of the game to White Wolf, where suddenly the entire baseline from >which to begin assessing things changed. What 7/7 accomplished was to drive away a large number of players from the newsgroup and the game. Primarily as people who were voicing concerns and queries were blatantly attacked and turned away from the NG.. Times have certainly changed for the better when White Wolf regained control of their product. While I still don't agree with everything that comes down that pipe, it's usually something I can live with. There is soooo much ground that has yet to be explored that I cannot conceive of seeing a Group 5+ for a very long time. >-- Derek BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

legbiter wrote: > > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message > news:<3DC39027...@removethis.com>... > > legbiter wrote: > > > > > > Definitely NOT ME. i'm absolutely BEWILDERED by this hostility to the > > > groupings rule - i know it's not just you, so this is kind of a reply > > > to everyone who thinks your way. Doesn't ANYBODY except, well, quite a > > > few people see that this is the ONLY way to introduce new strategies > > > into the game without breaking the old ones? > > > > I try not to be too hostile to it despite disagreeing with it. But I > > had to post in response to this because...well...I don't actually see > > that this is the "only way to introduce new strategies into the game > > without breaking the old ones". I'm not even sure what you could mean > > by such a claim. > > Because the old guys and gals have all the old cards and would gain > from the new cards [so that their already-functional old decks would > get even better]; whereas the new, incoming people would only have the > new cards, and could not compete except [a] is everone was playing new > cards, or [b] if the new cards and vampires were better than the old > ones. But under groupings, everyone is equal, no-one is better, and > the old guys n gals do not lose their good ol' decks. Oh. I guess I wouldn't term that "introducing new strategies". That's just adding new cards to the game. Any new card may introduce a new strategy or improve an old one. There's a segment of people out here (I'm one of them) who would agree with you that grouping has a beneficial effect in this sense. However, whether it was really an important enough benefit vs. the cost is another question. And grouping vampires doesn't solve the analogous problem in terms of library cards, which to me, it seems like a more pernicious problem anyway. > > > You also need to think about Scott's Big Project of reintegrating ALL > > > the cards into the game, and think about how that could be done, it > > > seems to me. > > > > Didn't see it. > > What, the project, or why grouping is good for it? I didn't see the project, whatever it is you're talking about. Fred

Jeff Kuta wrote: :: Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] I guess Praxis seizure : Hazzard would be a great idea too (^.^;)

Legbiter, while under the influence of pastaga, said : > <snip praise of Orpheus, who has always struck ME as a dam' fine > fellow> Thanks for that. Nice to see that some people can disagree with me without putting me right away in the asshole department. It must be a maturity thing... Isn't it OBVIOUS that > > > grouping creates an entirely-desirable chronological direction to the > > > game, which could be extended backwards as well as forwards? > > > > No, it is not obvious at all. Rather the opposite. It has been and will be > > argued enough that you may see there are quite different, and valid opinions > > about it. > > Sorry brother, but i do not see the validity of the objections to it. > Rather, i see the conservative Scumbag Gamer rampant. in fact i would > even count myself in that group; my INITIAL reaction to the groupings > rule and to the changes in card appearance was hostile, but now i have > undergone a TOTAL conversion and am WHOLLY in favour of them. As for > WHY i think it is OBVIOUS that this is the only way forward, see my > reply to Fred. For those who can't be bothered to look, i believe the > groupings rule keeps the old deck-styles intact but allows new people > to compete - something that couldn't be achieved in any other way that > i can see. Only idiots don't change their minds, so I guess you're not as conservative as you say. And I may yet change mine on that subject, if there are some new elements I couldn't take into consideration, but I dount it as I've given a lot of thought to the question. My point is that I could understand the use of making new vampires in Group 3 instead of re-issuing Group 1, if only for one reason : the vampires weren't as well balanced as their followers, and some Clans were really advantaged over others ; also, there could have been copyright problems with the pictures, but then this could be overcome ; last, the "new" vampires stick to the background and the old didn't. AAMOF, I'd have liked to see DS and AH included in Group 1, if only never to see Arika's face again... Err, I mean so that the new ones would totally fit the background. Now, if rectifying this is the reason for Group 4, they should have done it before. If it is not, what could be the reason ? Renewing sales ? As we both said, there are whole lots of new ideas out there that can be used and don't involve grouping (allies, which could make for 5 extensions - not all commercially viable, agreed, so let's say 3 - , Dark Ages, maybe a High Tech version, etc). Furthermore, you can still issue lots of compatible vampires which wouldn't make the game cheesy. An argument for Grouping has been that you could avoid making too easy some combos ; an excellent counter-argument has been that new, however improbable, combos could still be found. Some people even took to playing Vic / Pre, so what is impossible ? Of course, all the old decks will be playable, BUT : - we have lots of vampires to chose from in the old groups, even if some more couldn't hurt, so why start all over again with new, non-compatible ones (say, Group 4 Sabbat) ? Why put aside all the background characters ? Is it necessary to include many new vampires (just a few wouldn't justify a new grouping) in the extensions to come ? My answer is : no. I would buy extensions with good cards and not-so-many vampires, I have already enough to chose from (not mentionning Group 1, as some people may not have them). So the only argument for buying new vampires is that they will raise the power curve, as has already been done in Group 3 compared to 1 (or most of 2, who sucked anyway). This means, as I've already said, that the players not buying new extensions will have to face new, bigger vampires, or get their asses kicked. That is, to me, forcing a cosumer to buy-or-leave. Of course, we cannot know for sure there will be a power surge, but then what argument will there be for buying new vampires ? I see no use to them. Do you think many people will want to play Giovanni without Carlotta/Isabel, !Brujah without Jacko, Lasombra without Gratiano/Talley/Monçada, !Ventrue without Lazve, Power Ventrue without Arika, True Brujah without any True Brujah in it ? ;-) Answer : only if more powerful vampires are issued. Nut Carlotta will always stay Carlotta to me (yeah, she's ugly, but does she *censored* !!!). > > > i > > > personally look forward IMMENSELY to the group 0/-1/-2 vampires of the > > > Dark Ages expansion! > > > > Not speaking about groupings, I would look forward to Dark Ages too. But > > this is an entirely different thing !! Can't you see ? Dark Ages would be a > > totally different and mostly uncompatible (except for some neutral cards I > > guess) extension, > > Maybe, maybe not. i used to think like you. Groupings now makes me > think the whole thing could be done in such a way that ALL the > expansions could be compatible. i'ld prefer that. Dark Ages could be compatible with everything in term of Library cards except guns and modern vehicles / weapons, I guess, but vampires would have to be changed. Also, what about the Sabbat / Camarilla cards, including Crusades (there were Princes) ? What about modern Bloodlines ? > by the way, Group 0 wouldn't exist because it would allow > > mixing with Group 1...). > > Sure, what's wrong with that? Well, if it's done in the minus it would be so as not to miw them with existing extensions. Also, why make it compatible with old vampires rather then new ones ? I wouldn't see the point for that. > People who don't want to play Dark Ages won't HAVE > > to, and it would be more like in the RPG : "well, what do we play tonight, > > Dark Ages or modern times ? Of COURSE you can't play you DA Crusader in New > > York 2003 !!!). > > Alright, but you know as well as i do that in the typical RPG session > it is the clash between the ancient and the modern which is half the > fun. Groupings imposes a certain integrity upon that in the card game, > so i'ld have thought it would be welcomed with open arms by the > RPGers. Sorry, I don't understand you point here, care to develop ? > I have absolutely no problem with that, and think it would > > be a smart commercial move, and still respectful to the players. > > Right, so we agree, basically. i knew we would. Sure, can't disagree on everything, can we ? ;-) And we both enjoy playing, and the perspective of new, fun ways to play ; where we don't agree about is what exactly would or wouldn't be fun to play. > What > > wouldn't be is getting into WotC stuff like "buy the new extension or you > > can't play (or at least not as well as the ones who will). Do you get the > > difference in my book ? > > Not really, and sorry if i am being dim ... but i just don't see that > ANY of the old decks i built has been nuked by the new expansion, > rather it seems to me a load of old cards that were gathering dust in > my folders suddenly look awfully tasty, and that this would be true > whether or not i had bought new cards. See arguments above. Some Group 3 clans are not that good, say, many people prefer the Group 1 titled Ventrue (except if they play Obf), so mine wouldn't gather too much dust. But for what is to follow, time will tell... > > > You also need to think about Scott's Big Project of reintegrating ALL > > > the cards into the game, > > > > I don't know about that. What is it about ? Has it been said on the Dev's > > Chat ? > > Not on developer's chat AFAIK, but it's kinda obvious from what he has > done in rehabilitating Rowan Ring, the Monocle and Concealed weapon. > i'm sure he would like to go further, if he could and if the new cards > could be balanced. i will say no more. Hum, inside info for sure... ;-) > > > and think about how that could be done, it > > > seems to me. Meanwhile, i recommend putting less of that tasty crack > > > cocaine into your next glass of pastis ;-) > > > > LOL. I take my pastaga pure with ice, it's quite enough. > > What, not even water? <awestruck silence> What for ???? Ok, most of the time I put water in it. By the way, ever tasted Absynthe ? :-)) > But seriously, I > > don't feel like the one who's been smoking crack here. Or the drug addict. > > But some people here obviously are addicts, and want their dope no matter > > how badly cut. > > i'll confess to being an addict, right enough. i don't accept that i > patronise dodgy pushers. > > > > I don't. > > Cool, so you are sticking to the best-cut dope and you aren't an > addict, right? ;-) LOL. Damn it, I'm unmasked. Orpheus, glad to be able to talk politely and without personnal attacks.

Orpheus wrote: > > > I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any > > > GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever > > > comes out, I will : > > > > > > - stop buying new products > > > - resign from my Princeship > > > > > Or how > > about 12 different Ventrue princes (and in the long run, 8 of those > > with obfuscate, too)? Or... > > I obviously agree, but your statement seems distorded to me. If we don't > need more Ventrue Obf Princes, so let's just not issue any new ones !!! > We can issue Ventrue Princes with Dem, San, Myt, new specials Hmm, okay. Forget obf. Think dom for pre. If, eventually, there were 12 princes with 5-6 levels of in-clans and 42 with mostly (non-obf) out of clans, what would be the point? The first 12 would see play, the other 42 would (mostly) not. Better have (mostly) useful vampires in different groups than that, imo. > And when that runs out, as they will need to sell more cards, there are > still infinite possibilities, as has already been suggested, with > mixeable-or-not werewolves/mages/hunters/wraiths/changelings (in other > words, current allies) extensions, or non-mixeable Dark Ages extension > Non-mixable? Is that non-mixable "crypt", which would make little difference as compared to a grouping rule, or non-mixable buttloads of cards, which would mean "I'm not about to buy another damn CCG"? [The latter might still actually be an advantage for WW though, potentially drawing fans of the other storyteller games, I suppose.] > > It is, however, a question of whether or not the arrival of yag (yet > > another group) is sensibly timed. > > Personally I'd say, that particular line would be pretty much crossed > > by any group 4 vampires in The Anarchs, unless The Anarchs would be > > huge enough a set to have 3+ group 4 vampires per clan that gets any. > > [Effectivly being a DS replacement for CE.] > > I agree, although not to your last point : why reprint DS / AH vampires > just to render them moot right away ??? If they really wanted to issue > new Inner Circles or Euros Princes, the only thing they had to do was > declare DS and AH Group 1, and there would have been no more problem > !!!! So, bad timing, or bad planning ? Bad anyway. Not entirely true. The CE vampires alone would be a rather limited selection for crypt building, so reprinting the group 2 vampires in the starters was important to give new players better chances of playing competetively without chasing down back stock of old sets (easy enough for DS, granted, but not so for AH). > > There should be group 4 Independent/Sabbat vampires eventually - > > several Sabbat decks, for example, would gain too powerful a crypt if > > another Sabbat set with 15 vampires (goup 3) came out. > > Again, moot. A few more Sabbat vampires sprikled over each new edition > will be enough, no need to make a whole set of new ones. > The same would have been true of Camarilla vampires. Aside from that, new players might beg to differ, considering that aside from reprinted starters (and thus, small selections of vampires for only 4 Sabbat clans), no Sabbat set can be considered easily available at this time. > > There'd even have to be group 5 vampires some time down the road, when > > all group 3/4 option (and those are aplenty) are exhausted - it > > doesn't need to happen for a few years yet, and consequently shouldn't > > happen for a few years, but it'll be inevitable in the long run. (At 8 > > month intervals between sets and 4 sets [Anarchs, Sabbat, Independent, > > next Cammie], 32 months would be a quick estimate.) > > And where does it stop ? > Theoretically, not ever. [Practically, it seems doubtful a group 5 Camarilla base set could sell well, but that's a library card problem - there's only so many more master: discipline cards old players need (quick estimate, if I never draw one again it'll be too soon), but a base set that can't support new players would be pointless. Problems of CE squared, basically.] Thomas

Peter D Bakija <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:<B9E8DF0E.9795%PD...@bigplanet.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] The reality is I think WW is brilliant. The thing is crypt cards and library cards are very very different; they have a very different function/utility to players. Here's the thing: IF WW instituted a "Type II" thing where all of a sudden my 15 Jyhad Flesh of Marble's are now kindling I'd freak out. BUT if I have to continually buy group 4, 5, 6 etc. vampires, even buying a vampire identical to older ones but with different names and group numbers, that's fine. WW has to make money, and create *some* incentive for players to buy cards. Remember, nearly EVERY SINGLE card EVER printed is tournament legal. That's impressive. Sure you can't mix a small group together but at this point, I'd guess less than 25% of all Magic cards every printed are legal. We have it good folks. I could even live with Jyhad vamps becoming illegal if they basically reprinted them all with different names and group #'s. Library cards are a different matter though, which is my point. Remember, crypt cards is not a card that you need millions of like some library cards. I mean the absolute most you would ever *need* of a vampire is 12 technically, realistically 2-6 of each vampire is plenty. I think the group thing strikes a perfect balance between encouraging new and old players to buy new cards, from every new set without alienating anyone too much (the people who over-react always over-react) I think in the end the group thing has very little to do with preventing a "Dial-A-Crypt" scenario as I think others have pointed out that such a scenario would not "break" the game.

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DC4DF3C...@removethis.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] OK, so i THINK we agree about this, if i accept your implicit point that new cards may NOT introduce/potentiate new strategies. i'm happy to do that - playtesting doesn't always snip the stinkers. > However, whether it was really an important enough benefit vs. the cost is > another question. The cost being an increase in complexity, correct? i too dislike increased complexity, but in this case think it was necessary. And grouping vampires doesn't solve the analogous problem > in terms of library cards, which to me, it seems like a more pernicious > problem anyway. This is true, potentially. i think in the future, or past, it might be necessary to group library cards. > > > > > You also need to think about Scott's Big Project of reintegrating ALL > > > > the cards into the game, and think about how that could be done, it > > > > seems to me. > > > > > > Didn't see it. > > > > What, the project, or why grouping is good for it? > > I didn't see the project, whatever it is you're talking about. The project is the rehabilitation of the banned/useless list through rewording. Already we have Concealed weapon, Rowan ring, Patagia and Monocle of clarity back. i think this process is likely to continue, if Scott thinks it can be done in a balanced way, but it has implications. i will say no more. > > Fred

On Saturday 02 November 2002 16:26 in message <22fea992.02110...@posting.google.com>, legbiter mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] Yes, I did. Immediately on my return. ;) -- Derek

Peter Muto wrote: > > The reality is I think WW is brilliant. The thing is crypt cards and > library cards are very very different; they have a very different > function/utility to players. Here's the thing: > IF WW instituted a "Type II" thing where all of a sudden my 15 Jyhad > Flesh of Marble's are now kindling I'd freak out. Most of my comments will be at the bottom. I had stop here and point out, however, that you're obviously comparing apples with oranges. No one proposed a "Type II" thing for library cards any more than anyone proposed one for crypt cards. The analogous rules for library cards would be to print group numbers on the library cards - like the crypt cards - and invent some rule about which group-numbered library cards could be used in the same library deck. As they say for vampires, "You can *STILL* use your Flesh of Marbles...this is NOT like Type II, after all...". Enjoy! > BUT if I have to continually buy group 4, 5, 6 etc. vampires, even > buying a vampire identical to older ones but with different names and > group numbers, that's fine. WW has to make money, and create *some* > incentive for players to buy cards. Remember, nearly EVERY SINGLE card > EVER printed is tournament legal. That's impressive. Sure you can't > mix a small group together but at this point, I'd guess less than 25% > of all Magic cards every printed are legal. We have it good folks. I > could even live with Jyhad vamps becoming illegal if they basically > reprinted them all with different names and group #'s. Library cards > are a different matter though, which is my point. > Remember, crypt cards is not a card that you need millions of like > some library cards. I mean the absolute most you would ever *need* of > a vampire is 12 technically, realistically 2-6 of each vampire is > plenty. You've stated a bunch of true facts that miss the central point, though. Variety of cards is power - period. This is every bit as true of library cards as crypt cards. It doesn't matter how many library library cards it takes to make a crypt. What matters is the ability to combine different combinations of cards - for instance Aid from Bats with Carrion Crows. Combinations of library cards are much more likely than crypt cards to confer advantage to longer-time players if the newbies can't get them. Note, I said *if*. Frequent reprinting of key library cards actually tends to mute the advantage quite a bit to prevent too much real advantage. But one can conclude that if the newbie disadvantage is the sole reason for grouping, then you ought to group library cards, too - rather than bothering to reprint any. > I think the group thing strikes a perfect balance between encouraging > new and old players to buy new cards, from every new set without > alienating anyone too much (the people who over-react always > over-react) It's a balance. It's completely subjective to suggest it's a "perfect" one. I guess I'm glad they didn't do it to library cards, though by logic one would certain expect that, too. > I think in the end the group thing has very little to do with > preventing a "Dial-A-Crypt" scenario as I think others have pointed > out that such a scenario would not "break" the game. I'm not really sure what are saying, if not that the group thing is to prevent D-A-C. It is not to sell vampire cards, certainly. They will sell more new vampire cards by allowing the existing players to use new vampires with their current vampires. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] I see. If that's what it is, then I have to say I'm against it. Or at least, I'm against bothering to try and dredge up every old, forgotten card and attempting to do something about it. Every single one of these puppies is another card that has copies out in the card population that don't do what they SAY they do. That's bad! It's one thing to errata overpowered cards. (And let's not kid ourselves, folks. Reprinting is scarcely better than errata.) It's quite another to take an underpowered piece of wallpaper which is doing relatively little harm except serving as a laughing stock and a good example of how NOT to design future cards and turn it into a true negative. This process is turning particularly obnoxious when only slight changes are made to old cards, so it's hard to spot when one comes up in play. We need to start asking ourselves: WHY do this? What is the point supposed to be?!? It's beginning to seem like the game is being gripped by overly rigid and anal retentive motives that can't let a past mistake, however harmless, just lie there. Worse, I feel like the reprints I'm see are getting rather spotty play-testing at times, leading to a worse game rather than a better one - even if you don't count the inaccurate pieces of cardboard in circulation, which I do. Please, let's stop this! Fred

<most of the post snip-ed, will adress only thing about library grouping> > And grouping vampires doesn't solve the analogous problem > > in terms of library cards, which to me, it seems like a more pernicious > > problem anyway. > > This is true, potentially. i think in the future, or past, it might be > necessary to group library cards. Definitely. Take MtG Type 1 for instance. Only like 5 cards from each new set are playable in that format. Slightly more are playable for Type 1.5 , even more for Extended , like 10-15 percent of a new set is playable in Type 2 and lot of the cards are playable in Block Constructed (one big and two small set with common theme both in backstory and card mechanics). <example> If you add 100 new cards to base of 2000+ cards the impact of the 100 new cards is small unless you create power escalation curve. Which is BAD thing (and even Wizards are aware of this as seen in current sets, contrary to what many peoples seems to believe here) </example> I would not like to see that happen in V:TES. (insignificance of new cards or power escalation) I am not saying it is happening now, it's might start to be a problem in distant (or not so distant) future. The Block Constructed type of tournaments are considered to be: 1) most balanced of constructed formats -mainly because it's easier to catch possible broken combos in testing where only 500 cards exists in format compared to 2000+ cards format 2) most popular of constructed formats (and yes Wizards do polls/researchs and DO care about their customers) -because many cards otherwise not playable in other constructed formats are playable here (or biggest percentage of cards you buy are actually playable besides in draft) -new players can compete with old players The extended format (where you can use cards from last 3-4 such cycles) is also very popular (although sometimes not very balanced) The problem is that even in extended cards phase out in T1 void. (because it becomes impossible to balance it) The problem with block constructed is that every two or so years the block changes completely. So is there any similarity between this and current V:TES situation ? I believe it is. Grouping of vampires basically creates kind of 'block constructed' crypt but the catch is that no crypt 'cycle' phase out entirely (you can STILL play with group 1 vampires). It also enables to print new and interesting vampires which do have an impact (and think about how many of new CE vampires would not have an impact if grouping rule didn't existed) Grouping of library cards would open vast posibilities for new cards and abilities which do have an impact and are not broken (and it may become a problem otherwise in (not so) distant future) It would also combine the essence of two most popular MtG constructed formats: - Block Constructed with it's ability to use most of cards you buy in actual game - Extended with it's ability to choose from vast/different deck archetypes It would also solve newcomers vs old players issue: Newbies would be able to compete with old players (because current group block of library/crypt card would not be weaker or stronger than previous one, just different one) Assuming the content of each new group cycle would be interesting old players WOULD buy the set (I definitely bought Camarilla because of cool new cards not because of the power level of cards - I can still win without single new CE card in my crypt or library) and they would still be able to play with their old favourite decks in order to invoke fear in hearts of fellows players. Karol

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<aq35la$c7b$1...@news-reader11.wanadoo.fr>... > Legbiter, while under the influence of pastaga, said : > > > <snip praise of Orpheus, who has always struck ME as a dam' fine > > fellow> > > Thanks for that. Nice to see that some people can disagree with me without > putting me right away in the asshole department. It must be a maturity > thing... Well, thank YOU right back! However, IIUC Derek isn't cross with you because of your views - he is cross with you because he thinks the way you are expressing them is likely to be counterproductive for your chances of getting something done about them, and might even damage the game. i think he is right on the first count, but i do not think the game will be damaged by free speech and open discussion. [ quoted text not captured ] i actually think there is more mileage in retuning the clans than you seem to, and hence i disagree with you that more vampires necesarily means more powerful vampires. Just to give ONE example, the Tremere were obviously meant to have a fight dimension, but it doesn't really work very well because Thaumaturgy takes such a long time to get going, meshes so poorly with the other disciplines in that clan, and is so feeble against virtually any other kind of combat. Oliver Thrace and the one who can ditch tha cards for +1 bleed are a way round that, it seems to me. > > > > > i > > > > personally look forward IMMENSELY to the group 0/-1/-2 vampires of the > > > > Dark Ages expansion! > > > > > > Not speaking about groupings, I would look forward to Dark Ages too. But > > > this is an entirely different thing !! Can't you see ? Dark Ages would > be a > > > totally different and mostly uncompatible (except for some neutral cards > I > > > guess) extension, > > > > Maybe, maybe not. i used to think like you. Groupings now makes me > > think the whole thing could be done in such a way that ALL the > > expansions could be compatible. i'ld prefer that. > > Dark Ages could be compatible with everything in term of Library cards > except guns and modern vehicles / weapons, I guess, but vampires would have > to be changed. Also, what about the Sabbat / Camarilla cards, including > Crusades (there were Princes) ? What about modern Bloodlines ? i think there are several possible ways round this. If i were on the design team [i'm not] i would be thinking about a meta-rule or Big Master card which abolished sect, or possibly a general text on all the vampires: "Dark Age [sectless]". > > > by the way, Group 0 wouldn't exist because it would allow > > > mixing with Group 1...). > > > > Sure, what's wrong with that? > > Well, if it's done in the minus it would be so as not to miw them with > existing extensions. Also, why make it compatible with old vampires rather > then new ones ? I wouldn't see the point for that. i think the idea would be that the old vampires could have known the oldest ones, but the young ones couldn't .... so that would set limits to their ability to form coteries. But then the different coteries can get together for some good ol' anachronistic fun. > > > People who don't want to play Dark Ages won't HAVE > > > to, and it would be more like in the RPG : "well, what do we play > tonight, > > > Dark Ages or modern times ? Of COURSE you can't play you DA Crusader in > New > > > York 2003 !!!). > > > > Alright, but you know as well as i do that in the typical RPG session > > it is the clash between the ancient and the modern which is half the > > fun. Groupings imposes a certain integrity upon that in the card game, > > so i'ld have thought it would be welcomed with open arms by the > > RPGers. > > Sorry, I don't understand you point here, care to develop ? Sure, my point is that the groupings rule, probably unintentionally, essentially gives you a limited pool of vampires from which to pick your coterie [crypt]. Roughly speaking, if you go for group 1/2 you are working with one temporal snap-shot of vampiric society, and if you go for group 2/3 then you are choosing a later one. > > > I have absolutely no problem with that, and think it would > > > be a smart commercial move, and still respectful to the players. > > > > Right, so we agree, basically. i knew we would. > > Sure, can't disagree on everything, can we ? ;-) > And we both enjoy playing, and the perspective of new, fun ways to play ; > where we don't agree about is what exactly would or wouldn't be fun to play. OK, if you say so. But it's still not completely clear to me that we DO disagree. i think you have read something into WW policy which i don't see. > > > What > > > wouldn't be is getting into WotC stuff like "buy the new extension or > you > > > can't play (or at least not as well as the ones who will). Here's the bit with which i agree in principle, and here's the bit that i don't think IS part of WW policy, in fact quite the reverse. Do you get > the > > > difference in my book ? > > > > Not really, and sorry if i am being dim ... but i just don't see that > > ANY of the old decks i built has been nuked by the new expansion, > > rather it seems to me a load of old cards that were gathering dust in > > my folders suddenly look awfully tasty, and that this would be true > > whether or not i had bought new cards. > > See arguments above. Some Group 3 clans are not that good, say, many people > prefer the Group 1 titled Ventrue (except if they play Obf), so mine > wouldn't gather too much dust. But for what is to follow, time will tell... Some group 3 clans are not as good at group 1 at certain things, but they are better at others. eg Ventrue; lots of stealth in group 3, more compatibility with !Ventrue, but less raw voting power. Different, i suggest, but equal - and you need different strategies to bring this out. > > > > > You also need to think about Scott's Big Project of reintegrating ALL > > > > the cards into the game, > > > > > > I don't know about that. What is it about ? Has it been said on the > Dev's > > > Chat ? > > > > Not on developer's chat AFAIK, but it's kinda obvious from what he has > > done in rehabilitating Rowan Ring, the Monocle and Concealed weapon. > > i'm sure he would like to go further, if he could and if the new cards > > could be balanced. i will say no more. > > Hum, inside info for sure... ;-) Well, not exactly. Scott and i had a little private chat at Zopfcon while he was preparing Aidan's grits and i was making coffee. Scott plays his cards close to his chest so i am really not sure whether i am encouraging him to do something which is already underway, or lobbying for him to start doing it. In other words, i am saying no more so as not to create TOO much misinformation. > > > > > and think about how that could be done, it > > > > seems to me. Meanwhile, i recommend putting less of that tasty crack > > > > cocaine into your next glass of pastis ;-) > > > > > > LOL. I take my pastaga pure with ice, it's quite enough. > > > > What, not even water? <awestruck silence> > > What for ???? > > Ok, most of the time I put water in it. By the way, ever tasted Absynthe ? > :-)) No, but i once fell off a Greek mountain after a night of drinking Raki [similar but worse]. Next time we meet i will show you the scar. > > > But seriously, I > > > don't feel like the one who's been smoking crack here. Or the drug > addict. > > > But some people here obviously are addicts, and want their dope no > matter > > > how badly cut. > > > > i'll confess to being an addict, right enough. i don't accept that i > > patronise dodgy pushers. > > > > > > I don't. > > > > Cool, so you are sticking to the best-cut dope and you aren't an > > addict, right? ;-) > > LOL. Damn it, I'm unmasked. > > Orpheus, glad to be able to talk politely and without personnal attacks. No problem, i think you WOULD have a point if grouping did the things you seem to think it does. i, however, see the situation in much less apocalyptic terms and, in fact, have come to regard grouping as a really cool new game mechanic.

Orpheus wrote: > I never said I had no idea. I said I am no playtester, "I am no playtester" is equivalent to "I have no idea", since the only people who have any idea are the ones who are bound by a non-disclosure agreement not to tell you anything about it. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"Arpeges" <ego...@club-internet.fr> wrote in message news:<3dc271a3$0$261$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr>... > Another thing comes in mind. > 15% of Vtes sales are made in France (dixit : WW ceo in an interview in > french mag "Black Lotus", assuming my memory is correct). > > For such a small country, regarding to the huge potential of US, it is a > huge number. > > Let's see what happened some times ago with Magic. This CCG has been the > most sold in France (I'm not considering Pokemon which is not the same > marketing target). Expansions after expansions, WotCoast introduced a nasty > selling system with Type1 and Type2. Tournaments are now almost exclusively > played in Type 2. The definition of Type 2 is : a combination between the > last 3 or 4 expansions sold in store. > > By this way, regarding the frequency of new expansions apparition, players > wanting to play in tournaments are OBLIGED to buy new expansions to stay at > the level. > > NOTHING can let us think such a commercial way will NOT be attempted when we > will have groupe 4, 5, 6, which could occur, cause Vtes is well-sold around > the world (dixit WW ceo...). > > As it is well-sold, it must be encouraged that way, taken care of. That is > what the game brainers are doing (thank you LSJ...) by being there to answer > to players, to introduce a community aspect in the game etc... But the > commercial and marketing departments, in order to have the game grow, need > to improve the sales. This is called the Raisonnement Marginal in economy > (in french. Dunno the translation. Will never work in US -( ). > > SO, it is POSSIBLE, in few years, as the game will sales better again, that, > in order to sale it better, such a "magic-style" tournament rule appears, > letting us play only with some group vampires. In this case, we will be > OBLIGED to buy expansions. Technically, we wouldn't... we'd be forced to purchase the new cards for the vampires... library cards have no markings... this isn't a HUGE deal, as we could always just trade for 12 vampires from someone else. > As nothing of this could merely happen if no other group 5 and more are > sold, I think it is clever to tell WW that some people want to buy > expansions, merely if they are well designed like those ones we have got for > the moment, but don't want to be obliged to buy them. > > One more time again, I'm just talking about a correlation to Orpheus' > reflexion, and I thought people should think of that. > > Vtes won't live forever if it doesn't succeed in acquiring new players. What does grouping have to do with aquiring new players? > Let's think what are the ways a CCG company has got to get them, and for > that, look at the competitors' marketing actions, as companies often copy on > each other. ~SV

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote in message news:<20021102145923...@mb-mc.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Well, that's not true... If each of those extra vampires have very little continuity with other vampires, so be it. But if we reach the DAV status, that's a bit much. But to be honest, I think there needs to be more (larger capacity) vampires of any given clan. It makes it possible to work some combos (like, as for now, there are NO Malkavians with necromancy. Not fair.). ~SV

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<apre0s$2io$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr>... > Hello all, > > I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out in > the Anarchs. Assured huh? > Whether this is true or not isn't the point here (I'm not a playtester so > can't be sure ; if I was I wouldn't speak about it yet). Then why bring it up? > If you want to > discuss it start a new thread. A few Group 4 Camarilla vampires isn't > dramatical, it's just useless (they just re-released group 2 Cammies, and > now you can't mix them anymore with the enw vampires ?!). They did that so newbies could have access to them. > But it needs to > STOP NOW !!! Please provide reasons for why you're posting something that's essentially flame bait. As it is, this post resembles, closely, a troll. If so, I'll admit, I'm troll bait. > The reason why I'm launching this now and not waiting for Anarchs is that I > guess game conception needs time, and that by then the new extension will > already be thought over. So I'm launching an ultimatum and a petition HERE > and NOW : > > I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any > GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever comes > out, I will : > > - stop buying new products > - resign from my Princeship What about independent vampires? So if any G4 Indies come out you'll quit too? I'd like to know. Its important. > I ask EVERYBODY who shares these feelings to add a "me too" to this thread. Come now, that's bad nettiquette. This is looking more and more like a troll... > If White Wolf sees that a product designed to "force us to buy" has the > opposite effect, I think and hope that they will stop the insanity NOW. Please provide support of your arguements. > Up > until now they have heeded our thoughts and needs, more or less, so we have > to show them what we want, or rather what we DON'T WANT !!! > > I must say that I still love this game (just wait to see my new site...) Good. >, am > still motivated to continue my job of promoting it, and for now will still > encourage people to buy new extensions. But I also know what will the > difference in sales will be the day when I won't. Or, for that matter, the > day when any of my players will see Group 5 Cammies or Group 4 Sabbat. > > It's up to us, guys, let's show the businessmen what we want. What do you want? Why do you want it? > Sincerely yours, and more than a little pissed off, Any one more than a little pissed off about a game needs to take a walk in the park, clear your head and not think about card combos... It helps me out alot from time to time. Maybe you should try it? ~SV

> - Now, Group 4 Sabbat and Indies would mean : all your old Sabbatics and > Indies are to be thrown away and replaced, OR there is no interest in buying > new vampires. It would stink, and there is no valid reason to this that I > can see. Same can be said with Group 5, which would render obsolete all the > new vampires that just came out. That, for me, would be the proof of the > "screw you" politics. And PLEASE don't tell me that old vampires would still > be tournament legal, we all know where it will end if we start on that road Um... No I'm afraid I don't know where that will lead... Could you please elaborate with careful reasoning. ~SV

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DC5CFB5...@removethis.com>... > legbiter wrote: > > > > The project is the rehabilitation of the banned/useless list through > > rewording. Already we have Concealed weapon, Rowan ring, Patagia and > > Monocle of clarity back. > > I see. If that's what it is, then I have to say I'm against it. Or at > least, I'm against bothering to try and dredge up every old, forgotten > card and attempting to do something about it. Every single one of these > puppies is another card that has copies out in the card population that > don't do what they SAY they do. That's bad! Why? If it's an entirely useless card (Oxford University for example), people aren't using the old copies anyway. When they reprint it, it's just like they had printed a new card. It ALSO has the advantage of already being in circulation so people can use the old copies as well as the new copies (just have to remember what it does or use a marker on it or something). > It's quite another to > take an underpowered piece of wallpaper which is doing relatively little > harm except serving as a laughing stock and a good example of how NOT to > design future cards and turn it into a true negative. How is it a "true negative" that Rowan Ring is a legal card again? Or that Oxford University actually has a place in some decks now? > Worse, I feel like the reprints I'm see are getting rather spotty play- > testing at times, leading to a worse game rather than a better one Examples? -Snapcase

legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.0211...@posting.google.com>... > Though i accept the right to protest, i STILL find this particular > spat bewildering. You can still play all your old decks. If you want, > you can spice them up with some of your old cards that you wouldn't > otherwise have played. People who invest in CE won't necessarily be > able to make better decks than you can, because of grouping. So you Personally, the grouping rule irritates me because I'm left with a choice of either not using my old vampires, or not buying new vampires. You can't do both, unless you want to maintain two separate collections of vampires that you can't mix, which seems a bit ridiculous to me. End result? White Wolf has told me they don't want me as a customer, and I am willing to cooperate with them. What is bewildering about people being mad about WW telling them they can't play with the new toys unless they put away their old toys? Just because you really like the old toys shouldn't mean you're excluded from everything that will come out from now on. JSpektr

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote in message news:<20021102145923...@mb-mc.aol.com>... > orph...@wanadoo.fr writes: > > > I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any > >GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever comes > >out, I will : > > >- stop buying new products > >- resign from my Princeship > > Grouping is a brilliant idea, the best fix for a hard problem. Do you know what other solutions there were for fixing it? It would seem to me that claiming it is best, when it's the only solution that's been presented, is a bit excessive. For all we know, there were dozens of solutions that were much better than grouping. Just because you don't know what those solutions are, doesn't mean they don't exist. > There's no way I could honestly suggest new players start > the game without grouping (unless they're very rich). I You could direct them to eBay, where they can get all the Jyhad and Dark Soveriegns vampires they could possibly want for around $40, along with tons of staple cards. Or you could do like we do, and give away vampires and commons to new players. I have a huge box of commons, uncommons and vampires that I let all our new players go through and take what they want. Seems like they don't have to be very rich at all to play without grouping. > will continue to enthusiastically support V:tES as long as > WW continues with it's excellent work at improving > balance and playability with great ideas like grouping. From my perspective, grouping reduces playability. It reduces the number of combinations of vampires that can go into a crypt, and personally, I don't see the claimed benefits that are supposed to offset this huge limitation. Many people are ignoring the grouping rules, and so far none of them report any problems. That may be evidence that White Wolf was simply incorrect in their assumptions that grouping was necessary. > I'll even support it more enthusiastically by pointing out > to newbies that grouping is making suitcases quit > because they can't lord it over the newbies with their > collections. I'll probably buy more too. I think people with large collections might be quitting because WW has told them they can't use their old cards with the new cards. Their motivation for buying new cards is gone, and for some people the game stops being fun when they stop getting new cards. Maybe you do have old players that "lord it over newbies" but we don't here, and I'm not even sure how having lots of rares gives them that much of an advantage. Rares in VTES make trick decks easier, but in my experience it rarely makes them better than a focused deck made from commons. > > Currently there's about 15 vamps per clan per group. > That's exactly where it should stay. If any group goes > substantially over this the game is in serious trouble. Why? What kind of trouble would that create? JSpektr

On Monday 04 November 2002 13:40 in message <196f2577.02110...@posting.google.com>, jspektr mumbled something about: > legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message > news:<22fea992.0211...@posting.google.com>... > >> Though i accept the right to protest, i STILL find this particular >> spat bewildering. You can still play all your old decks. If you want, >> you can spice them up with some of your old cards that you wouldn't >> otherwise have played. People who invest in CE won't necessarily be >> able to make better decks than you can, because of grouping. So you > > Personally, the grouping rule irritates me because I'm left with a > choice of either not using my old vampires, or not buying new > vampires. You can't do both, unless you want to maintain two separate > collections of vampires that you can't mix, which seems a bit > ridiculous to me. End result? White Wolf has told me they don't want > me as a customer, and I am willing to cooperate with them. This is a blatant misstatement of the facts. You can use the old vampires. Or the new. Just not both AT THE SAME TIME. You can maintain an "old" crypt for a deck, and a "new" crypt for the same deck. Depending on which vampires you choose to include, the focus of the deck could change entirely. End result? Much ado about nothing. > What is bewildering about people being mad about WW telling them they > can't play with the new toys unless they put away their old toys? Just Because that's not what WW told you. That's just what you WANT WW to have told you, so you can have a good old foot-stamping tantrum over your toys. But they didn't. > because you really like the old toys shouldn't mean you're excluded > from everything that will come out from now on. But you're not. Tension in the Ranks works great with Anvil and Don Cruez. You can still bring Didi, Ozmo, Gilbert, and Mariel to a tournament and play the good old OBF/DOM stealth-bleed bonanza. I'm willing to bet that none of the library cards in the new set say "Playable only by a group 3+ vampire." -- Derek

On Monday 04 November 2002 14:18 in message <196f2577.02110...@posting.google.com>, jspektr mumbled something about: > curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote in message > news:<20021102145923...@mb-mc.aol.com>... >> >> Grouping is a brilliant idea, the best fix for a hard problem. > > For all we know, there were dozens of solutions that were much better > than grouping. Just because you don't know what those solutions are, > doesn't mean they don't exist. However, I note that you haven't come up with one yet, weren't able to at the time, and it's no longer relevant since grouping IS here and it's now a dead subject. Grouping was a good solution. Maybe not the best, but it didn't suck. >> There's no way I could honestly suggest new players start >> the game without grouping (unless they're very rich). I > > You could direct them to eBay, where they can get all the Jyhad and > Dark Soveriegns vampires they could possibly want for around $40, > along with tons of staple cards. This won't help at all when I haul out my copies of Artemis, Olivia, and other Sabbat-only vampires. Not to mention that not everyone has access to the Internet, not everyone has access to eBay, and not everyone is willing to purchase from eBay. > Or you could do like we do, and give away vampires and commons to new > players. I have a huge box of commons, uncommons and vampires that I > let all our new players go through and take what they want. Seems like > they don't have to be very rich at all to play without grouping. Not everyone has a playgroup with plenty of vampires and commons to give away. It shouldn't be a criteria that you HAVE to get freebies from someone (see "twinked up in EQ") in order to play. >> will continue to enthusiastically support V:tES as long as >> WW continues with it's excellent work at improving >> balance and playability with great ideas like grouping. > > From my perspective, grouping reduces playability. It reduces the Your perspective as a new player who hasn't seen the abominations that can be produced by someone who really wants to put effort into it, you mean? > number of combinations of vampires that can go into a crypt, and > personally, I don't see the claimed benefits that are supposed to > offset this huge limitation. Many people are ignoring the grouping What, you mean the ones where a new player doesn't have to compete with a dial-a-crypt of the midrange vamps, including a bunch that he's never seen before? I doubt anyone, yourself especially, has REALLY taken a good look at the problem. I don't think it's so much the weenie hordes being a problem as it is the mid-range guys, personally. > rules, and so far none of them report any problems. That may be > evidence that White Wolf was simply incorrect in their assumptions > that grouping was necessary. Daniel Figuerido is the only person I've seen openly state that he's ignoring the grouping rules. I submit that the opinion of one playgroup is insufficient "evidence" for anything. >> I'll even support it more enthusiastically by pointing out >> to newbies that grouping is making suitcases quit >> because they can't lord it over the newbies with their >> collections. I'll probably buy more too. > > I think people with large collections might be quitting because WW has > told them they can't use their old cards with the new cards. Their I think you're wrong. As stated in a previous message, that's not what WW has told them at all, and anyone who quits for those reasons has not really thought about things at all. > motivation for buying new cards is gone, and for some people the game > stops being fun when they stop getting new cards. Maybe you do have I think the game is 8 years old, and a set was just released that didn't have that many new cards for veterans to purchase. No, I imagine they AREN'T buying that much of the new set. It wasn't aimed at them, unlike the previous THREE. I think a lot of veterans are having Real Life(tm) overtake them. This game is 8 years old, and appealed mostly to college students anyway at its peak. This makes the average player age something above 25. Two of our local players have brand-new children. They're out of the picture for the foreseeable future. Three just got married. So much for THAT free time. Two have moved away recently. One is about to. None of this was caused by the Camarilla Edition, and absolutely none of it was caused by the grouping rules. > old players that "lord it over newbies" but we don't here, and I'm not > even sure how having lots of rares gives them that much of an > advantage. Rares in VTES make trick decks easier, but in my experience > it rarely makes them better than a focused deck made from commons. Having 40 Freak Drives can be a pretty damn solid advantage. >> Currently there's about 15 vamps per clan per group. >> That's exactly where it should stay. If any group goes >> substantially over this the game is in serious trouble. > > Why? What kind of trouble would that create? When the optimal crypt for a given deck type includes vampires from hard-to-get previous expansions, it's pretty damn easy to see that this screws new players with no access to those same hard-to-get previous expansions. eBay is not the answer, and never will be. -- Derek

jspektr wrote: > > curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote in message > news:<20021102145923...@mb-mc.aol.com>... > > There's no way I could honestly suggest new players start > > the game without grouping (unless they're very rich). I > > You could direct them to eBay, where they can get all the Jyhad and > Dark Soveriegns vampires they could possibly want for around $40, > along with tons of staple cards. > Now picture new player X wanting to play a Sabbat clan. Won't she be happy when group 4 Sabbat vampires arrive and she doesn't need to chase down the in some cases dearly expensive group 2 ones? Thomas

In article <196f2577.02110...@posting.google.com>, jspektr <jsp...@sprynet.com> wrote: >For all we know, there were dozens of solutions that were much better >than grouping. Just because you don't know what those solutions are, >doesn't mean they don't exist. Can you come up with one that's better? Because I can't, and I'm not really dim, local evidence notwithstanding. >Or you could do like we do, and give away vampires and commons to new >players. I have a huge box of commons, uncommons and vampires that I >let all our new players go through and take what they want. Seems like >they don't have to be very rich at all to play without grouping. that's not a sustainable model -- people will run out of overflow in time, and not everyone has a local cardlord with overflow bins in local reach. >From my perspective, grouping reduces playability. It reduces the >number of combinations of vampires that can go into a crypt, and I have to point out that 'not increasing combinations' != 'reducing the number of combinations'. You have just as many group 1 + 2 combos as you did before, and in addition you have 2 + 3 combos. So you have MORE combinations, not FEWER. >personally, I don't see the claimed benefits that are supposed to >offset this huge limitation. Many people are ignoring the grouping >rules, and so far none of them report any problems. That may be >evidence that White Wolf was simply incorrect in their assumptions >that grouping was necessary. The grouping rule is forward-looking, in that it addresses a problem caused not by CE, but by future expansions. It's an accumulative thing -- I wouldn't expect any problems caused by groups 1+2+3, but as group 3 expands, or groups 4, 5, and 6 appear, I would definitely expect there to be trouble with ignoring grouping. >I think people with large collections might be quitting because WW has >told them they can't use their old cards with the new cards. Their >motivation for buying new cards is gone, and for some people the game >stops being fun when they stop getting new cards. Hm. I'm pretty sure I can use all the new CE library cards with my old crypt, and all my old cards with my new crypt. I can't use a small proportion of my old cards simultaneously with a small proportion of my new cards. That's not a huge restriction for me. >> Currently there's about 15 vamps per clan per group. >> That's exactly where it should stay. If any group goes >> substantially over this the game is in serious trouble. > >Why? What kind of trouble would that create? - Too much cross-clan overlap leading to easily made bizarro discipline combos or - Too many useful mid-caps with in-clan superiors, making crypt selection for, say, a canonical ANI/FOR/CHI ravnos deck trivial or - Too many weenies, making mono-<foo> trivial Some of these problems were (are?) already extant, to hear some players tell it. gomi -- Never be the first to believe Never be the last to deceive

snap...@eudoramail.com (Snapcase) wrote in message news:<9945f27a.02110...@posting.google.com>... > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DC5CFB5...@removethis.com>... > > > legbiter wrote: > > > > > > The project is the rehabilitation of the banned/useless list through > > > rewording. Already we have Concealed weapon, Rowan ring, Patagia and > > > Monocle of clarity back. > > > > I see. If that's what it is, then I have to say I'm against it. Or at > > least, I'm against bothering to try and dredge up every old, forgotten > > card and attempting to do something about it. Every single one of these > > puppies is another card that has copies out in the card population that > > don't do what they SAY they do. That's bad! > > Why? If it's an entirely useless card (Oxford University for > example), people aren't using the old copies anyway. When they > reprint it, it's just like they had printed a new card. It ALSO has > the advantage of already being in circulation so people can use the > old copies as well as the new copies (just have to remember what it > does or use a marker on it or something). > > > It's quite another to > > take an underpowered piece of wallpaper which is doing relatively little > > harm except serving as a laughing stock and a good example of how NOT to > > design future cards and turn it into a true negative. > > How is it a "true negative" that Rowan Ring is a legal card again? Or > that Oxford University actually has a place in some decks now? > > > Worse, I feel like the reprints I'm see are getting rather spotty play- > > testing at times, leading to a worse game rather than a better one > > Examples? > > -Snapcase If they want to do it, they should do it right then. Almost all the useless cards from DS and AH got revamped, some evem became very good, like oxford and Aquired Ventrue Assets. But some, they just ignored.. If you want to ignore a wallpaper card, great! It愀 wallpaper anyway, but why fiz all the other ones and REPRINT wallpaper trash like the Grand Temple of Set exactly like it was...

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<px.dnUzkBo_...@News.GigaNews.Com>... > On Monday 04 November 2002 14:18 in message > <196f2577.02110...@posting.google.com>, jspektr mumbled > something about: > > > curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote in message > > news:<20021102145923...@mb-mc.aol.com>... > >> > >> Grouping is a brilliant idea, the best fix for a hard problem. > > > > For all we know, there were dozens of solutions that were much better > > than grouping. Just because you don't know what those solutions are, > > doesn't mean they don't exist. > > However, I note that you haven't come up with one yet, weren't able to at > the time, and it's no longer relevant since grouping IS here and it's now a > dead subject. I never said I had a better answer. I was merely pointing out that claiming the current answer is the BEST answer is a bit foolish without the presence of other answers to compare it to. Personally, I would have reprinted the majority of the old Jyhad, Dark Sovereigns, and Ancient Hearts vampires, and possibly some of the unreprinted Sabbat vampires as well. That would solve the problem of new players not being able to get their hands on the old vampires. For players wanting new vampires, I would have "updated" some of the vampires, especially the old Jyhad ones of dubious worth, with more disciplines or new specials. If the old vampire was really bad, the capacity could stay the same, and the new scheme could be applied. If the old vampire wasn't bad, the new version could have a higher capacity. Then instead of grouping, a new rule that said the new versions of vampires did not replace the old ones, but still contested them, could be created. The effect would be to get a new version of, say, Raven, but one that could NOT be played at the same time as the old Raven, because they would contest each other. The options would be increased, because you could play either version of the vampire, but you could still mix and match vampires from all editions of the game. But that's just off the top of my head. It seems to me that with serious thought, several alternatives that are at least as good as, if not better than, the grouping rule could be created. Thus, it also seems likely that the grouping rule is not necessarily the best possible answer. > > You could direct them to eBay, where they can get all the Jyhad and > > Dark Soveriegns vampires they could possibly want for around $40, > > along with tons of staple cards. > > This won't help at all when I haul out my copies of Artemis, Olivia, and > other Sabbat-only vampires. You might want to check eBay then, before you make claims. Getting Sabbat only vampires is quite easy, and often for relatively low prices. I've picked up unreprinted Sabbat vamps for $1 each or less. More expensive than buying them in packs, maybe, but hardly prohibitive. And how does this address the problem? We were discussing new players not being able to get old vampires, which necessitates the grouping rule. How does the grouping rule protect them from not having unreprinted Sabbat vampires? Currently, it has absolutely no effect on their ability to get a copy of Olivia, or any other unreprinted card. > > Or you could do like we do, and give away vampires and commons to new > > players. I have a huge box of commons, uncommons and vampires that I > > let all our new players go through and take what they want. Seems like > > they don't have to be very rich at all to play without grouping. > > Not everyone has a playgroup with plenty of vampires and commons to give > away. It shouldn't be a criteria that you HAVE to get freebies from > someone (see "twinked up in EQ") in order to play. If they have a playgroup without extra old cards around, then what difference does grouping make? Such a group would be just as well off without it. > > >> will continue to enthusiastically support V:tES as long as > >> WW continues with it's excellent work at improving > >> balance and playability with great ideas like grouping. > > > > From my perspective, grouping reduces playability. It reduces the > > Your perspective as a new player who hasn't seen the abominations that can > be produced by someone who really wants to put effort into it, you mean? Nope. Seen those "abominations." Not impressed. > > number of combinations of vampires that can go into a crypt, and > > personally, I don't see the claimed benefits that are supposed to > > offset this huge limitation. Many people are ignoring the grouping > > What, you mean the ones where a new player doesn't have to compete with a > dial-a-crypt of the midrange vamps, including a bunch that he's never seen > before? I doubt anyone, yourself especially, has REALLY taken a good look > at the problem. I don't think it's so much the weenie hordes being a > problem as it is the mid-range guys, personally. I've taken a pretty good look at it. Don't see the problem. IF Cam had contained a bunch of 7-cap Ventrue princes with all three clan disciplines at superior, then I'd agree with you. Or 2 more Gangrel that were clones of Raven. Or something like that. But from what I've seen of Cam, the vampires rather conspicuously don't duplicate the old VTES mid caps, so it doesn't seem to be a problem. Please give me an example of a combo of type 1 and type 3 midcaps that would cause a horrible imbalance in the game. Really, I'd like to know. I'm perfectly willing to accept that there's something I'm not seeing here, but you're going to have to provide examples and proof, not just rhetoric. > > > rules, and so far none of them report any problems. That may be > > evidence that White Wolf was simply incorrect in their assumptions > > that grouping was necessary. > > Daniel Figuerido is the only person I've seen openly state that he's > ignoring the grouping rules. I submit that the opinion of one playgroup is > insufficient "evidence" for anything. Our group has ignored it from day 1. No problems so far. > > >> I'll even support it more enthusiastically by pointing out > >> to newbies that grouping is making suitcases quit > >> because they can't lord it over the newbies with their > >> collections. I'll probably buy more too. > > > > I think people with large collections might be quitting because WW has > > told them they can't use their old cards with the new cards. Their > > I think you're wrong. As stated in a previous message, that's not what WW > has told them at all, and anyone who quits for those reasons has not really > thought about things at all. I thought you might say something like that. You cannot use old vampires with new vampires. Please explain how that is NOT "can't use their old cards with the new cards." > > old players that "lord it over newbies" but we don't here, and I'm not > > even sure how having lots of rares gives them that much of an > > advantage. Rares in VTES make trick decks easier, but in my experience > > it rarely makes them better than a focused deck made from commons. > > Having 40 Freak Drives can be a pretty damn solid advantage. How? A deck with 40 Freak Drives is going to be amusing, but how would it win? What is it possibly going to do with those Freak Drives that is better than 40 other cards? > > >> Currently there's about 15 vamps per clan per group. > >> That's exactly where it should stay. If any group goes > >> substantially over this the game is in serious trouble. > > > > Why? What kind of trouble would that create? > > When the optimal crypt for a given deck type includes vampires from > hard-to-get previous expansions, it's pretty damn easy to see that this > screws new players with no access to those same hard-to-get previous > expansions. eBay is not the answer, and never will be. I think that's irrelevant to the grouping rules. Simply reprint the old, hard to get vampires, and create new ones that don't stack with old ones in abusive ways. JSpektr

go...@panix.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote in message news:<aq6nvk$3oh$1...@panix2.panix.com>... > In article <196f2577.02110...@posting.google.com>, > jspektr <jsp...@sprynet.com> wrote: Most snipped, because the same statements were replied to in another post. > >> Currently there's about 15 vamps per clan per group. > >> That's exactly where it should stay. If any group goes > >> substantially over this the game is in serious trouble. > > > >Why? What kind of trouble would that create? > > - Too much cross-clan overlap leading to easily made bizarro discipline > combos So? I think having say, another couple of vampires with Animalism Dominate would be interesting, and expand the game, not destroy it. How does the ability to have bizarre combinations of disciplines hurt the game? > or > > - Too many useful mid-caps with in-clan superiors, making crypt selection > for, say, a canonical ANI/FOR/CHI ravnos deck trivial Simply don't make new vampires with those stats. Pretty easy problem to avoid, really. > or > > - Too many weenies, making mono-<foo> trivial See previous answer. Don't print new small caps, reprint old ones. JSpektr

"> > - Now, Group 4 Sabbat and Indies would mean : all your old Sabbatics and > > Indies are to be thrown away and replaced, OR there is no interest in buying > > new vampires. It would stink, and there is no valid reason to this that I > > can see. Same can be said with Group 5, which would render obsolete all the > > new vampires that just came out. That, for me, would be the proof of the > > "screw you" politics. And PLEASE don't tell me that old vampires would still > > be tournament legal, we all know where it will end if we start on that road > > Um... No I'm afraid I don't know where that will lead... > > Could you please elaborate with careful reasoning. I will try it, but briefly. As my good friend Derek would say, "Real Life, TM" is taking its toll. I will not have anymore the time, the energy or the will to spend so much time trying to explain my PoV to people who are stuck in this (this discussion is getting more sterile than a Blood Brother), and much less taking personnal attacks (nothing for you here). Anyway I'll be away for 10 days, so don't nobody think I'm cowarding here. I know some people can take the arguments further (go Spektr !!) and maybe, just maybe, make this worth anything. Where does it lead IMNSHO ? - to "Type" tournaments à-la-Magic, sooner or later. - to more and more people playing houserules, if only the "we ignore groups" one - to old, or not-so-old players leaving the game because they will feel cheated. - in the worst hypothesis and if people let it happen, to library grouping. Yes, you can make many different decks with different groupings. But why the need ? Someone said he would like whole bunch of new, yet non-compatible Assamites ?! Well, they won't change their main disciplines, and they COULD use some help, but that can be done with just a few more well-placed vampires, and of course cards. Same with any Sabbat or Indie, not to mention Bloodlines (1 or 2 more of each couldn't hurt, especially in the less-favored clans). But WHY in Caine's sake start a collection anew when you already enjoy playing the vampires out there ? At worst, they can be errated and re-issued, and a few more with different combos can only do them good (still much less choice in Sabbat than Indie / Cama, and some Indie Clans really don't have so many playable vampires - do check the Giovanni, for example ; they're one of my favourite Clans, but there are more than a few vampires I'll NEVER play ! - ). And I CAN'T believe some of you actually would be in favor of library grouping too !!! With Magic, it lead to many old players leaving the game, while all the new ones were newbies with an average of 13 years old (I'm converting more and more of them to Jyhad as they grow up). I've never played Magic myself, but speaking with ex-players, the main argument was always that they got tired of being taken for idiots and sqeezed out of their money by every means possible, especially tournament type rules. It won't, of course, come to this if WW know where to stop. But why should they, when many players here show that they would buy anything, no matter what ? Perhaps because many people who don't write here will react otherwise, and they will see it soon enough. It is also interesting to see how the reactions coming from Americans and europeans (english being apparently somewhere in the middle) is quite drastically different. I don't have enough data to really be sure of anything, but it does seem to me that "we" are more concerned with the playing part, while US seem more concerned about collecting and getting new cards no matter what, or accepting whatever will be given to them (I may, of course be wrong, it is my impression only, so don't get all started up). Anyway, I am SURE that the player reactions here are very different from US ones, and that the sales will show quite efficiently the displeasure of the players should this group thing go to far. Yours, and away, Orpheus

"Akaisuisei" <sam-ga...@libero.it> wrote in message news:<ecDw9.104544$RO.26...@twister1.libero.it>... > Ok, here's my thought too: > > 1 - I think that "grouping" vamps was a disgusting commercial choice since > the born of CE > 2 - We usually shun that stupid rule during our league here in Bologna, and > I personally refused to play according to it in any > tournament...sadly...just skipping tournaments. > 3 - Orpheus is definitely right ! I think that to ignore the rule "en > masse" will be a good choice, but I'm really, (REALLY), thinking to give-up > any further buying too if WW will do the same disgusting choices previosly > done by Wizards of The Coast with "Magic". > 4 - Go On Orpheus ! > > Akaisuisei Grouping vamps was a stupid idea, IMO. This, added to the layout changes in CE, stopped me and my playgroup from buying any CE. Still looking for Sabbat War, Final Nights and Bloodlines, however...

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<apre0s$2io$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr>... > I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any > GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever comes > out, I will : > > - stop buying new products > - resign from my Princeship Oh no! The French are threatening to surrender! -Mongrel

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<aq0ilo$790$1...@news-reader11.wanadoo.fr>... > > > I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out > > > in the Anarchs. > Ok, for the last time : > I AM NOT SURE OF ANYTHING ABOUT SUCH A RELEASE, BUT THINK IT HAS TO BE > DISCUSSED NOW ANYWAY. It's kind of bad form to start your thread with such a statement then. It makes it seem like you have some kind of "inside information" when you're really guessing just as much as the rest of us. > Sorry for shouting, but maybe this way everyone will see it and stop asking > the same questions. For the details see numerous previous answers. I missed your explanation of such, and was responding to your first post. > Yes, they do. Some others are great and seen at every tournament, though, > like Arika, Muaziz, Donal etc. And as I've already said, if they sucked so > much, why make them Group 2 and reprint them ? As far as I can tell, they were gonna be group 2 whether they reprinted them or not. All reprinting does is get some more copies into circulation. It gives new players a chance to get Donal and Constanza and Theo and Volker all in the same starter so they can make a Eurobrujah deck if they want. > Because WW was afraid of the players reaction and preferred to fuck them in > the ass later, but with more vaseline ?? Huh? How is making some of the somewhat-harder-to-get vamps from DS and AH available in a starter "fucking players in the ass"? I wasn't upset to get extra copies of Donal and Arika, were you? > Sure. But not with the hundreds of Group 2 vampires that have been printed > in the last 3 years, and the latest only what, 6, 9 months ago ? So? You play them with the group 3 vamps. Did you have some master plan to combine the anarch set toreador into a bloodlines deck or something? > Same here, because they were compatible to most of the vampires I'd bought > (I joined the game with SW). A good portion of my vamps are group 1, and it didn't upset me in the slightest. I didn't have to buy any new vamps if I didn't want to. > Even if I understand and sort of approve Group > 3, I can also understand why people who had all the vampires in Group 1 > could be pissed off by this. But the more Groups come, the worts the > situation will become, is all I'm saying. Speaking as someone who has all the vampires in Group 1, I was very happy with the grouping rule. > Ok, if you have to ask I can't do anything for you. Now, if you really want > to know, read what people have written on this thread, newsgroup etc. If you > still don't see the big deal, I'll have to ask you your monthly income. No, I've heard the arguments. They have failed to convince me that this is anything other than a "good idea". How is my monthly income relevant? I didn't buy all the group 3 vampires. I'm not going to buy all the group 4 vampires. I'm going to do what most people do: buy some, trade for what I like. > THAT is a lost case. They have made this decision, once again, without > asking anyone, and it may have been a mistake or not. I'm getting used to > the new layout, but the thing I cannot get used to is having old and new > vampires side by side and not looking like they belong in the same game, not > mentionning the same Clan. Well, lost cause or not, I'm still putting the idea forth. You obviously felt the grouping protest wasn't a lost cause. I agree that the new backgrounds don't make a whole lot of sense. With the exception of the Tremere background, the old backgrounds were pretty good. While I'm not going to guess why they were changed, they did make it less easy to tell that two side-by-side vampires are from the same clan. Any time we can preserve consistency, and increase ease of recognition, I think we should do it. > And Masters layout suck. But I don't think WW > will ever turn from this decision. Hell, it will even be an argument to sell > more Group 4 Sabbat, like "See, they have the new layout !!!". I can't talk from a graphic design standpoint (I don't have the background). I much prefer the layout of the original Sabbat set to the other sets before or since. It had everything- discipline icons on the library cards, the type size was easier to read than the current one, the inks were nice and vivid. I don't particularly like the icon bar; it introduces more empty space on many cards. Another annoyance is the Ultra Pro hologram covering up important icons when sleeved. The layout, to me, was much larger of an issue than the grouping rule. Is it a "different game" because of the different layout? No. But I just prefer the look and feel of the old layout and will use those cards over their newer counterparts when I can. -Snapcase

> Oh no! The French are threatening to surrender! > > -Mongrel LOL NEVER SURRENDER !!! FIGHT UNTIL THE END !!! But only for a cause we (I) believe in. Frenchmen will always be ready to make a revolution and look in the teeth at the mouth of the Establishment Horse. Well, I hope. Speaking of horse, gotta go. Thanks for making me laugh, didn't happen much in this thread. Orpheus

jsp...@sprynet.com writes: >> Grouping is a brilliant idea, the best fix for a hard problem. >Do you know what other solutions there were for fixing it? It would >seem to me that claiming it is best, when it's the only solution >that's been presented, is a bit excessive. I've been thinking of the escalation due to vampire expansion since the first time I played against a DS-enhanced deck in, oh, 1996. Crypt choice limitations are a fundamental part of the game and the only way to keep them is to limit the set of vamps you can choose from. The only other solution I ever thought of was to print no new vamps - obviously inferior. >For all we know, there were dozens of solutions that were much better >than grouping. Just because you don't know what those solutions are, >doesn't mean they don't exist. If you've got a proposal, put it on the table. >> There's no way I could honestly suggest new players start >> the game without grouping (unless they're very rich). I >You could direct them to eBay, where they can get all the Jyhad and >Dark Soveriegns vampires they could possibly want for around $40, >along with tons of staple cards. Well, prices are climbing. But the real problem is that without grouping, they must *keep* buying in the future to keep up. It's not right to force people onto that treadmill. >From my perspective, grouping reduces playability. It reduces the >number of combinations of vampires that can go into a crypt, No, not if you want competitive crypts. Without grouping, many viable vampires and crypts are lost because they can't compete with the supercharged everybody-at-superior-for-minimum-cost crypts. >and >personally, I don't see the claimed benefits that are supposed to >offset this huge limitation. Uck. Try playing a crypt from a limited set against an unlimited set. Or look at the wear marks on your vampires - mine are becoming far less even now that I have most of the new group 2 vampires. Many of my vampires never get used anymore. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

LSJ wrote: > > Orpheus wrote: > > I never said I had no idea. I said I am no playtester, > > "I am no playtester" is equivalent to "I have no idea", since the only people > who have any idea are the ones who are bound by a non-disclosure agreement > not to tell you anything about it. Perhaps. But one of the latter may have broken his agreement and told Orpheus. As this does not cause Orpheus to become a playtester, the two statements are hardly synonymous. Fred

Snapcase wrote: > > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message > news:<3DC5CFB5...@removethis.com>... > > > legbiter wrote: > > > > > > The project is the rehabilitation of the banned/useless list through > > > rewording. > > > > I see. If that's what it is, then I have to say I'm against it. Or at > > least, I'm against bothering to try and dredge up every old, forgotten > > card and attempting to do something about it. Every single one of these > > puppies is another card that has copies out in the card population that > > don't do what they SAY they do. That's bad! > > Why? If it's an entirely useless card (Oxford University for > example), people aren't using the old copies anyway. When they > reprint it, it's just like they had printed a new card. It ALSO has > the advantage of already being in circulation so people can use the > old copies as well as the new copies (just have to remember what it > does or use a marker on it or something). ...which is BAD! Why do I have to repeat myself. I don't WANT old, misleading cards in circulation. For one thing, you have to know there's a new version of the card to remember that it does something different than what it says it does. When cards are screwing up the game due to being overpowered, that's one thing. Cards that no one is using are not screwing up the games. Hence, don't create bad in order to gain little good. In fact, the "good" of allowing people to use their old cards is precisely the "bad" of the confusion those very same old cards cause. We don't need to rehabilitate cardboard at the cost of confusion. This is a bad idea. Shelve it. > > Worse, I feel like the reprints I'm see are getting rather spotty play- > > testing at times, leading to a worse game rather than a better one > > Examples? Blood Puppy. Anyone rushing to use it now? That's the main complaint I can think of offhand for cards increased in power. (Though there's a number of cards in CE and the other WW expansions I haven't yet looked at very hard, though.) A number of cards that have been decreased in power have been castrated to near uselessness, such as ToR III, The Embrace, and Misdirection. Because of this, I'm guessing the cards ramped up in power will have as bad a record. I don't mind such problems when there's a good reason to redesign a card. When the reason is bad, it's thoroughly annoying. Fred

In article <3DC871F0...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote: >...which is BAD! Why do I have to repeat myself. Well, the thing is, some of us don't think it's bad. I, for one, think it frigging rocks. > I don't WANT old, misleading >cards in circulation. For one thing, you have to know there's a new version of >the card to remember that it does something different than what it says it does. Annoying, to be sure, but less annoying that having 3 inches of cardstock that might as well be blank for all the use you'll get out of 'em. Rewording garbage cards to make them useful is like getting a bunch of new cards for FREE, as Derek Ray pointed out when CE first came out. >Cards that no one is using are not screwing up the games. Hence, don't create Sure, they're not screwing up the game, but they're not being used. Reviving them is a complete win for older players and transparent to new players. >bad in order to gain little good. In fact, the "good" of allowing people to use >their old cards is precisely the "bad" of the confusion those very same old >cards cause. We don't need to rehabilitate cardboard at the cost of confusion. What's to confuse? If you're an old player, you either know about the change or don't. If you don't know, you lose nothing -- you continue to not use cards you weren't using anyway. If you do know, you can start using the cards again -- net win. If you're a new player, you play with the recent prints that work as printed, again to no confusion. >This is a bad idea. Shelve it. I disagree. >A number of cards that have been decreased in power have been >castrated to near uselessness, such as ToR III, The Embrace, and Misdirection. ...all of which continue to see regular use, Misdirection in particular. gomi -- Never make a promise or plan Take a little love where you can

Karol Magda wrote: > > <most of the post snip-ed, will adress only thing about library > grouping> > > > And grouping vampires doesn't solve the analogous problem > > > in terms of library cards, which to me, it seems like a more pernicious > > > problem anyway. > > > > This is true, potentially. i think in the future, or past, it might be > > necessary to group library cards. > > Definitely. > > Take MtG Type 1 for instance. Only like 5 cards from each new set are > playable in that format. Slightly more are playable for Type 1.5 , > even more for Extended , like 10-15 percent of a new set is playable > in Type 2 and lot of the cards are playable in Block Constructed That's because the DCI has no concept of banning or errataing overpowered cards unless they're *so* overpowered their effect simply can't be ignored. Somewhat overpowered cards are ignored as a problem. Since the designers of the early editions of Magic cards were so clueless about game balance, many of the most overpowered as well as the worst examples of wallpaper came from those printings. The result is that even after restricting and banning the worst cards, it's still hard for the better balanced cards printed in the last few years to make a dent in any environment that allows old cards. Also, the Magic designers don't seem to hold themselves to a very high standard in terms of balance in general. So even in a single set even in recent years, there's still far much variation in the value of various cards. > If you add 100 new cards to base of 2000+ cards the impact of the 100 > new cards is small unless you create power escalation curve. Which is > BAD thing (and even Wizards are aware of this as seen in current sets, > contrary to what many peoples seems to believe here) True. And that point certainly does reduce the number of useful cards recent additions are going to make effective in Types 1, 1.5, and 1.X. But it's not the main thing. The main thing is that the variation in card power is much less in recent years so players, preferring to use the best cards available, will obviously choose to use the best cards from old printings whenever possible because they're so much better. > I would not like to see that happen in V:TES. (insignificance of new > cards or power escalation) I am not saying it is happening now, it's > might start to be a problem in distant (or not so distant) future. V:tES is different from Magic in that the designers fix card balance problems over time - even card balance problems that are somewhat subtle. (In fact, I tend to think they've gone overboard at times with the negative effect that unnecessary confusion is caused, but that's a different subject.) For this reason, you don't have old cards hanging around in the game that everybody loves because they're old mistakes and they're just *better* than all the recent cards. Tomb of Ramses III, Mind Rape, and Return to Innocence are examples of cards that the DCI refused to fix when they were in charge of V:tES. Now they're fixed and hence, no better than, say, Baltimore Purge more or less. Over time, continuing to add more and more new cards should not cause an issue of making the new ones insignificant. I do think card _variation_ will get to be somewhat of a problem, as players with particularly good, full card collections will be able to build better decks by coming up with any possible combination of cards in existence. It's hard to say how much of a problem that will be because we don't have any previous experience to work with. > The Block Constructed type of tournaments are considered to be: > > 1) most balanced of constructed formats > > -mainly because it's easier to catch possible broken combos in testing > where only 500 cards exists in format compared to 2000+ cards format That might be said of block vs. T2 but I've never noticed a significant difference in how balanced block tournaments are vs. T2 tournaments. Such a statement is absurd when comparing block tournaments to T1, T1.5, and T1.X due to the existence of overpowered older cards that the DCI won't ban or errata. > 2) most popular of constructed formats (and yes Wizards do > polls/researchs and DO care about their customers) Again, not sure why it would be true of block tournaments vs. T2. But balance is clearly a drawback in the other formats. Particularly balance that emphasizes use of expensive, powerful old cards. At least a power escalation curve would emphasize recent - and thus cheaper - power cards. But, no, Wizards does these things in the dumbest ways. > -because many cards otherwise not playable in other constructed > formats are playable here (or biggest percentage of cards you buy are > actually playable besides in draft) All this amounts to is basically banning cards by card set that should be banned or errated on an individual basis. You really can't draw any conclusions from the experience of Magic. When unbalanced card problems are actually dealt with correctly, I think you discover that *more* cards get used and are considered playable over the course of printing more cards. Not less. > -new players can compete with old players In a balanced environment, new players should be able to compete with old players. It's clear players with large collections have an advantage that starts out being quite substantial compared to a new player who's just started collecting. However, as the latter gets hold of a certain level in terms of variety of cards, the advantage is likely to become fairly minimal. Again, the experience of Magic tells you nothing about how this works in a game where problem cards are fixed. > The extended format (where you can use cards from last 3-4 such > cycles) is also very popular (although sometimes not very balanced) > > The problem is that even in extended cards phase out in T1 void. > (because it becomes impossible to balance it) (Sigh) It's not impossible to balance it. The DCI simply refuses to do so. > Grouping of vampires basically creates kind of 'block constructed' > crypt but the catch is that no crypt 'cycle' phase out entirely (you > can STILL play with group 1 vampires). It also enables to print new > and interesting vampires which do have an impact (and think about how > many of new CE vampires would not have an impact if grouping rule > didn't existed) But you could just print those cards without grouping. As I reject your reasoning WRT using Magic as an example which explains why grouping vampires is necessary, I likewise reject the necessity of grouping vampires altogether. Curt Adams may document certain somewhat significant effects of dial-a-crypt over the course of one base set to two base sets plus several expansions of varying sizes. That's to be expected since we're starting from a very small pool to one several times its size. But I think it's reasonable to expect that factor to level off over time. Grouping is really unnecessary to allow newer players to compete. > Grouping of library cards would open vast posibilities for new cards > and abilities which do have an impact and are not broken (and it may > become a problem otherwise in (not so) distant future) It is unlikely to become a problem. At least, let it become a true problem and then we can evaluate what to do about it. The MtG example is not applicable to V:tES. Fred

Gomi no Sensei wrote: > > In article <3DC871F0...@removethis.com>, > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote: > >Cards that no one is using are not screwing up the games. Hence, don't create > > Sure, they're not screwing up the game, but they're not being used. Reviving > them is a complete win for older players and transparent to new players. > > >bad in order to gain little good. In fact, the "good" of allowing people to use > >their old cards is precisely the "bad" of the confusion those very same old > >cards cause. We don't need to rehabilitate cardboard at the cost of confusion. > > What's to confuse? Anyone who doesn't have the "Book of true card text" out on the table and looking at the right entry is to confuse. > If you're an old player, you either know about the change > or don't. If you don't know, you lose nothing -- you continue to not use > cards you weren't using anyway. If you do know, you can start using the cards > again -- net win. You can forget what the cards do between deckbuilding time and play time and use them wrong. Your opponents (this game *is* played by more than one person at a time, ya know?) might not know there's a new version and assume (God help them) that the card does what it says it does. Cards with incorrect text are time bombs. They might not go off the first or second time you play the deck, but if you play it long enough, at some point they'll strike. Such things are a nuisance. A nuisance repeated over endlessly gets to be an aggravation. I can foresee this thing becoming far more annoying than anything else White Wolf has ever done to the game with which I disagreed if they really try to rehabilitate every wallpaper card in history. As it is, I try not play with my old copies of Wake with Evenings Freshness whenever possible - which it isn't, since I like keeping 20 or more decks built at all times. Now, all my old Majesties are misleading. I understand why...I guess. But I'd hate this if a million other cards misled. There are far too many already. > >A number of cards that have been decreased in power have been > >castrated to near uselessness, such as ToR III, The Embrace, and Misdirection. > > ...all of which continue to see regular use, Misdirection in particular. You must be joking! I saw maybe one ToR III and one Misdirection at all of Week of Nightmares (I think I saw the Misdirection played by LSJ in a game I wasn't in) and Gencon and barely ever see either of them in other tournaments. Haven't been to a tournament since September 17, but I don't expect to see The Embrace at all, ever. Fred

In article <3DC871F0...@removethis.com>, freds64 _at_cox_...@removethis.com says... > ...which is BAD! Why do I have to repeat myself. I don't WANT old, misleading > cards in circulation. For one thing, you have to know there's a new version of > the card to remember that it does something different than what it says it does. If someone's not using them, they're not going to start using them all of a sudden if they don't know a new version exists. All of the current card texts are available on the website. > When cards are screwing up the game due to being overpowered, that's one thing. > Cards that no one is using are not screwing up the games. Hence, don't create > bad in order to gain little good. In fact, the "good" of allowing people to use > their old cards is precisely the "bad" of the confusion those very same old > cards cause. We don't need to rehabilitate cardboard at the cost of confusion. > This is a bad idea. Shelve it. I disagree. Most everyone knows what Fame does now. I'm certainly not going to throw out all my VTES ones just because some people can't understand the concept of "play by newest wording". Now all my Oxford Universities do something useful, instead of collecting dust. > Blood Puppy. Anyone rushing to use it now? That's the main complaint I can > think of offhand for cards increased in power. Your worst complaint is Blood Puppy? How is it "screwing up the game"? > A number of cards that have been decreased in power have been > castrated to near uselessness, such as ToR III, The Embrace, and Misdirection. There are many tournament winning decks that include Misdirection for its current effect. -Snapcase

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote in message news:<20021105182728...@mb-dd.aol.com>... > jsp...@sprynet.com writes: > > >> There's no way I could honestly suggest new players start > >> the game without grouping (unless they're very rich). I > > >You could direct them to eBay, where they can get all the Jyhad and > >Dark Soveriegns vampires they could possibly want for around $40, > >along with tons of staple cards. > > Well, prices are climbing. But the real problem is that without > grouping, they must *keep* buying in the future to keep up. > It's not right to force people onto that treadmill. As mentioned before, there is nothing inherent in VTES that says they cannot reprint old vampires. One of the agruements for grouping seems to be that new players cannot get old vampires. That arguement disappears if White Wolf simply reprints all the currently out of print vampires (or at least the good ones). What if the Camarilla set had contained around 40 new vampires, reprints of all the "good" Jyhad/VTES vampires, all of Dark Soveriegns and Ancient Hearts, and the unreprinted Sabbat edition vampires? Forty new camarilla vampires could probably have been designed in a way to not cause stacking problems with old vampires by giving them unusual discipline sets (which I think many old players enjoy, as it enables new and interesting decks). Then you'd have a base set with all the cards newbies supposedly can't get, without grouping. JSpektr

Snapcase wrote: > > In article <3DC871F0...@removethis.com>, freds64 > _at_cox_...@removethis.com says... > > > ...which is BAD! Why do I have to repeat myself. I don't WANT old, misleading > > cards in circulation. For one thing, you have to know there's a new version of > > the card to remember that it does something different than what it says it does. > > If someone's not using them, ...blahblahblahetc. Already answered in my other post and/or in previous posts. Time to move on. > I disagree. Most everyone knows what Fame does now. Fame was not changed just to pull sad underpowered 3-year old cards out of people's card boxes once more. Thus it's not what I was objecting to. But it is still bad in a certain sense. It's like warts. If you've got one on your thumb, no big deal. If you've got a million of 'em all over your body, it's awful. > > A number of cards that have been decreased in power have been > > castrated to near uselessness, such as ToR III, The Embrace, and Misdirection. > > There are many tournament winning decks that include Misdirection for > its current effect. It's virtually unknown in this part of the world. I can't imagine why anyone would bother with it. Fred

Guys, can we beg to differ on this? It's like the CE - some people like it, some people don't. Yes, it's inconvenient that some cards "don't do what they say on the tin" but most players either know the erratas, or else (if they're newbies) they're playing with the newly printed versions of the cards anyway... If you don't like it, you don't have to play with the "new cards". Iain.

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DC89164...@removethis.com>... > Karol Magda wrote: > > > > <most of the post snip-ed, will adress only thing about library > > grouping> > > > > > And grouping vampires doesn't solve the analogous problem > > > > in terms of library cards, which to me, it seems like a more pernicious > > > > problem anyway. > > > > > > This is true, potentially. i think in the future, or past, it might be > > > necessary to group library cards. > > > > Definitely. > > > > Take MtG Type 1 for instance. Only like 5 cards from each new set are > > playable in that format. Slightly more are playable for Type 1.5 , > > even more for Extended , like 10-15 percent of a new set is playable > > in Type 2 and lot of the cards are playable in Block Constructed > > That's because the DCI has no concept of banning or errataing overpowered > cards unless they're *so* overpowered their effect simply can't be ignored. > Somewhat overpowered cards are ignored as a problem. Since the designers > of the early editions of Magic cards were so clueless about game balance, > many of the most overpowered as well as the worst examples of wallpaper > came from those printings. The result is that even after restricting and > banning the worst cards, it's still hard for the better balanced cards > printed in the last few years to make a dent in any environment that allows > old cards. That's only valid argument for T1 (where no cards , perhaps except of ante cards are banned and thus half of the deck is no-brainer fill of restricted list). In T1.5 there is vast banned list. Hovewer almost no-brainer cards do exists in V:TES , one classic example would be a blood doll (and I am not saying it is broken, I am just saying that most people when they create decks put 3-5 copies of blood doll automatically in) And it is irritating to me that half of my master cards in my various decks are same. And besides in such formats you have probably 10 000 + cards to choose from, with ANY power curve in such format most cards would not be played. Contrary to popular belief here, VTES DO have a power curve. Sure, not such a steep one as say Morphing vs Air Elemental but there still is here. Why would then almost everyone play with Govern and not so many peoples play with Scouting Mission ? (and before anyone gives me examples of decks where SM is better that GtU , yes I know that they exists, there are but few compared to decks where GtU is better) Example of cards on top of power curve: GtU, Blood Doll, Dreams of Sphinx Everyone's favourite arguments seems to be that since there are no strictly inferior cards in V:TES besides chainsaw (a strictly inferior card is card that does the same thing as some other cards , but at greater cost) almost every card is viable/playable. That's just not true. There are lot's of (potentially good cards) which are not played that often because better alternatives exists. (and yes, it might be more problem with players not realizing subtle benefits of such cards compared to 'obvious' alternatives) Example of such cards: Scouting Mission, Intimidation, Redirection, Melange (note to everyone: I do not feel that this cards are bad, quite oposite. But I do feel that this cards are underplayed and would not be if some kind of grouping scheme was created with library cards) Would it not be that if we had: Group1 GtU, Threats, Deflection, Legal Manipulation, StareDown, Eagle's Sight, My Enemies Enemy Group2 Scouting Mission, Conditioning, Redirection, Intimidation, Melange, Telepatic Misdirection Rather than Big group: Threats, Deflection, Legal Manipulation, StareDown, Eagle's Sight, My Enemies Enemy, Scouting Mission, Conditioning, Redirection, Intimidation, Melange, Telepatic Misdirection All of the cards would appear in decks with similar frequency ? (and which is not a case now) > > Also, the Magic designers don't seem to hold themselves to a very high > standard in terms of balance in general. So even in a single set even in > recent years, there's still far much variation in the value of various > cards. I do believe that Magic is far more balanced than it was say two or three years before (by Magic I mean extended, T2, block constructed) > > > If you add 100 new cards to base of 2000+ cards the impact of the 100 > > new cards is small unless you create power escalation curve. Which is > > BAD thing (and even Wizards are aware of this as seen in current sets, > > contrary to what many peoples seems to believe here) > > True. And that point certainly does reduce the number of useful cards > recent additions are going to make effective in Types 1, 1.5, and 1.X. > But it's not the main thing. The main thing is that the variation in > card power is much less in recent years so players, preferring to use > the best cards available, will obviously choose to use the best cards from > old printings whenever possible because they're so much better. Grinning Demon is comparable to Juzam > > > I would not like to see that happen in V:TES. (insignificance of new > > cards or power escalation) I am not saying it is happening now, it's > > might start to be a problem in distant (or not so distant) future. > > V:tES is different from Magic in that the designers fix card balance > problems over time - even card balance problems that are somewhat > subtle. (In fact, I tend to think they've gone overboard at times with > the negative effect that unnecessary confusion is caused, but that's a > different subject.) For this reason, you don't have old cards hanging > around in the game that everybody loves because they're old mistakes and > they're just *better* than all the recent cards. Tomb of Ramses III, > Mind Rape, and Return to Innocence are examples of cards that the DCI > refused to fix when they were in charge of V:tES. Now they're fixed > and hence, no better than, say, Baltimore Purge more or less. Do you consider banning of the card (RtI) a way of fixing it ? :) In other post you stated that ToR3 was wallpaperized, now you use it as an example of pointing differences between Magic and V:TES :) And yes, I also do find the subtle changes on some old cards annoying. (and even more so, when you have to found it out for yourself as these changes are not listed anywhere) Would you thing that some of the following things would be good for the game: 1)printing 5 more aus/AUS intercept cards 2)printing 5 more obf/OBF stealth cards 3)printing 5 more for/FOR prevent cards 4)printing some more ANI intercept cards 5)printing some more free OBT stealth cards 6)printing more dominate bleed cards 7)printing more presence bleed cards 1) would lead to players putting 4-6 enhanced senses in the deck and rest intercept slots would be filled with single copies of given intercept cards avaiable, that way one entire principle of game/deckbuilding would be , well nonexistant. 2) same as 1 with regard to stealth 3),6),7) - the cards would be too good or too bad compared to what we have in their categories now. Both options are not good. 4),5) - the entire balance between disciplines would be throwed out of window in process You could argue that no such cards need to be printed. Hovewer how can you print many new cards for many of current disciplines that would be in flavour of given discipline ? I would not like to see every discipline to have acess to anything. With grouping of library cards such problems would cease to exist since you could just rotate cards within each category a discipline has an acess to. > > Over time, continuing to add more and more new cards should not cause > an issue of making the new ones insignificant. I do think card > _variation_ will get to be somewhat of a problem, as players with > particularly good, full card collections will be able to build better > decks by coming up with any possible combination of cards in existence. > It's hard to say how much of a problem that will be because we don't > have any previous experience to work with. If you do not come with card variations within disciplines, the best results would be as explained in 1) If you variate the cards after some time every discipline would have access to everything, not a good idea either. Note that from last 4 WW expansions only ONE was truly 'new' expansion. (and I am not criticizing designers here, actually I think they are doing excellent job) SW - was correction of what was wrong with Sabbat (lack of some vampires, adding new effects to new disciplines to help define them) FN - repaired stupid DS/AH cards (and although boosters contained all new cards it was just AWESOME repair of something somebody else screwed badly, but it was just it, repair) CE - was reprint of base set (library side) From crypt side it introduced grouping rule along with new vampires to prevent stupid 'half my crypt are princes of different cities with all in clans at superior' decks among other things (and yes as Derek, I too think that mid caps would be even more problematic than weenies had no grouping existed , having discipline advantage of old vampires and action advantage of young vampires) BL - was fun, good an innovative expansion with new concepts (the one I like most are split discipline cards and multidiscipline cards , both of which exists in magic :) ('split' cards and multi coloured cards) It's also my favourite expansion of all times. Hovewer it seems to me that game cannot be pushed to altogether new directions as it was in BL for eternity. So after some unspecified time you would have to phase out cards in order to make room for a new cards (by phasing out cards I mean grouping of library cards in this context) > > > The Block Constructed type of tournaments are considered to be: > > > > 1) most balanced of constructed formats > > > > -mainly because it's easier to catch possible broken combos in testing > > where only 500 cards exists in format compared to 2000+ cards format > > That might be said of block vs. T2 but I've never noticed a significant > difference in how balanced block tournaments are vs. T2 tournaments. > Such a statement is absurd when comparing block tournaments to T1, T1.5, > and T1.X due to the existence of overpowered older cards that the DCI > won't ban or errata. Except T1 every other format have banned list. > > > 2) most popular of constructed formats (and yes Wizards do > > polls/researchs and DO care about their customers) > > Again, not sure why it would be true of block tournaments vs. T2. But > balance is clearly a drawback in the other formats. Particularly > balance that emphasizes use of expensive, powerful old cards. At least > a power escalation curve would emphasize recent - and thus cheaper - > power cards. But, no, Wizards does these things in the dumbest ways. Actually I don't think Wizards are that dumb. There was one critical point in game (Combo Winter) but game is much more healthier now. > > > -because many cards otherwise not playable in other constructed > > formats are playable here (or biggest percentage of cards you buy are > > actually playable besides in draft) > > All this amounts to is basically banning cards by card set that should > be banned or errated on an individual basis. You really can't draw any > conclusions from the experience of Magic. When unbalanced card problems > are actually dealt with correctly, I think you discover that *more* cards > get used and are considered playable over the course of printing more > cards. Not less. So what do you suggest ? Banning 100 most abusive cards in the game ? Guess what ? Even after that another 100 most abusive cards appear. The number of cards played in given format is some percentage of number of cards in format. The greater the number of cards in format , the smaller the percentage. So grouping library cards would actually make more of your cards playable in the long run. I can't see why it is bad thing. > > > -new players can compete with old players > > In a balanced environment, new players should be able to compete with old > players. It's clear players with large collections have an advantage > that starts out being quite substantial compared to a new player who's > just started collecting. However, as the latter gets hold of a certain > level in terms of variety of cards, the advantage is likely to become > fairly minimal. Again, the experience of Magic tells you nothing about > how this works in a game where problem cards are fixed. If there was no grouping of crypt my weenie animalism deck would be much better than new players one ,because he would not have access to Dani or Gillian Krader for example. If many new animalism cards are printed with each new expansion, my animalism deck would be better for same reasoning. (since I would have acess to ALL goodies , while he only to those from last expansions) My deck would be more efficient both on crypt side and both on library side. I would have GREAT advantage over him. EBAY is NOT an option for most players. > > > The extended format (where you can use cards from last 3-4 such > > cycles) is also very popular (although sometimes not very balanced) > > > > The problem is that even in extended cards phase out in T1 void. > > (because it becomes impossible to balance it) > > (Sigh) It's not impossible to balance it. The DCI simply refuses to > do so. Worldgorger Dragon/Animate Dead combo is clear example that it is impossible to balance vast formats while still printing new cards. Note that both cards are O.K. on their own. The only problem is that they exist simultaneously in given format. > > > Grouping of vampires basically creates kind of 'block constructed' > > crypt but the catch is that no crypt 'cycle' phase out entirely (you > > can STILL play with group 1 vampires). It also enables to print new > > and interesting vampires which do have an impact (and think about how > > many of new CE vampires would not have an impact if grouping rule > > didn't existed) > > But you could just print those cards without grouping. As I reject > your reasoning WRT using Magic as an example which explains why grouping > vampires is necessary, I likewise reject the necessity of grouping > vampires altogether. Curt Adams may document certain somewhat > significant effects of dial-a-crypt over the course of one base set to > two base sets plus several expansions of varying sizes. That's to be > expected since we're starting from a very small pool to one several > times its size. But I think it's reasonable to expect that factor to > level off over time. Grouping is really unnecessary to allow newer > players to compete. Magic and VTES have MANY things in common. Almost any given Magic concept have VTES equivalent and vice versa. My group 1/2/3 Tremere would be WAY much stronger than new players group 2/3 Tremere crypt wise. It would be cheaper and filled with better vampires. If you really want to see new cards printed for classic disciplines (and not just card here, and card there among a dozens of reprints) without giving too much advantage to old players (which WILL scare new players from the game away, if they feel/think that they cannot compete) then the grouping is one way to go. Since it let old players to play with all his cards (although he won't be able to mix some od them together) and it will allow new player to compete (so he would not be scared off) it's quite reasonable solution to both old and new players. > > > Grouping of library cards would open vast posibilities for new cards > > and abilities which do have an impact and are not broken (and it may > > become a problem otherwise in (not so) distant future) > > It is unlikely to become a problem. At least, let it become a true > problem and then we can evaluate what to do about it. The MtG example > is not applicable to V:tES. I would rather identify a possible problem , analyze it and prevent it. The let us destroy a world so we can built it anew attitude is something I do not subscribe to. Karol

Frederick Scott wrote: > Over time, continuing to add more and more new cards should not cause > an issue of making the new ones insignificant. I do think card > _variation_ will get to be somewhat of a problem, as players with > particularly good, full card collections will be able to build better > decks by coming up with any possible combination of cards in existence. [...] > Curt Adams may document certain somewhat > significant effects of dial-a-crypt over the course of one base set to > two base sets plus several expansions of varying sizes. That's to be > expected since we're starting from a very small pool to one several > times its size. But I think it's reasonable to expect that factor to > level off over time. Grouping is really unnecessary to allow newer > players to compete. Those two paragraphs are arguing opposite sides of the debate, BTW. The grouping rule was introduced to alleviate the problem you describe in the first paragraph above. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DC8C85F...@removethis.com>... > Snapcase wrote: > > > > In article <3DC871F0...@removethis.com>, freds64 > > _at_cox_...@removethis.com says... > > > > > ...which is BAD! Why do I have to repeat myself. I don't WANT old, misleading > > > cards in circulation. For one thing, you have to know there's a new version of > > > the card to remember that it does something different than what it says it does. > > > > If someone's not using them, > ...blahblahblahetc. > > Already answered in my other post and/or in previous posts. Time to move on. > > > I disagree. Most everyone knows what Fame does now. > > Fame was not changed just to pull sad underpowered 3-year old cards out of > people's card boxes once more. Thus it's not what I was objecting to. But > it is still bad in a certain sense. > > It's like warts. If you've got one on your thumb, no big deal. If you've > got a million of 'em all over your body, it's awful. > > > > A number of cards that have been decreased in power have been > > > castrated to near uselessness, such as ToR III, The Embrace, and Misdirection. ToR 3, Embrace and Misdirection are still very good cards. ToR is much more prefered to Zillah's Valley by most players here since it saves pool while Zillah's do not. Embrace is still kind of disciplinless Ruthor's Hand and Misdirection can still tap that annoying untaped deflector. Perfectly viable and fun cards right now. > > > > There are many tournament winning decks that include Misdirection for > > its current effect. > > It's virtually unknown in this part of the world. I can't imagine why anyone would > bother with it. > > Fred Because they know better, perhaps ? Karol

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<px.dnUzkBo_...@News.GigaNews.Com>... > > old players that "lord it over newbies" but we don't here, and I'm not > > even sure how having lots of rares gives them that much of an > > advantage. Rares in VTES make trick decks easier, but in my experience > > it rarely makes them better than a focused deck made from commons. > > Having 40 Freak Drives can be a pretty damn solid advantage. Hell, having unholy amounts of the good uncommons is an incredible advantage. Tell me which deck wouldn´t favor putting 15 Torn Signposts in it, compared to 15 Undead Strength ? :) Magnus

In article <3DC8C85F...@removethis.com>, freds64 _at_cox_...@removethis.com says... > > > ...which is BAD! Why do I have to repeat myself. I don't WANT old, misleading > > > cards in circulation. For one thing, you have to know there's a new version of > > > the card to remember that it does something different than what it says it does. > Already answered in my other post and/or in previous posts. Time to move on. K, look at it this way. We've already got a boatload of cards that don't do what they say they do. It's part of the game, good or bad. Rehabilitating underpowered cards basically gives me free (and useful) cards. I like free, useful cards. > Fame was not changed just to pull sad underpowered 3-year old cards out of > people's card boxes once more. Thus it's not what I was objecting to. But > it is still bad in a certain sense. 2nd Tradition then? > >Misdirection > It's virtually unknown in this part of the world. I can't imagine why anyone would > bother with it. Beats me. Ask the people who won tournaments with it. -Snapcase

>Hovewer almost no-brainer cards do exists in V:TES , one classic >example would >be a blood doll (and I am not saying it is broken, I am just saying >that most >people when they create decks put 3-5 copies of blood doll >automatically in) > >And it is irritating to me that half of my master cards in my various >decks are >same. I've noticed this with my decks. >And besides in such formats you have probably 10 000 + cards to choose >from, >with ANY power curve in such format most cards would not be played. I have my doubts about 10000. IME, CCGs have a surprisingly low number of different cards. But, this is an important point. The typical CCG has a significant percentage of cards that are too weak to play in competitive constructed. "Good cards squeeze out bad." By significant, not talking about 10% or so. One game I played, I estimated around 50%. Magic varies by format, but I'd estimate higher than 50%. V:TES, I'd estimate around a third of the cards aren't worth playing. >Contrary to popular belief here, VTES DO have a power curve. Sure, not >such >a steep one as say Morphing vs Air Elemental but there still is here. >Why would then almost everyone play with Govern and not so many >peoples play with Scouting Mission ? (and before anyone gives me >examples of decks where SM is better that GtU , yes I know that they >exists, there are but few compared to decks where GtU is better) > >Example of cards on top of power curve: GtU, Blood Doll, Dreams of >Sphinx > >Everyone's favourite arguments seems to be that since there are no >strictly >inferior cards in V:TES besides chainsaw (a strictly inferior card is >card that >does the same thing as some other cards , but at greater cost) almost >every >card is viable/playable. That's just not true. There are lot's of >(potentially >good cards) which are not played that often because better >alternatives exists. >(and yes, it might be more problem with players not realizing subtle >benefits of >such cards compared to 'obvious' alternatives) I wouldn't call them good, since, by definition, in order to be good, a card has to be desirable to play. But, yes, there are cards that would see (more) play if better cards didn't exist. This is why I don't like seeing generic, high utility cards designed. I once used to explain to people that: if you build three different decks with completely different strategies, it's a bad thing if a card to automatically goes into all three decks; what is desired is for cards to be obvious for one of the decks and useless in another. >Example of such cards: Scouting Mission, Intimidation, Redirection, >Melange > >(note to everyone: I do not feel that this cards are bad, quite >oposite. But I do feel that this cards are underplayed and would not >be if some kind of grouping scheme was created with library cards) > >Would it not be that if we had: > >Group1 > >GtU, Threats, Deflection, Legal Manipulation, StareDown, Eagle's >Sight, My Enemies Enemy > >Group2 > >Scouting Mission, Conditioning, Redirection, Intimidation, Melange, >Telepatic Misdirection > >Rather than Big group: > >Threats, Deflection, Legal Manipulation, StareDown, Eagle's Sight, My >Enemies Enemy, Scouting Mission, Conditioning, Redirection, >Intimidation, Melange, >Telepatic Misdirection > >All of the cards would appear in decks with similar frequency ? (and >which is not a case now) Probably not as players come up with the optimal strategies for the given format which may very well not include certain disciplines/strategies. Personally, I like the idea of restricted formats as they require people to rethink deck construction and can eliminate particularly overplayed cards. However, V:TES sets don't lend themselves that well to doing this. Sabbat only would have been something I'd like to have tried (for a tournament, I used to do it for other reasons), but it's too scarce to use now and SW reprinted some of the cards I was hoping not to see. >> > If you add 100 new cards to base of 2000+ cards the impact of the 100 >> > new cards is small unless you create power escalation curve. Which is >> > BAD thing (and even Wizards are aware of this as seen in current sets, >> > contrary to what many peoples seems to believe here) >> >> True. And that point certainly does reduce the number of useful cards >> recent additions are going to make effective in Types 1, 1.5, and 1.X. >> But it's not the main thing. The main thing is that the variation in >> card power is much less in recent years so players, preferring to use >> the best cards available, will obviously choose to use the best cards from >> old printings whenever possible because they're so much better. > >Grinning Demon is comparable to Juzam There are a number of Magic cards printed in recent sets that are good enough to play in any format. But, anyway, if you avoid making staple cards (generic, high utility) and avoid making new cards similar and/or better to old cards, then you might see a relatively higher percentage of cards used. Also means more work for designers as duplicating existing effects is easier and safer. >> > I would not like to see that happen in V:TES. (insignificance of new >> > cards or power escalation) I am not saying it is happening now, it's >> > might start to be a problem in distant (or not so distant) future. >> >> V:tES is different from Magic in that the designers fix card balance >> problems over time - even card balance problems that are somewhat >> subtle. (In fact, I tend to think they've gone overboard at times with >> the negative effect that unnecessary confusion is caused, but that's a >> different subject.) For this reason, you don't have old cards hanging >> around in the game that everybody loves because they're old mistakes and >> they're just *better* than all the recent cards. Tomb of Ramses III, >> Mind Rape, and Return to Innocence are examples of cards that the DCI >> refused to fix when they were in charge of V:tES. Now they're fixed >> and hence, no better than, say, Baltimore Purge more or less. Adding more cards without taking away cards will always up the power level. The flatter the power level to begin with, the less noticeable, of course. Magic never had a very flat power level. The set rotation system saved the game as far as I'm concerned. Now, with V:TES, it's very possible that the rate of the power escalation is low enough that such drastic measures never become essential. >Would you thing that some of the following things would be good for >the game: > >1)printing 5 more aus/AUS intercept cards >2)printing 5 more obf/OBF stealth cards >3)printing 5 more for/FOR prevent cards >4)printing some more ANI intercept cards >5)printing some more free OBT stealth cards >6)printing more dominate bleed cards >7)printing more presence bleed cards Hell no. I think the game already has way too much redundancy. Sure, there are reasons to play one close substitute over another, but far more interesting would be to have cards that aren't close substitutes instead. >You could argue that no such cards need to be printed. Hovewer how can >you print >many new cards for many of current disciplines that would be in >flavour of given discipline ? You brainstorm good ideas. I think there's tremendous room for more action cards because action cards can be made to do more specifically useful things than other sorts of cards. While not the best example because I don't think it's particularly in flavor, cards like Ecstatic Agony are what I'm thinking of. >I would not like to see every discipline to have acess to anything. Okay. I would like to see some disciplines do something different, though, primarily Celerity and Potence. >With grouping of library cards such problems would cease to exist >since you could just rotate cards within each category a discipline >has an acess to. Creates other problems, such as annoying lots of folks. [ quoted text not captured ] Getting back to a central point, while a lot of people really dislike the idea that they can no longer play cards when a game rotates them out, it's not really any different in a competitive environment from new cards making old ones obsolete. >So what do you suggest ? Banning 100 most abusive cards in the game ? >Guess what ? Even after that another 100 most abusive cards appear. Ideally, you deal with those cards that have effectively banned a significantly larger number of cards. Banning a few cards to make 50 cards playable may well be constructive where making 10 playable wouldn't be. >The number of cards played in given format is some percentage of >number of cards in format. The greater the number of cards in format , >the smaller the percentage. Generally true, but if cards were, across the board, more specialized, it wouldn't necessarily have to be. Note, at the same time, suddenly making cards highly specialized without making sure they are worth playing in tournament level decks is just printing a bunch of coasters. >So grouping library cards would actually make more of your cards >playable in the >long run. I can't see why it is bad thing. >> > Grouping of vampires basically creates kind of 'block constructed' >> > crypt but the catch is that no crypt 'cycle' phase out entirely (you >> > can STILL play with group 1 vampires). It also enables to print new >> > and interesting vampires which do have an impact (and think about how >> > many of new CE vampires would not have an impact if grouping rule >> > didn't existed) >> >> But you could just print those cards without grouping. As I reject >> your reasoning WRT using Magic as an example which explains why grouping >> vampires is necessary, I likewise reject the necessity of grouping >> vampires altogether. Curt Adams may document certain somewhat >> significant effects of dial-a-crypt over the course of one base set to >> two base sets plus several expansions of varying sizes. That's to be >> expected since we're starting from a very small pool to one several >> times its size. But I think it's reasonable to expect that factor to >> level off over time. Grouping is really unnecessary to allow newer >> players to compete. > >Magic and VTES have MANY things in common. Almost any given Magic >concept have >VTES equivalent and vice versa. And, so it is with most CCGs. >I would rather identify a possible problem , analyze it and prevent >it. The let us destroy a world so we can built it anew attitude is >something I do not subscribe to. It is possible, however, that the cure is worse than the ill. A lot of CCGs don't last long enough for the problem of bloat to matter. So, resetting the playing field hasn't been done that often, nevermind that CCGs are less than 10 years old. This game has had the "advantage" of having numerous redundant effects which has effectively reduced the number of real strategies which has helped keep it under control (with a cost in variety). The important thing is how often will the game see expansion v. the rate at which expansion is escalating the power level. The higher either is, the more important the problem. Neither seems that high relative to what they could be.

Iain Wilson wrote: > Yes, it's inconvenient that some cards "don't do what they say on the > tin" but most players either know the erratas, or else (if they're > newbies) they're playing with the newly printed versions of the cards > anyway... But the issue become more pernicious the more cards get errata. The fact that errata needed to be used to deal with the overpowered cards seems to be leading to a complete lack of sensitivity to the drawback of changing cards. It's a minor drawback but it adds up. If you don't think so, then why even print *any* text on a card? In the future, White Wolf should just issue cards with serial numbers and no text at all on them - at the various rarity levels by the usual number of these things and all that: say 1 rare, 3 uncommon, 2 vampires, and 5 commons per pack. Then, on release day, they can update "The Book". "The Book" has all the current card text so we can walk around with decks of cards that just have serial numbers on them and "The Book" will tell us what the cards mean. If any cards need to be errataed in the future, White Wolf need only modify "The Book" electronically and stamp a new date on it and then announce (via newsgroup, mail lists, and such) that a new book exists. We can all download it and print it or carry it around on notepad computers and look up the new versions as we need them. If this doesn't sound like such a hot idea to you, then you need to admit that at some point the concept that any card can be modified at any time for any reason, no matter how trivial, is going too far. > If you don't like it, you don't have to play with the "new cards". GOSH, it sure would be nice if that were true! But of course, it's not. To be fully competitive in a competitive game, I need to make use of all viable tools offered or I'm crippling myself. But never mind that, even. Even if never use a modified card, the fact is that my opponents can and I have no control of what they put in their deck. In fact, these kinds of things are worse in an opponent's deck. At least he had the chance to look up his cards before he built them into the deck. I have to be aware there's even a change before I can think to look it up - as I'm not going to constantly look up every card all my opponents use as they use them because that would be insane. Fred

> If you don't think so, then why even print *any* text on a card? In > the future, White Wolf should just issue cards with serial numbers and > no text at all on them... You know what? As silly and bitter as the intent of this post is, I kinda like that idea for a card game. The cards have pretty art, a name, and a bar code.. and you get a book, or a barcode scanner, or a computer program, that tells you what the correct card text is, if you need to; and you can update this to the "latest text" regularly. Like, how many times do you have to read a Dodge? Or an Arson? Or a Wake? I'm not saying do it for V:tES, but it's a neat idea, in theory, for a "collectible format" game... It would be nice to be able to scan a Heroclix mini over a scanner and see what his current abilities are...

Karol Magda wrote: > > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DC89164...@removethis.com>... > > Karol Magda wrote: > > > > > > Take MtG Type 1 for instance. Only like 5 cards from each new set are > > > playable in that format. Slightly more are playable for Type 1.5 , > > > even more for Extended , like 10-15 percent of a new set is playable > > > in Type 2 and lot of the cards are playable in Block Constructed > > > > That's because the DCI has no concept of banning or errataing overpowered > > cards unless they're *so* overpowered their effect simply can't be ignored. > > Somewhat overpowered cards are ignored as a problem. Since the designers > > of the early editions of Magic cards were so clueless about game balance, > > many of the most overpowered as well as the worst examples of wallpaper > > came from those printings. The result is that even after restricting and > > banning the worst cards, it's still hard for the better balanced cards > > printed in the last few years to make a dent in any environment that allows > > old cards. > > That's only valid argument for T1 (where no cards , perhaps except of > ante cards are banned and thus half of the deck is no-brainer fill of > restricted list). In T1.5 there is vast banned list. It's not vast enough. Last I looked, T1.5 still allowed things liked Juzam Djinn, Ernam Djinn, and other things that they'd never print nowadays. The fact that they _wouldn't_ print such a thing in a current expansion tells you there's a problem. And that is my exact point. (from further down she wrote) > Grinning Demon is comparable to Juzam Haven't seen it but I would be shocked. "It's the 'new' Juzam!" has been old joke on the Magic newsgroup for years. They've had a million years to print something comparable to Juzam Djinn and they've never done it and I doubt they've done it recently. Unless they shot their entire design group in the last two years and replaced them with evil changelings. In any case, such a change in policy would be a recent event and you therefore couldn't use the previous experience you'd had with T1.5 to say anything about Jyhad. You'd have to wait some number of years for them to continue printing a lot of new cards that were as good as the still-allowed oldest good cards in T1.5 Extended still allowed multilands last I looked. They stopped printing multilands and proceeded to design cards after 4th edition as if multilands didn't exist. At some point, extended will lop of all the base sets and expansions that included anything really bad and will likely become a fairly balanced game that point. (They may have already done it. I haven't look lately.) That's only because all of the real problem cards were in the oldest expansions. Even now, however, if they print an overpowered that's not absolutely gamebreaking, they don't bother to errata it or ban it or anything. They just let it sit there and fester, causing a number of other cards to be much less useful because they don't measure up to a game filled with top-of-the-heap power cards. In V:tES, that's not true, so I would absolutely expect our experience in this sense to differ. This point to me is just not debatable. If you want to believe T1.5 is balanced, go ahead. If nothing else, simply the amount of time it > Hovewer almost no-brainer cards do exists in V:TES , one classic > example would be a blood doll (and I am not saying it is broken, I am just saying > that most people when they create decks put 3-5 copies of blood doll > automatically in) I build lots of decks without Blood Dolls. Some people may say that's why I don't win as often as I could and perhaps that's true. But there are certain types of decks that simply don't need them. In any event, what you're talking about is not an overpowered card. It's called a "staple", and it differs from overpowered cards in that its function is consciously intended by the designers. In theory, they could issue other cards that fill similar functions but frequently, the one card fills the function so well that they just make it a common and assume people will use them in large numbers. In the case of Blood Dolls, there's Tribute to the Master, which can work better in a weeny deck and Minion Tap which can work better in a high-cap vampire deck, and things like Consanguineous Boon if you want to trust your ability to call and pass votes, but Blood Doll is probably the best one. And that's fine. You just reprint it on a regular basis and everyone, old and new, can use it. > And besides in such formats you have probably 10 000 + cards to choose > from, with ANY power curve in such format most cards would not be played. > > Contrary to popular belief here, VTES DO have a power curve. Sure, not such > a steep one as say Morphing vs Air Elemental but there still is here. > Why would then almost everyone play with Govern and not so many > peoples play with Scouting Mission ? (and before anyone gives me > examples of decks where SM is better that GtU , yes I know that they > exists, there are but few compared to decks where GtU is better) It's impossible for there _not_ to be a power curve. There's no way to make all cards exactly equal in power. There is a difference, however, in the designer philosophy for Magic cards and the designer philosophy for V:tES cards (since LSJ took control, at least) as I noted in my previous post. That difference is why having 10,000+ V:tES cards to choose from will not cause the same problem as having 10,000+ Magic cards to choose from. And Magic could be fixed, too, if the DCI had a desire to do so. > > Also, the Magic designers don't seem to hold themselves to a very high > > standard in terms of balance in general. So even in a single set even in > > recent years, there's still far much variation in the value of various > > cards. > > I do believe that Magic is far more balanced than it was say two or > three years before (by Magic I mean extended, T2, block constructed) I agree. They definitely got distinctly better over time. But they've never gotten to the point of being totally honest (either with themselves or with the public, I'm not sure which) about the overpowered old cards and what truly needs to be done about them. Or about "somewhat overpowered" new cards, for that matter. > Do you consider banning of the card (RtI) a way of fixing it ? :) Yes, I do. (Who was the American General who said of South Vietnam, "We had to destroy these people to save them."?) It "fixes it" in the sense that RtI is not dominating the game preventing people from using other cards because RtI is too good to ignore. (And using the various support cards for RtI and the cards that best defend against other players' RtI cards, etc.) > In other post you stated that ToR3 was wallpaperized, now you use it > as an example of pointing differences between Magic and V:TES :) I'm not sure what you fail to understand. An overpowered card causes people to ignore the large, "middle" class of cards because they want to use the best cards they can use. A wallpaper card only causes people to ignore one single card: the wallpaper card. The problems of overpowered cards and wallpaper cards are not equivalent problems. The former is clearly much more destructive to deckbuilding games. > Would you thing that some of the following things would be good for > the game: > > 1)printing 5 more aus/AUS intercept cards > 2)printing 5 more obf/OBF stealth cards > 3)printing 5 more for/FOR prevent cards > 4)printing some more ANI intercept cards > 5)printing some more free OBT stealth cards > 6)printing more dominate bleed cards > 7)printing more presence bleed cards > > 1) would lead to players putting 4-6 enhanced senses in the deck > and rest intercept slots would be filled with single copies of given > intercept cards avaiable, that way one entire principle of > game/deckbuilding would be, well nonexistant. > > 2) same as 1 with regard to stealth I assume you refer to the rule about playing identical action modifier and reaction cards on the same action. My opinion is simply that there are already so many different types of these cards that it really doesn't come up much if players want to avoid the problem anyway. So it doesn't strike as changing the game much to give them yet more options. Often, however, they want one particular function such as the maneuver granted by Spirit's Touch at superior. If so, then they wind up needing to use multiple copies of Spirit's Touch instead of just any old intercept reaction card and the rule will come into play. If they were to start printing cards that had exactly the same function with different names, then it would change the game over time. > 3),6),7) - the cards would be too good or too bad compared to what we > have in their categories now. Both options are not good. It isn't clear to me that such cards would necessarily be too good or too bad. I agree it's bad if it happens. But if such cards are too bad, you've wasted some cardboard. If they're too good, then that's when errata things. > > 4),5) - the entire balance between disciplines would be throwed out of > window in process It could be. You can simply reprint the existing free OBT stealth cards or ANI intercept cards in future expansions if it's the designers' intent to limit the number of different named cards. So this is not really an issue, either. > You could argue that no such cards need to be printed. Hovewer how can > you print many new cards for many of current disciplines that would be in > flavour of given discipline? Given my individual responses to the various situations you listed above, I don't believe this is an issue. > > Over time, continuing to add more and more new cards should not cause > > > -because many cards otherwise not playable in other constructed > > > formats are playable here (or biggest percentage of cards you buy are > > > actually playable besides in draft) > > > > All this amounts to is basically banning cards by card set that should > > be banned or errated on an individual basis. You really can't draw any > > conclusions from the experience of Magic. When unbalanced card problems > > are actually dealt with correctly, I think you discover that *more* cards > > get used and are considered playable over the course of printing more > > cards. Not less. > > So what do you suggest ? Banning 100 most abusive cards in the game ? > Guess what ? Even after that another 100 most abusive cards appear. That's the old Magic newsgroup refrain, isn't it? My reply to it is invariable: cards that are randomly distributed in terms of what can loosely be called, "power". This distribution is a classic bell-shaped curve in which the most powerful cards are a relative few located at the top of the curve. Lop off this thin "tip" of the curve and other cards will, indeed become "the most powerful". However, once you've lopped off enough of the tip, the cards left on top are only a little bit more powerful than most of the rest of the cards in the middle. At that point, the game is now much better because it's much harder to choose the best cards and strategies. Life is now good. Rather than banning cards, of course, you can errata them. WotC goes to the other side of errata fanaticism: they almost entirely refuse to do it at all, ever. That's their choice but regardless of which choice they make, it's much better than simply ignoring the problem which they've done. And yes, in T1.5, a *lot* of cards would need to be dealt with. Dozens, maybe over a hundred, just because they printed so many cards before the idea of game balance penetrated the thick skulls of the Magic design team. That's unfortunate, but it still doesn't help to ignore a real problem that exists and pretend T1.5 is balanced in its current form. It isn't. Not even close. > The number of cards played in given format is some percentage of > number of cards in format. The greater the number of cards in format , > the smaller the percentage. I disagree. > So grouping library cards would actually make more of your cards > playable in the long run. I can't see why it is bad thing. It's a bad thing because 1) it's not necessary, 2) it's too complicated, and 3) it clearly annoys people. > > > The extended format (where you can use cards from last 3-4 such > > > cycles) is also very popular (although sometimes not very balanced) > > > > > > The problem is that even in extended cards phase out in T1 void. > > > (because it becomes impossible to balance it) > > > > (Sigh) It's not impossible to balance it. The DCI simply refuses to > > do so. > > Worldgorger Dragon/Animate Dead combo is clear example that it is > impossible to balance vast formats while still printing new cards. > Note that both cards are O.K. on their own. The only problem is that they > exist simultaneously in given format. I think it's somewhat tricky to do at times. Particularly in Magic, where combinations of cards has a different meaning than Jyhad. In Magic, the 4-card limit is now an accepted part of the game. (Original, Richard Garfield claimed it was not. For a while, there was talk of designing it out. Eventually, they just gave up and accepted it.) Between the 4-card limit and the 60-card deck minimum, card combinations are in most cases somewhat difficult to pull off. (Note how the various "Tutor" cards drastically modify the chance of pulling off card combo, ultimately causing them to get banned in T1.5 as the designers finally realized how tricky they were to design around.) Because card combos are a low odds proposition, they must have a high payoff when two cards with synergy appear together or no one would ever use them at all. The trouble is that designing combo cards that do something worthwhile enough to have that high payoff can be very risky when there are so many other cards out there that a designer and all the playtesters can't remember and try out all the possibilities. Dealing with such things is really not so hard but the DCI handcuffs themselves by refusing to consider timely bannings or the use of errata. There's a mentality in the DCI that insists on just living with all their mistakes unless a mistake is of certain magnitude. Also, V:tES does not have the same problem because all V:tES cards are designed to be used in combinations in the first place. V:tES has no card limits so the designers are much more mindful of the sorts of things they must never do. For instance, I notice they avoid designing cards that make burning a vampire during minion phase easy, as this combos powerfully with things like Mind Rape and Spirit Minionette. Likewise, they avoid designing cards that steal another player's vampire over the course of Untap and Master phases, when it could be sacrificed to things like Golconda and Khobar Towers. It's tricky stuff, but the designers are used to avoiding pitfalls. > Magic and VTES have MANY things in common. Almost any given Magic > concept have VTES equivalent and vice versa. They may have things in common, but they also have many serious differences. In determining whether to use experience from Magic to decide what to do about V:tES, the differences are far more important than the similarities. > > > Grouping of library cards would open vast posibilities for new cards > > > and abilities which do have an impact and are not broken (and it may > > > become a problem otherwise in (not so) distant future) > > > > It is unlikely to become a problem. At least, let it become a true > > problem and then we can evaluate what to do about it. The MtG example > > is not applicable to V:tES. > > I would rather identify a possible problem , analyze it and prevent > it. The let us destroy a world so we can built it anew attitude is > something I do not subscribe to. It's not destroying the world to rebuilt it anew. It's a question of not fixing things that aren't broken. If you go down that road, you never discover whether the thing was ever going to become broken in the first place. We don't know whether this will ever be broken because attempting to use experience from Magic, as you are, is not valid. Fred

LSJ wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > Over time, continuing to add more and more new cards should not cause > > an issue of making the new ones insignificant. I do think card > > _variation_ will get to be somewhat of a problem, as players with > > particularly good, full card collections will be able to build better > > decks by coming up with any possible combination of cards in existence. > > [...] > > > Curt Adams may document certain somewhat > > significant effects of dial-a-crypt over the course of one base set to > > two base sets plus several expansions of varying sizes. That's to be > > expected since we're starting from a very small pool to one several > > times its size. But I think it's reasonable to expect that factor to > > level off over time. Grouping is really unnecessary to allow newer > > players to compete. > > Those two paragraphs are arguing opposite sides of the debate, BTW. > > The grouping rule was introduced to alleviate the problem you describe in > the first paragraph above. Ah, sorry! I did address this point a bit further down in my post. Essentially I was conceding that a problem does appear to exist in the first paragraph above. But later, I explained why I didn't think it was a very important problem: > > In a balanced environment, new players should be able to compete with old > > players. It's clear players with large collections have an advantage > > that starts out being quite substantial compared to a new player who's > > just started collecting. However, as the latter gets hold of a certain > > level in terms of variety of cards, the advantage is likely to become > > fairly minimal. Again, the experience of Magic tells you nothing about > > how this works in a game where problem cards are fixed. Sorry for the confusion. Fred

Jozxyqk wrote: > > > If you don't think so, then why even print *any* text on a card? In > > the future, White Wolf should just issue cards with serial numbers and > > no text at all on them... > > You know what? As silly and bitter as the intent of this post is, It's not intended to be bitter and only intended as silly to prove a point. A few people seem to have trouble with the concept that a massive amount of errata could be that bad for the game because they insist on looking at it from the standpoint of how minor a single instance is. I am attempting to demonstrate why leaning on this tool too much over time actually causes a serious problem. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] The current design idea is that having a "level playing field" at the "any possible combination of <vampire> cards <ever to be> in existence" level is not satisfactory. Allowing everyone equal access to a broken system doesn't fix the system, it just means that everyone can abuse the system equally. Otherwise, why not just reprint Return to Innocence with the original text rather than errata'ing it and banning it? [ quoted text not captured ]

jspektr wrote: > What if the Camarilla set had contained around 40 new vampires, > reprints of all the "good" Jyhad/VTES vampires, all of Dark Soveriegns > and Ancient Hearts, and the unreprinted Sabbat edition vampires? Forty > new camarilla vampires could probably have been designed in a way to > not cause stacking problems with old vampires by giving them unusual > discipline sets (which I think many old players enjoy, as it enables > new and interesting decks). Then you'd have a base set with all the > cards newbies supposedly can't get, without grouping. I fail to see how this is preferable to the current system. Instead of 40 new vampires, we get 100 new vampires with which to build new crypts. Different crypts. Just looking at the Nosferatu, if you want a Pot/Obf deck, you stick with group 1/2 (using Nos and !Nos). If you wan't a Pot/Ani deck, you use group 2/3 (using !Nos, Nos, and Raziya--a crypt revolving around Raziya, Tommy, Nigel, and Amelia is going to be quite effective). If you want a Pot/For Rush deck, you use group 2/3. If you want a Pot/For Prince deck, you use group 1/2. There are now more options than there used to be because of 100 new vampires, and we get to avoid: A) The super optimized crypts that would come from each clan having 30 vampires. B) New players from feeling like they *have* to get all the old, out of print vampires to compete. Peter D Bakija PD...@bigplanet.com http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6 "she tore down Paris on the tail of Thom Paine but the left wing's broken and the right's insane" -Bowie

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't think the "brokeness" of unequal access to either cards in general or vampires in particular is equivalent the brokeness of an individual unbalanced card. But if you insist on comparing the two, then I'm saying in effect, unequal access to cards - once a new player has gotten his collection up to a certain reasonable size - is the equivalent of (pre-CE) Second Tradition, not Return to Innocence. It's not completely fair, obviously. But is it unfair enough to group cards? IMHO, not a chance. Especially not if you reprint key things to mitigate the problem as an alternative. (Granted, the reprinting thing is more applicable to library cards than to vampires since few or no vampires are the "key" vampires. The advantage of owning lots of vampires is spread out, more or less, over all of them.) Fred

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20021106125345...@mb-co.aol.com... [Karol Magda wrote] > >There are lot's of (potentially > >good cards) which are not played that often because better > >alternatives exists. > >(and yes, it might be more problem with players not realizing subtle > >benefits of > >such cards compared to 'obvious' alternatives) > > I wouldn't call them good, since, by definition, in order to be good, a card > has to be desirable to play. But, yes, there are cards that would see (more) > play if better cards didn't exist. > > This is why I don't like seeing generic, high utility cards designed. I once > used to explain to people that: if you build three different decks with > completely different strategies, it's a bad thing if a card to automatically > goes into all three decks; what is desired is for cards to be obvious for one > of the decks and useless in another. This is true, I think. But I wonder if VTES doesn't by its structure mostly squeeze all "strategies" into a fairly narrow space? That is: all "strategies" must reduce their prey's pool to 0. Most of them will have to bleed at some point to do this. All (or nearly all) of them will use vampires of their own to accomplish it. Because of these commonalities, things like Blood Doll tend to be useful for every deck. If things like Blood Doll (totally generic cards, in the game's "world", generally) didn't exist, there would certainly be less commonality among the cards in decks. But if things like Blood Doll (ways to move blood back from your vampires to your pool) didn't exist, cards like Conditioning (+3 bleed for a single card and blood) would be vastly more powerful than they already are (and they're already very powerful). That could be fine, if "games going fast" is something desirable and the supremacy of fast-attack decks (or bounce etc) is generally considered okay. But in a way, the existence of these "generic" cards makes a lot of slower "strategies" more viable. (Scare quotes because I'm not sure that they are truly different strategies in the way you mean, Ian. Different methods, maybe, or flavors.) Josh flavorful

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3DC98011...@white-wolf.com... > The current design idea is that having a "level playing field" at the > "any possible combination of <vampire> cards <ever to be> in existence" > level is not satisfactory. Allowing everyone equal access to a broken > system doesn't fix the system, it just means that everyone can abuse > the system equally. Otherwise, why not just reprint Return to Innocence > with the original text rather than errata'ing it and banning it? I agree. But in the context of vampires, I'm not convinced that it's possible to (within the bounds of reasonable adherence to the "point system") have a more broken system than the one that's already in existence. We have - and will apparently always have - access to plenty of Dominate, Presence, Obfuscate, Protean, Celerity, etc. weenies. If it's possible for a profusion of midcaps and high-caps to be "more broken" than this, I'd like to see evidence. Josh for those who will survive

>But if things like Blood Doll >(ways to move blood back from your vampires to your pool) didn't >exist, cards like Conditioning (+3 bleed for a single card and blood) >would be vastly more powerful than they already are (and they're >already very powerful). > >That could be fine, if "games going fast" is something desirable and >the supremacy of fast-attack decks (or bounce etc) is generally >considered okay. But in a way, the existence of these "generic" >cards makes a lot of slower "strategies" more viable. I'm all for eliminating Conditioning. Bleeding for a lot is way too easy, as is hitting for a lot, stealthing for a lot, intercepting for a lot, passing votes by a lot. Not that I'd advocate eliminating Blood Doll, but Tribute is hardly useful in a deck that puts out 1-2 vampires, Tap is hardly useful if you put out a bunch of 2 caps. Then, there's Powerbases, Blood Puppy, Slave Auction, Investments, Ascendance, and whatever else. Blood Doll is just plain better than all of them.

Snapcase <snap...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1832e1eb8...@news.optonline.net>... > K, look at it this way. We've already got a boatload of cards that > don't do what they say they do. It's part of the game, good or bad. > Rehabilitating underpowered cards basically gives me free (and useful) > cards. I like free, useful cards. Maybe, but I have to agree with Fred. We constantly have problems with cards that have been changed, and every game, EVERY GAME breaks down at some point when someone has to stop and check a card to see what the text has been changed to and whether clarifications/errata have been issued on it. It's incredibly irritating, and turns off new players. If White Wolf is going to change card texts, I think they should then reprint the changed cards, and make them available for a small fee from the White Wolf website. Like packs of 10 2nd Traditions with the new text for $1. Otherwise, text should only be changed if the card is having a serious detrimental impact, like Return to Innocence. JSpektr

In article <aqc33k$8ohfq$1...@id-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: >That is: all "strategies" must reduce their prey's pool to 0. Most >of them will have to bleed at some point to do this. All (or nearly >all) of them will use vampires of their own to accomplish it. Because >of these commonalities, things like Blood Doll tend to be useful for >every deck. If things like Blood Doll (totally generic cards, in the >game's "world", generally) didn't exist, there would certainly be less >commonality among the cards in decks. But if things like Blood Doll >(ways to move blood back from your vampires to your pool) didn't >exist, cards like Conditioning (+3 bleed for a single card and blood) >would be vastly more powerful than they already are (and they're >already very powerful). What I'd like to see is different ways of accomplishing goals -- the new combat options (Tension in the Ranks) plus existing Fame let combat decks get somewhere here, and vote decks don't _have_ to bleed to remove pool, of course. But what I'd really like is more options for gaining pool that aren't master cards. A 'strike: gain 1 pool' seems really in-character for Ravnos/CHI, for instance, or a financier ally that can take an action to gain 1 pool, or other ways -- because pool replenishment tends to eat up a third to half to all my master slots in decks these days, and I'd sure like to use those scarce master phases for things that are more fun. GtU-based bloat, f'rinstance, is pretty viable with a Crypt-Machine kind of approach, and GtU's versatility is one of the things that makes it such a staple. Other things I wouldn't mind seeing is more special-case bleed actions, like a THA or AUS 'bleed at -1 bleed, bounces cost 1 more blood' or wacky specials like Propaganda. Action modifiers on successful (D) or even non-(D) actions to burn a pool/blood. Wacky shit like that. And, as Ian mentions, things for Celerity/Potence to do that aren't combat. That would be super neat. gomi portentous celery -- Everybody's playing the game But nobody's rules are the same

In article <196f2577.02110...@posting.google.com>, jsp...@sprynet.com says... > Maybe, but I have to agree with Fred. We constantly have problems with > cards that have been changed, and every game, EVERY GAME breaks down > at some point when someone has to stop and check a card to see what > the text has been changed to and whether clarifications/errata have > been issued on it. It's incredibly irritating, and turns off new > players. Looking at the perspective of a new player, I could see how it would be a detriment. From the perspective of a veteran, every time they upgrade old cards it's like a portion of my collection has been given a new lease on life. I don't think it's going to happen a whole lot more, though. My guess is we'll see a few cards relating to the gangrel altered in Anarchs (Shackles of Enkidu and Gangrel Revel come to mind) and that'll be it, barring errata to cards that absolutely need it. > If White Wolf is going to change card texts, I think they should then > reprint the changed cards, and make them available for a small fee > from the White Wolf website. Like packs of 10 2nd Traditions with the > new text for $1. Well, the text of 2nd tradition was changed long before it was ever reprinted in CE. But this idea is actually really damn good. I'd gladly pay a bit to get a bunch of updated reprints, instead of having to buy/trade for starter-only cards. I don't suppose we have a shot at seeing this ever happen? -Snapcase

In article <3DC97AE1...@removethis.com>, freds64 _at_cox_...@removethis.com says... <snip some magic arguments> > It's not vast enough. Last I looked, T1.5 still allowed things liked > Juzam Djinn, Ernam Djinn, and other things that they'd never print nowadays. > The fact that they _wouldn't_ print such a thing in a current expansion tells > you there's a problem. And that is my exact point. Ernham Djinn was reprinted sometime earlier this year in a set that is still legal for Type 2. > > Grinning Demon is comparable to Juzam > > Haven't seen it but I would be shocked. "It's the 'new' Juzam!" has been old joke > on the Magic newsgroup for years. They've had a million years to print something > comparable to Juzam Djinn and they've never done it and I doubt they've done it > recently. They have been making comparable critters to Juzam for years, actually. Juzam is just a poor example of a power card. Mana Drain will do, though. > Extended still allowed multilands last I looked. They stopped printing multilands > and proceeded to design cards after 4th edition as if multilands didn't exist. At > some point, extended will lop of all the base sets and expansions that included > anything really bad and will likely become a fairly balanced game that point. This has happened fairly recently and indeed has resulted in a more balanced Extended. > Even now, however, if they print an overpowered that's not absolutely gamebreaking, > they don't bother to errata it or ban it or anything. They just let it sit there and > fester, causing a number of other cards to be much less useful because they don't > measure up to a game filled with top-of-the-heap power cards. Part of this reason is that the cards will rotate out of type 2 in a relatively short period of time. Also, Wizards has a habit of printing a card or series of cards in future expansions to hose the old card that was at the top of the power curve. > That's unfortunate, but > it still doesn't help to ignore a real problem that exists and pretend T1.5 > is balanced in its current form. It isn't. Not even close. Completely true, but there are *many* broken strategies in type 1.5; at least it's not a stagnant imbalance. And really, there are no sanctioned 1.5 tournaments anymore. Wizards doesn't have the need to balance it, because nobody's playing it (and it doesn't bring them any new business). > > So grouping library cards would actually make more of your cards > > playable in the long run. I can't see why it is bad thing. > > It's a bad thing because 1) it's not necessary, 2) it's too complicated, and > 3) it clearly annoys people. Amen on #3. It's pretty much the reason I stopped playing magic. It wasn't the cost of keeping up as much as the fact that being forced to start over every year just wasn't very interesting anymore. If I had a neat deck that I liked in type 2 it was obsoleted in a year (sometimes as little time as 5 months, depending on what set combinations the key cards came from). Sure, it was still legal in Extended but it wasn't competitive. The way Wizards has structured the tournament scene, card groupings cause less of your cards to be playable in the long run. Type 2 is the most common tournament by far, extended less so, with 1.5 being nonexistent. Would White Wolf fall into the same trap? Unknown. I'd rather not be forced to find out. -Snapcase

jsp...@sprynet.com (jspektr) wrote: > If White Wolf is going to change card texts, I think they should then > reprint the changed cards, and make them available for a small fee > from the White Wolf website. Like packs of 10 2nd Traditions with the > new text for $1. What reason would I have to buy as many boosters if I could get multiples of useful cards in one packet for a minimal price? WW might as well give up on random distribution and just sell singles. james o'rance

Peter D Bakija <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:<B9EEEF4C.9AD0%PD...@bigplanet.com>... > jspektr wrote: > > > What if the Camarilla set had contained around 40 new vampires, > > reprints of all the "good" Jyhad/VTES vampires, all of Dark Soveriegns > > and Ancient Hearts, and the unreprinted Sabbat edition vampires? Forty > > new camarilla vampires could probably have been designed in a way to > > not cause stacking problems with old vampires by giving them unusual > > discipline sets (which I think many old players enjoy, as it enables > > new and interesting decks). Then you'd have a base set with all the > > cards newbies supposedly can't get, without grouping. > > I fail to see how this is preferable to the current system. Instead of 40 It is preferable because it expands the combinations available to existing decks and existing collections, instead of creating a new, separate set of decks and a new, separate collection of vampires. If you have a collection of primarily type 1 vampires, you have to purchase a large quantity of Cam cards to have a viable crypt, because NONE of the crypt cards are usable with what you have. Cam is only useful if you have a lot of type 2, or you are prepared to invest heavily in new cards. I don't think that's really as kind to new players as some people think. > new vampires, we get 100 new vampires with which to build new crypts. > Different crypts. Just looking at the Nosferatu, if you want a Pot/Obf deck, Yes, different crypts. Crypts that can only be played by large amounts of Group 3 vampires to make them. This is less expansion to the game than it would be without the Grouping rule. With grouping rule = new Group 3 crypts possible Without grouping rule = same new crypts possible + crypts combining new and old vampires possible Which expands the game more? > you stick with group 1/2 (using Nos and !Nos). If you wan't a Pot/Ani deck, > you use group 2/3 (using !Nos, Nos, and Raziya--a crypt revolving around > Raziya, Tommy, Nigel, and Amelia is going to be quite effective). If you > want a Pot/For Rush deck, you use group 2/3. If you want a Pot/For Prince > deck, you use group 1/2. There are now more options than there used to be > because of 100 new vampires, and we get to avoid: > > A) The super optimized crypts that would come from each clan having 30 > vampires. As I stated above, this is easily avoidable. Print less new vampires, reprint old vampires, and design the new vampires to not cause stacking issues that would result in "super optimized crypts." > > B) New players from feeling like they *have* to get all the old, out of > print vampires to compete. Did you read what I posted? You might want to go back to the top and try again. My suggestion was to reprint the old, out of print vampires. Thus, problem B would not exist. JSpektr

[snip] > >And besides in such formats you have probably 10 000 + cards to choose > >from, > >with ANY power curve in such format most cards would not be played. > > I have my doubts about 10000. IME, CCGs have a surprisingly low number of > different cards. But, this is an important point. Magic might have 10 000 + cards, other games definitely not, sure. > The typical CCG has a significant percentage of cards that are too weak to play > in competitive constructed. "Good cards squeeze out bad." By significant, not > talking about 10% or so. One game I played, I estimated around 50%. Magic > varies by format, but I'd estimate higher than 50%. V:TES, I'd estimate around > a third of the cards aren't worth playing. Yes, VTES is very good in that aspect. [snip] > >Everyone's favourite arguments seems to be that since there are no > >strictly > >inferior cards in V:TES besides chainsaw (a strictly inferior card is > >card that > >does the same thing as some other cards , but at greater cost) almost > >every > >card is viable/playable. That's just not true. There are lot's of > >(potentially > >good cards) which are not played that often because better > >alternatives exists. > >(and yes, it might be more problem with players not realizing subtle > >benefits of > >such cards compared to 'obvious' alternatives) > > I wouldn't call them good, since, by definition, in order to be good, a card > has to be desirable to play. But, yes, there are cards that would see (more) > play if better cards didn't exist. OK let's call them cards with potential :) > > This is why I don't like seeing generic, high utility cards designed. I once > used to explain to people that: if you build three different decks with > completely different strategies, it's a bad thing if a card to automatically > goes into all three decks; what is desired is for cards to be obvious for one > of the decks and useless in another. Yes, that would be ideal. > >Example of such cards: Scouting Mission, Intimidation, Redirection, > >Melange > > > >(note to everyone: I do not feel that this cards are bad, quite > >oposite. But I do feel that this cards are underplayed and would not > >be if some kind of grouping scheme was created with library cards) > > > >Would it not be that if we had: > > > >Group1 > > > >GtU, Threats, Deflection, Legal Manipulation, StareDown, Eagle's > >Sight, My Enemies Enemy > > > >Group2 > > > >Scouting Mission, Conditioning, Redirection, Intimidation, Melange, > >Telepatic Misdirection > > > >Rather than Big group: > > > >Threats, Deflection, Legal Manipulation, StareDown, Eagle's Sight, My > >Enemies Enemy, Scouting Mission, Conditioning, Redirection, > >Intimidation, Melange, > >Telepatic Misdirection > > > >All of the cards would appear in decks with similar frequency ? (and > >which is not a case now) > > Probably not as players come up with the optimal strategies for the given > format which may very well not include certain disciplines/strategies. I am not sure I agree with that line. [snip] > Adding more cards without taking away cards will always up the power level. > The flatter the power level to begin with, the less noticeable, of course. > Magic never had a very flat power level. The set rotation system saved the > game as far as I'm concerned. Now, with V:TES, it's very possible that the > rate of the power escalation is low enough that such drastic measures never > become essential. Even with relatively flat power level (such as V:TES has) I believe that power level might become problematic after two or three expansions which would be true expansions (and not only corrections of previous designers mistakes) > >Would you thing that some of the following things would be good for > >the game: > > > >1)printing 5 more aus/AUS intercept cards > >2)printing 5 more obf/OBF stealth cards > >3)printing 5 more for/FOR prevent cards > >4)printing some more ANI intercept cards > >5)printing some more free OBT stealth cards > >6)printing more dominate bleed cards > >7)printing more presence bleed cards > > Hell no. I think the game already has way too much redundancy. Sure, there > are reasons to play one close substitute over another, but far more interesting > would be to have cards that aren't close substitutes instead. Yes. > >You could argue that no such cards need to be printed. Hovewer how can > >you print > >many new cards for many of current disciplines that would be in > >flavour of given discipline ? > You brainstorm good ideas. I think there's tremendous room for more action > cards because action cards can be made to do more specifically useful things > than other sorts of cards. Yes, brainstorming is good thing. I trust current designers that they will brainstorm good ideas. But I do believe/fear that with adding more cards to the system (without 'taking' some away in some way) will cause collapse of a system in one way or another. > While not the best example because I don't think it's particularly in flavor, > cards like Ecstatic Agony are what I'm thinking of. Yes it was nice attempt to bring action card to auspex. Pity that it is not used. > >I would not like to see every discipline to have acess to anything. > > Okay. I would like to see some disciplines do something different, though, > primarily Celerity and Potence. > > >With grouping of library cards such problems would cease to exist > >since you could just rotate cards within each category a discipline > >has an acess to. > Creates other problems, such as annoying lots of folks. Probably yes, you cannot please everyone. [snip] > Getting back to a central point, while a lot of people really dislike the idea > that they can no longer play cards when a game rotates them out, it's not > really any different in a competitive environment from new cards making old > ones obsolete. True. Actually I do think that grouping of library cards will prevent this (such as grouping of vampire cards prevented this) > >So what do you suggest ? Banning 100 most abusive cards in the game ? > >Guess what ? Even after that another 100 most abusive cards appear. > > Ideally, you deal with those cards that have effectively banned a significantly > larger number of cards. Banning a few cards to make 50 cards playable may well > be constructive where making 10 playable wouldn't be. Yes, but that just don't work that good with relatively flat shaped power level curve. [snip] > >Magic and VTES have MANY things in common. Almost any given Magic > >concept have > >VTES equivalent and vice versa. > And, so it is with most CCGs. > >I would rather identify a possible problem , analyze it and prevent > >it. The let us destroy a world so we can built it anew attitude is > >something I do not subscribe to. > It is possible, however, that the cure is worse than the ill. A lot of CCGs > don't last long enough for the problem of bloat to matter. So, resetting the > playing field hasn't been done that often, nevermind that CCGs are less than 10 > years old. This game has had the "advantage" of having numerous redundant > effects which has effectively reduced the number of real strategies which has > helped keep it under control (with a cost in variety). Yes it is possible. But again from Magic it seems to me that cure will be someday necessary. (If at least company wants to repeatably make money from a given CCG) Karol

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<aqc33k$8ohfq$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... [ quoted text not captured ] Some kind of new alternative victory condition would be nice in that respect (like some card that would say that if player has no library he is ousted would be nice addition to HoS stupid Slaughterhouse deck) [snip rest] Karol Seeker of variety

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DC97AE1...@removethis.com>... > Karol Magda wrote: > > > > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DC89164...@removethis.com>... > > > Karol Magda wrote: > > > > > > > > Take MtG Type 1 for instance. Only like 5 cards from each new set are > > > > playable in that format. Slightly more are playable for Type 1.5 , > > > > even more for Extended , like 10-15 percent of a new set is playable > > > > in Type 2 and lot of the cards are playable in Block Constructed > > > > > > That's because the DCI has no concept of banning or errataing overpowered > > > cards unless they're *so* overpowered their effect simply can't be ignored. > > > Somewhat overpowered cards are ignored as a problem. Since the designers > > > of the early editions of Magic cards were so clueless about game balance, > > > many of the most overpowered as well as the worst examples of wallpaper > > > came from those printings. The result is that even after restricting and > > > banning the worst cards, it's still hard for the better balanced cards > > > printed in the last few years to make a dent in any environment that allows > > > old cards. > > > > That's only valid argument for T1 (where no cards , perhaps except of > > ante cards are banned and thus half of the deck is no-brainer fill of > > restricted list). In T1.5 there is vast banned list. > > It's not vast enough. Last I looked, T1.5 still allowed things liked > Juzam Djinn, Ernam Djinn, and other things that they'd never print nowadays. > The fact that they _wouldn't_ print such a thing in a current expansion tells > you there's a problem. And that is my exact point. Wrong, Erham Djinn is in print now (and legal in T2). > (from further down she wrote) > > Grinning Demon is comparable to Juzam > Haven't seen it but I would be shocked. "It's the 'new' Juzam!" has been old joke > on the Magic newsgroup for years. They've had a million years to print something > comparable to Juzam Djinn and they've never done it and I doubt they've done it > recently. Unless they shot their entire design group in the last two years and > replaced them with evil changelings. In any case, such a change in policy would > be a recent event and you therefore couldn't use the previous experience you'd > had with T1.5 to say anything about Jyhad. You'd have to wait some number of > years for them to continue printing a lot of new cards that were as good as the > still-allowed oldest good cards in T1.5 Grinning Demon B Creature - Demon 6/6 At the beginning of your upkeep, you lose 2 life. Morph (You may play this face down as a 2/2 creature for . Turn it face up any time for its morph cost.) Grinning Demon Cost 2BB Creature - Demon 6/6 At the beginning of your upkeep, you lose 2 life. Morph 2BB (You may play this face down as a 2/2 creature for 3 Turn it face up any time for its morph cost.) Be shocked now. Almost complete removal of fast mana from T2 enviroment makes such card far less problematic. > Extended still allowed multilands last I looked. They stopped printing multilands > and proceeded to design cards after 4th edition as if multilands didn't exist. At > some point, extended will lop of all the base sets and expansions that included > anything really bad and will likely become a fairly balanced game that point. > (They may have already done it. I haven't look lately.) That's only because all > of the real problem cards were in the oldest expansions. Even now, however, if > they print an overpowered that's not absolutely gamebreaking, they don't bother to > errata it or ban it or anything. They just let it sit there and fester, causing > a number of other cards to be much less useful because they don't measure up to a > game filled with top-of-the-heap power cards. In V:tES, that's not true, so I > would absolutely expect our experience in this sense to differ. Multilands are not in extended right now. You should probably be more in touch with magic if you want to ramble about it. > This point to me is just not debatable. If you want to believe T1.5 is balanced, > go ahead. If nothing else, simply the amount of time it And what are you doing, now ? > > Hovewer almost no-brainer cards do exists in V:TES , one classic > > example would be a blood doll (and I am not saying it is broken, I am just saying > > that most people when they create decks put 3-5 copies of blood doll > > automatically in) > > I build lots of decks without Blood Dolls. Some people may say that's why I don't > win as often as I could and perhaps that's true. But there are certain types of > decks that simply don't need them. > > In any event, what you're talking about is not an overpowered card. It's called > a "staple", and it differs from overpowered cards in that its function is > consciously intended by the designers. In theory, they could issue other cards > that fill similar functions but frequently, the one card fills the function so > well that they just make it a common and assume people will use them in large > numbers. In the case of Blood Dolls, there's Tribute to the Master, which can > work better in a weeny deck and Minion Tap which can work better in a high-cap > vampire deck, and things like Consanguineous Boon if you want to trust your > ability to call and pass votes, but Blood Doll is probably the best one. And > that's fine. You just reprint it on a regular basis and everyone, old and new, > can use it. So what if I call all broken / powerfull cards 'staple' ? > > And besides in such formats you have probably 10 000 + cards to choose > > from, with ANY power curve in such format most cards would not be played. > > > > Contrary to popular belief here, VTES DO have a power curve. Sure, not such > > a steep one as say Morphing vs Air Elemental but there still is here. > > Why would then almost everyone play with Govern and not so many > > peoples play with Scouting Mission ? (and before anyone gives me > > examples of decks where SM is better that GtU , yes I know that they > > exists, there are but few compared to decks where GtU is better) > > It's impossible for there _not_ to be a power curve. There's no way to make > all cards exactly equal in power. There is a difference, however, in the > designer philosophy for Magic cards and the designer philosophy for V:tES > cards (since LSJ took control, at least) as I noted in my previous post. > That difference is why having 10,000+ V:tES cards to choose from will not > cause the same problem as having 10,000+ Magic cards to choose from. And > Magic could be fixed, too, if the DCI had a desire to do so. There is desire in both DCI and R&D, don't make no mistake. > > > Also, the Magic designers don't seem to hold themselves to a very high > > > standard in terms of balance in general. So even in a single set even in > > > recent years, there's still far much variation in the value of various > > > cards. > > > > I do believe that Magic is far more balanced than it was say two or > > three years before (by Magic I mean extended, T2, block constructed) > > I agree. They definitely got distinctly better over time. But they've > never gotten to the point of being totally honest (either with themselves or > with the public, I'm not sure which) about the overpowered old cards and what > truly needs to be done about them. Or about "somewhat overpowered" new cards, > for that matter. Actually they are quite honest. Just go read www.wizards.com/magic where designers talk about things they do and WHY they do it. > > Do you consider banning of the card (RtI) a way of fixing it ? :) > > Yes, I do. (Who was the American General who said of South Vietnam, "We > had to destroy these people to save them."?) It "fixes it" in the sense > that RtI is not dominating the game preventing people from using other cards > because RtI is too good to ignore. (And using the various support cards for > RtI and the cards that best defend against other players' RtI cards, etc.) > > > In other post you stated that ToR3 was wallpaperized, now you use it > > as an example of pointing differences between Magic and V:TES :) > > I'm not sure what you fail to understand. An overpowered card causes people > to ignore the large, "middle" class of cards because they want to use the > best cards they can use. A wallpaper card only causes people to ignore one > single card: the wallpaper card. The problems of overpowered cards and > wallpaper cards are not equivalent problems. The former is clearly much > more destructive to deckbuilding games. What I am saying that adding new cards to the system will walpaperize some cards in process no matter how would you like to prevent it (why should I play with pokers in my !Salubri when there is weighted walking stick in format ?) [ quoted text not captured ] Most of the time, what you need is different intercept cards. > > 3),6),7) - the cards would be too good or too bad compared to what we > > have in their categories now. Both options are not good. > > It isn't clear to me that such cards would necessarily be too good or > too bad. I agree it's bad if it happens. But if such cards are too > bad, you've wasted some cardboard. If they're too good, then that's > when errata things. If they are bad - wallpaper printed, point proven. If they are good - old card wallpaperized, point proven. > > 4),5) - the entire balance between disciplines would be throwed out of > > window in process > > It could be. You can simply reprint the existing free OBT stealth cards > or ANI intercept cards in future expansions if it's the designers' intent > to limit the number of different named cards. So this is not really an > issue, either. It is, you don't get new cards in that category and therefore you will create less incentive for old players to buy (parts) of new set. Although I feel that reprints are necessary (in current state, since game is just being reintroduced to larger audience) they are quite boring. > > You could argue that no such cards need to be printed. Hovewer how can > > you print many new cards for many of current disciplines that would be in > > flavour of given discipline? > > Given my individual responses to the various situations you listed above, > I don't believe this is an issue. I desperately want to see new cards for old disciplines. If that didn't happen soon, I am afraid the game will become too dull for me soon :( > > > Over time, continuing to add more and more new cards should not cause > > > > > > -because many cards otherwise not playable in other constructed > > > > formats are playable here (or biggest percentage of cards you buy are > > > > actually playable besides in draft) > > > > > > All this amounts to is basically banning cards by card set that should > > > be banned or errated on an individual basis. You really can't draw any > > > conclusions from the experience of Magic. When unbalanced card problems > > > are actually dealt with correctly, I think you discover that *more* cards > > > get used and are considered playable over the course of printing more > > > cards. Not less. > > > > So what do you suggest ? Banning 100 most abusive cards in the game ? > > Guess what ? Even after that another 100 most abusive cards appear. > > That's the old Magic newsgroup refrain, isn't it? My reply to it is invariable: > cards that are randomly distributed in terms of what can loosely be called, > "power". This distribution is a classic bell-shaped curve in which the most > powerful cards are a relative few located at the top of the curve. Lop off > this thin "tip" of the curve and other cards will, indeed become "the most > powerful". However, once you've lopped off enough of the tip, the cards left > on top are only a little bit more powerful than most of the rest of the cards > in the middle. At that point, the game is now much better because it's much > harder to choose the best cards and strategies. Life is now good. What if power level of cards has different distribution ? What then ? Entire construction out of window. > Rather than banning cards, of course, you can errata them. WotC goes to the > other side of errata fanaticism: they almost entirely refuse to do it at all, > ever. That's their choice but regardless of which choice they make, it's much > better than simply ignoring the problem which they've done. And yes, in T1.5, > a *lot* of cards would need to be dealt with. Dozens, maybe over a hundred, > just because they printed so many cards before the idea of game balance > penetrated the thick skulls of the Magic design team. That's unfortunate, but > it still doesn't help to ignore a real problem that exists and pretend T1.5 > is balanced in its current form. It isn't. Not even close. Actually when I talked with one of my friend who does not play CCG anymore about how things WotC do ( no errata, rather phasing it out and printing lesser version) and how things WW do (errata when card is too powerfull) he considered WotC approach better one. So I guess it's matter of taste. (note: I do prefer WW approach, but I can understand the other one) > > The number of cards played in given format is some percentage of > > number of cards in format. The greater the number of cards in format , > > the smaller the percentage. > > I disagree. Care to say why ? > > So grouping library cards would actually make more of your cards > > playable in the long run. I can't see why it is bad thing. > > It's a bad thing because 1) it's not necessary, 2) it's too complicated, and > 3) it clearly annoys people. 1) we have precedence 2) ditto 3) So what ? The product is not aimed at people who cries sky is falling everytime something annoys them. [ quoted text not captured ] Given enough time it will become problem in V:TES too, no matter how hardly designers/playtesters try to avoid it. > Dealing with such things is really not so hard but the DCI handcuffs > themselves by refusing to consider timely bannings or the use of errata. > There's a mentality in the DCI that insists on just living with all their > mistakes unless a mistake is of certain magnitude. Also, V:tES does not > have the same problem because all V:tES cards are designed to be used in > combinations in the first place. V:tES has no card limits so the designers > are much more mindful of the sorts of things they must never do. For instance, > I notice they avoid designing cards that make burning a vampire during minion > phase easy, as this combos powerfully with things like Mind Rape and Spirit > Minionette. Likewise, they avoid designing cards that steal another player's > vampire over the course of Untap and Master phases, when it could be > sacrificed to things like Golconda and Khobar Towers. It's tricky stuff, but > the designers are used to avoiding pitfalls. DCI do ban cards if there is need. > > Magic and VTES have MANY things in common. Almost any given Magic > > concept have VTES equivalent and vice versa. > They may have things in common, but they also have many serious > differences. In determining whether to use experience from Magic to > decide what to do about V:tES, the differences are far more important > than the similarities. What are the differencies you are refering to ? > > > > Grouping of library cards would open vast posibilities for new cards > > > > and abilities which do have an impact and are not broken (and it may > > > > become a problem otherwise in (not so) distant future) > > > > > > It is unlikely to become a problem. At least, let it become a true > > > problem and then we can evaluate what to do about it. The MtG example > > > is not applicable to V:tES. > > > > I would rather identify a possible problem , analyze it and prevent > > it. The let us destroy a world so we can built it anew attitude is > > something I do not subscribe to. > > It's not destroying the world to rebuilt it anew. It's a question of not > fixing things that aren't broken. If you go down that road, you never > discover whether the thing was ever going to become broken in the first > place. We don't know whether this will ever be broken because attempting > to use experience from Magic, as you are, is not valid. I don't saw any point made that would made my example not valid. Sorry. Karol

For the really bad cards you can make combo-cards. Example: "Monsters from the past" combines Legacy of Caine, Anachronism and Fear of Mekhet into one card. When you play the card you choose one of the three effects. The method works only on certain cards, but masters can be dealt with this way. When was the last time you saw "The Damned" in play? Combine it with some other minor effects and you have a flexible card that works against younger vampires. ("Under preassure: >4 cap is tapped & doesn´t untap during next untap"; "Questionable Lineage: >4 cap becomes clanless & indepedent") For the really good cards there are four ways to go. Ban, restrict, errata or print a nullifier. All four of them are lame, but I think that a restriction is the least bad option. No, I don´t play with a cardlimit. No, I´m not a fascist. But I wouldn´t mind if you only were allowed 3-5 2nd & 5th, for example. (old versions) /Mathias

agzocgud wrote: > For the really good cards there are four ways to go. > Ban, restrict, errata or print a nullifier. All four of them are lame, > but I think that a restriction is the least bad option. I think it's clearly the worst option. Admit a card is overpowered but allow _some_ copies? So you're allowing _some_ overpowered cards in each game? On top of which, when and if they come up in the deck makes for a swing of luck since if they don't, you have to rely on your "mundane" cards to carry you through... Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] It might not be the "worst" option if the card was only overpowered when played in multiples with itself. Putting it on a restricted list whereby only 1 could be in a deck would "fix" the card (neuter it) more severely than adding errata to say "a minion can play only 1 <X> each <time period>". Not that there's any plan to make a restricted list currently, of course. [ quoted text not captured ]

"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3dc26097$0$5274$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > :: > :: The grouping rule is supposed to keep the playing field level for > :: newer players who will never have access to group 1 vampires. > > you'll always have access to group 1 vampires. you can buy all this jyhad > old stock on the internet, and old vampire will give eagerly give (or trade) > lots of them to newbies. > > I don't see what the problem is with the grouping. If it's only the > dial-a-vamp and weenie madness that may occur, i don't think it's a real > threat. Yeah, I was just saying "supposed to" as in that's, as I understand it, the argument in favor of grouping. It is hypothetically possible for the supply of group 1 vampires to be exhausted someday, but then it's always possible to reprint those vampires, too. I mostly agree with you: we already have as much weenie madness as we're likely to get, and dial-a-vamp isn't likely to become any more of a problem than it already is, in my opinion. Josh would rather dial a song than dial a vamp

Karol Magda wrote: > > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DC97AE1...@removethis.com>... > > Karol Magda wrote: > > > > > > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DC89164...@removethis.com>... > > > > Karol Magda wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Take MtG Type 1 for instance. Only like 5 cards from each new set are > > > > > playable in that format. Slightly more are playable for Type 1.5 , > > > > > even more for Extended , like 10-15 percent of a new set is playable > > > > > in Type 2 and lot of the cards are playable in Block Constructed > > > > > > > > That's because the DCI has no concept of banning or errataing overpowered > > > > cards unless they're *so* overpowered their effect simply can't be ignored. > > > > Somewhat overpowered cards are ignored as a problem. > > > > > > In T1.5 there is vast banned list. > > > > It's not vast enough. Last I looked, T1.5 still allowed things liked > > Juzam Djinn, Ernam Djinn, and other things that they'd never print nowadays. > > The fact that they _wouldn't_ print such a thing in a current expansion tells > > you there's a problem. And that is my exact point. > > Wrong, Erham Djinn is in print now (and legal in T2). It may be that they've finally loosened up on creatures. Particularly green creatures, after years of people talking about what a joke green was as a color. None the less, I repeat, such experience with T1.5 is only fairly recent then so you can't really rely on long-haul statements about how many new-issue cards are useable in T1.5 at this point. Not if design policy has recently changed. And, as the another poster mentioned, there's still other things allowed in T1.5 they would clearly never reprint - which is my point. > > (from further down she wrote) > > > Grinning Demon is comparable to Juzam > > > Haven't seen it but I would be shocked. "It's the 'new' Juzam!" has been old joke > > on the Magic newsgroup for years. > > Grinning Demon B Creature - Demon 6/6 At the beginning of your > upkeep, you lose 2 life. Morph (You may play this face down as a 2/2 > creature for . Turn it face up any time for its morph cost.) > > Grinning Demon Cost 2BB Creature - Demon 6/6 At the beginning of your > upkeep, you lose 2 life. Morph 2BB (You may play this face down as a > 2/2 creature for 3 Turn it face up any time for its morph cost.) > > Be shocked now. Sorry. I don't consider it to be as good as Juzam. > > Extended still allowed multilands last I looked. They stopped printing multilands > > and proceeded to design cards after 4th edition as if multilands didn't exist. At > > some point, extended will lop of all the base sets and expansions that included > > anything really bad and will likely become a fairly balanced game that point. > > (They may have already done it. I haven't look lately.) That's only because all > > of the real problem cards were in the oldest expansions. Even now, however, if > > they print an overpowered that's not absolutely gamebreaking, they don't bother to > > errata it or ban it or anything. They just let it sit there and fester, causing > > a number of other cards to be much less useful because they don't measure up to a > > game filled with top-of-the-heap power cards. In V:tES, that's not true, so I > > would absolutely expect our experience in this sense to differ. > > Multilands are not in extended right now. You should probably be more > in touch with magic if you want to ramble about it. I haven't looked in on it in two years. I have a few specific details wrong (which I already conceded were suspect) but so what? Please address how this affects the overall issue. Simply finding an incorrect statement that doesn't alter the underpinnings of the other person's argument is irrelevant. To the extent Extended has become "fair", it has also turned into a slow-moving T2 that bans whole expansions and editions of the base set at a time. So it can not be seen as a good example for another CCG to emulate. Your cards rotate through states: being legal for all tournaments, being legal for Extended, T1, and T1.5, then only for T1 and T1.5 at some point. Unless reprinted, they then become effectively useless as no one wants to play unbalanced T1 OR T1.5. This is one of the reasons I stopped playing Magic. > > > Hovewer almost no-brainer cards do exists in V:TES , one classic > > > example would be a blood doll (and I am not saying it is broken, I am just saying > > > that most people when they create decks put 3-5 copies of blood doll > > > automatically in) > > > > ...what you're talking about is not an overpowered card. It's called > > a "staple", and it differs from overpowered cards in that its function is > > consciously intended by the designers. In theory, they could issue other cards > > that fill similar functions but frequently, the one card fills the function so > > well that they just make it a common and assume people will use them in large > > numbers. In the case of Blood Dolls, there's Tribute to the Master, which can > > work better in a weeny deck and Minion Tap which can work better in a high-cap > > vampire deck, and things like Consanguineous Boon if you want to trust your > > ability to call and pass votes, but Blood Doll is probably the best one. And > > that's fine. You just reprint it on a regular basis and everyone, old and new, > > can use it. > > So what if I call all broken / powerfull cards 'staple' ? What if you do? Is anyone going to believe you? Does your "staple" lend itself to a making one easy, obvious deck that tends to dominate the game or does it get used as a building block in lots of completely different types of decks? Was its effect clearly intended by the designers or did its use (particularly in combination with one or a small number of other cards) seem to surprise them? It's not always cut and dried whether a card is a "staple" or a broken card. But usually there are fairly obvious clues to discern the two different situations. The bottom line is whether it seems to help or hurt the game as a whole. > > Magic could be fixed, too, if the DCI had a desire to do so. > > There is desire in both DCI and R&D, don't make no mistake. No, I mean if they had a DESIRE to. Like, if they cared more about making the game balanced than not getting flamed a bunch of people who don't understand game balance issues. One difference between the Magic newsgroup and this one: you mention game balance here and most everyone understands what you're talking about. Bring up the issue in the Magic newsgroup and there's still a bunch of people who are clueless about it and will not accept it as a reason for doing anything with the game. They care only about other things, such as promoting the type of deck they like to play and making sure their collection remains as powerful and monetarily valuable as possible. I don't fault such motivations. But many of them don't seem to understand that if you don't have game balance, ultimately, you have a lousy game. The DCI, for one reason or another, has never been able to stand up and take care of the balance problems in T1.5. (And who even cares about T1?) They refuse to use errata and they don't want to take responsibility for banning cards. The result is a format nobody plays. So cards rotated out of Extended have no place to go unless/until they happen to get reprinted. > > > > Also, the Magic designers don't seem to hold themselves to a very high > > > > standard in terms of balance in general. So even in a single set even in > > > > recent years, there's still far much variation in the value of various > > > > cards. > > > > > > I do believe that Magic is far more balanced than it was say two or > > > three years before (by Magic I mean extended, T2, block constructed) > > > > I agree. They definitely got distinctly better over time. But they've > > never gotten to the point of being totally honest (either with themselves or > > with the public, I'm not sure which) about the overpowered old cards and what > > truly needs to be done about them. Or about "somewhat overpowered" new cards, > > for that matter. > > Actually they are quite honest. Just go read www.wizards.com/magic > where designers talk about things they do and WHY they do it. I didn't say anything about being literally dishonest with their reasoning. I said being totally honest about overpowered old cards and what truly needs to be done about them. I mean I do think the DCI has some concept of balancing the game, they just can't bring themselves to the inevitable, indisputable conclusion that if they wouldn't print an old card in this year's expansion because it is now considered too powerful, then they shouldn't allow it in its original form in T1.5. To me, that seems obvious. Why the DCI can't see that is perplexing. > What I am saying that adding new cards to the system will walpaperize > some cards in process no matter how would you like to prevent it (why > should I play with pokers in my !Salubri when there is weighted > walking stick in format ?) I don't understand the question. The two cards clearly have their differences and you might choose to use either, depending on whether you care how easy the weapon is to put into play, how quickly it goes away and whether you're more likely to see Fortitude damage prevention or Kiaysd vampires in your metagame. Clearly, Weighted Walking Stick does not "wallpaperize" Poker. It simply provides another alternative that does the same thing with somewhat different specifics. I think you need to come up with a different example to express your question. > > > Would you thing that some of the following things would be good for > > > the game: > > > > > > 1)printing 5 more aus/AUS intercept cards > > > 2)printing 5 more obf/OBF stealth cards > > > > > > 1) would lead to players putting 4-6 enhanced senses in the deck > > > and rest intercept slots would be filled with single copies of given > > > intercept cards avaiable, that way one entire principle of > > > game/deckbuilding would be, well nonexistant. > > > > > > 2) same as 1 with regard to stealth > > > > My opinion is simply that there > > are already so many different types of these cards that it really doesn't > > come up much if players want to avoid the problem anyway. So it doesn't > > strike as changing the game much to give them yet more options. Often, > > however, they want one particular function such as the maneuver granted > > by Spirit's Touch at superior. If so, then they wind up needing to use > > multiple copies of Spirit's Touch instead of just any old intercept > > reaction card and the rule will come into play. If they were to start > > printing cards that had exactly the same function with different names, > > then it would change the game over time. > > Most of the time, what you need is different intercept cards. Sure. So what? Not all the time. And even if so, all you've done is change the game a bit by adding more variety. That's not evidence of a problem, per se. > > > 3)printing 5 more for/FOR prevent cards > > > 6)printing more dominate bleed cards > > > 7)printing more presence bleed cards > > > > 3),6),7) - the cards would be too good or too bad compared to what we > > > have in their categories now. Both options are not good. > > > > It isn't clear to me that such cards would necessarily be too good or > > too bad. I agree it's bad if it happens. But if such cards are too > > bad, you've wasted some cardboard. If they're too good, then that's > > when errata things. > > If they are bad - wallpaper printed, point proven. > If they are good - old card wallpaperized, point proven. Those are mistakes in design. If they are bad, they are ignored, which is not a problem. If they are good, as I said, they will get errata or get banned. Also not a problem. I don't know what your point could be. This does not cause the overall problem you claimed. > > > 4)printing some more ANI intercept cards > > > 5)printing some more free OBT stealth cards > > > 4),5) - the entire balance between disciplines would be throwed out of > > > window in process > > > > It could be. You can simply reprint the existing free OBT stealth cards > > or ANI intercept cards in future expansions if it's the designers' intent > > to limit the number of different named cards. So this is not really an > > issue, either. > > It is, you don't get new cards in that category and therefore you will > create less incentive for old players to buy (parts) of new set. So? That situation already exists. We already have reprints in sets. There are ways to reprint cards that tend to funnel them into places that they can have little or no effect on new card sales. Put them precons. Reprint in sets like Camarilla Edition that are intended mainly for new players (and get rid of most or all new cards in such sets). Or reprint few enough cards in boosters intended to release new cards that old players won't care very much. I believe you're struggling to insist that there's a problem here but there isn't. It has a reasonably easy alternative solution. And I suggest another alternative solution below (i.e. the Elder Intervention/Pack Tactics and bleed modifier types of solutions). > Although I feel that reprints are necessary (in current state, since > game is just being reintroduced to larger audience) they are quite > boring. Sure. That's why White Wolf should try to isolate them to places that new players can buy and you can ignore. > I desperately want to see new cards for old disciplines. If that > didn't happen soon, I am afraid the game will become too dull for me > soon :( Sure. You can have new cards for old disciplines. There's nothing here that prevents it. Your last example, about discipline balance issues with respect to a limitation in named cards that will do a certain thing (e.g. free stealth for obtenebration) may place limitations on designing a few sorts of isolated things but so what? Even that has an answer. Notice what they did for Elder Intervention and Pack Tactics? They didn't want two disciplineless +2 intercept cards allowed to react to the same bleed action. So they just wrote it straight out: you may not use both cards against the same action. Notice what they do for bleed modifiers. They have lots of different named bleed action modifiers that do different things but you can only use one of them in a given action anyway (excepting the case of Command of the Beast). Your issues have other solutions aside from grouping library cards. > > > So what do you suggest ? Banning 100 most abusive cards in the game ? > > > Guess what ? Even after that another 100 most abusive cards appear. > > > > That's the old Magic newsgroup refrain, isn't it? My reply to it is invariable: > > cards that are randomly distributed in terms of what can loosely be called, > > "power". This distribution is a classic bell-shaped curve in which the most > > powerful cards are a relative few located at the top of the curve. Lop off > > this thin "tip" of the curve and other cards will, indeed become "the most > > powerful". However, once you've lopped off enough of the tip, the cards left > > on top are only a little bit more powerful than most of the rest of the cards > > in the middle. At that point, the game is now much better because it's much > > harder to choose the best cards and strategies. Life is now good. > > What if power level of cards has different distribution ? What then ? > Entire construction out of window. It doesn't have a different distribution. There's no reason it should. > > Rather than banning cards, of course, you can errata them. WotC goes to the > > other side of errata fanaticism: they almost entirely refuse to do it at all, > > ever. That's their choice but regardless of which choice they make, it's much > > better than simply ignoring the problem which they've done. And yes, in T1.5, > > a *lot* of cards would need to be dealt with. Dozens, maybe over a hundred, > > just because they printed so many cards before the idea of game balance > > penetrated the thick skulls of the Magic design team. That's unfortunate, but > > it still doesn't help to ignore a real problem that exists and pretend T1.5 > > is balanced in its current form. It isn't. Not even close. > > Actually when I talked with one of my friend who does not play CCG > anymore about how things WotC do ( no errata, rather phasing it out and > printing lesser version) and how things WW do (errata when card is too > powerfull) he considered WotC approach better one. So I guess it's > matter of taste. (note: I do prefer WW approach, but I can understand > the other one) It is a matter of taste, I suppose. But the results speak for themselves. No one is satisfied with the end result in Magic. People leave the game inevitably because they consider it to be a huge money sucker that ultimately leaves them with far too many dead cards for various reasons. Be that as it may, the overall point I was making was that the two approaches were different. Whether you consider the White Wolf approach superior not is orthogonal to the conclusion that grouping library cards are not necessary to answer a potential problem in V:tES that you see in Magic. Since the same conditions do not apply in V:tES as in Magic, you can't claim that the same eventual problem will occur. > > > The number of cards played in given format is some percentage of > > > number of cards in format. The greater the number of cards in format , > > > the smaller the percentage. > > > > I disagree. > > Care to say why? I already have: because overpowered cards are fixed in V:tES whereas they're allowed to fester in Magic. > > > So grouping library cards would actually make more of your cards > > > playable in the long run. I can't see why it is bad thing. > > > > It's a bad thing because 1) it's not necessary, 2) it's too complicated, and > > 3) it clearly annoys people. > > 1) we have precedence > 2) ditto So? Precedence is not a reason to do something if it was a bad thing. And whatever you may think of grouping vampires, again, the same conditions do not apply to library cards so the same answer is not necessary. > 3) So what ? The product is not aimed at people who cries sky is > falling everytime something annoys them. Annoying people is a bad thing to do if you don't have a good reason to do it. I'll accept bad things if you have a greater good thing come from it. But you haven't shown anything good would come from grouping library cards. (Elided several questions I've already answered.) > > > > > Grouping of library cards would open vast posibilities for new cards > > > > > and abilities which do have an impact and are not broken (and it may > > > > > become a problem otherwise in (not so) distant future) > > > > > > > > It is unlikely to become a problem. At least, let it become a true > > > > problem and then we can evaluate what to do about it. The MtG example > > > > is not applicable to V:tES. > > > > > > I would rather identify a possible problem , analyze it and prevent > > > it. The let us destroy a world so we can built it anew attitude is > > > something I do not subscribe to. > > > > It's not destroying the world to rebuilt it anew. It's a question of not > > fixing things that aren't broken. If you go down that road, you never > > discover whether the thing was ever going to become broken in the first > > place. We don't know whether this will ever be broken because attempting > > to use experience from Magic, as you are, is not valid. > > I don't saw any point made that would made my example not valid. > Sorry. I guess we'll have to disagree about that. You've essentially conceded that the philosophies of the designers of the two different game clearly differ in terms of handling overpowered cards. Some of the other issues you brought up are either irrelevant and/or have better answers than grouping library cards. Inevitably, people will vary in how they look at complex issues such as these. But I think the case for group library cards at this point is extremely weak. Fred

"Karol Magda" <karol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:df69cc0d.02110...@posting.google.com... > Some kind of new alternative victory condition would be nice in that > respect (like some card that would say that if player has no library > he is ousted would be nice addition to HoS stupid Slaughterhouse deck) Sure. But it might make Slaughterhouses too powerful then. :-) I'm wary, in general, of "somebody gets ousted" cards that act outside the "ousted at 0 pool" framework. The pool-gain/destruction dynamic is one of the core concepts of VTES in my opinion, and should be circumvented only with great caution. Josh center vented

LSJ wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > agzocgud wrote: > > > For the really good cards there are four ways to go. > > > Ban, restrict, errata or print a nullifier. All four of them are lame, > > > but I think that a restriction is the least bad option. > > > > I think it's clearly the worst option. Admit a card is overpowered but > > allow _some_ copies? So you're allowing _some_ overpowered cards in each > > game? On top of which, when and if they come up in the deck makes for > > a swing of luck since if they don't, you have to rely on your "mundane" > > cards to carry you through... > > It might not be the "worst" option if the card was only overpowered when > played in multiples with itself. Putting it on a restricted list whereby > only 1 could be in a deck would "fix" the card (neuter it) more severely > than adding errata to say "a minion can play only 1 <X> each <time period>". Yep, you're right. I shot back an answer, totally forgetting that the issue was more complicated than that. I think what you're saying is that it's OK to play the odd Reality Mirror because it's likely to have an opportunity cost equal to its potential benefit if played sporadically. On the other hand, if people can design whole decks around that effect, it may somehow become an abusive card. (I can't think how exactly but I can see how there might be the potential for it.) This, as opposed to the original form of Return to Innocence, which is generally too powerful even if only played once. Restricting it only limits the damage. > Not that there's any plan to make a restricted list currently, of course. Of course, when you restrict a card, it's much nicer to do it on card text in some manner (e.g. uniqueness, "only 1 can be played per game", that sort of thing). This should never require a VEKN rule. Fred

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20021106171141...@mb-fa.aol.com... [I wrote] > >But if things like Blood Doll > >(ways to move blood back from your vampires to your pool) didn't > >exist, cards like Conditioning (+3 bleed for a single card and blood) > >would be vastly more powerful than they already are (and they're > >already very powerful). > > > >That could be fine, if "games going fast" is something desirable and > >the supremacy of fast-attack decks (or bounce etc) is generally > >considered okay. But in a way, the existence of these "generic" > >cards makes a lot of slower "strategies" more viable. > > I'm all for eliminating Conditioning. Bleeding for a lot is way too easy, as > is hitting for a lot, stealthing for a lot, intercepting for a lot, passing > votes by a lot. Heh. Funny you should say that, as that was sort of what I was thinking at the time too. That the game as a whole might be "better" (for my own personal value of better I guess) if no individual cards had such large pool impacts (or perhaps impacts of any kind) as the strongest ones actually do. But it'd be a whole different game, really. One with a lot fewer cards, maybe. (Since making it harder to get large stealth/intercept would (at least under current rules) require reducing the number of different- named stealth/intercept cards, etc.) > Not that I'd advocate eliminating Blood Doll, but Tribute is hardly useful in a > deck that puts out 1-2 vampires, Tap is hardly useful if you put out a bunch of > 2 caps. Then, there's Powerbases, Blood Puppy, Slave Auction, Investments, > Ascendance, and whatever else. Blood Doll is just plain better than all of > them. Right. Which is why it's a "staple" and the others aren't. Because you have to get pool from somewhere, and making it possible to get the same quantities "from nowhere" (ie not from the blood influenced to your vampires) would probably be too strong (which is why the other sources can't really compete). Josh bled hard and put away dry

>Blood Doll is just plain better than all >of >> them. > >Right. Which is why it's a "staple" and the others aren't. Should we just say (for the appropriate cards): if it's a common, it's a staple; if it's a rare, it's overpowered? Not a horrible "definition".

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20021107161003...@mb-fp.aol.com... [I wrote, re Blood Doll vs other inferior pool-gaining masters] > >Right. Which is why it's a "staple" and the others aren't. > > Should we just say (for the appropriate cards): > if it's a common, it's a staple; > if it's a rare, it's overpowered? > > Not a horrible "definition". Heh. I can't help thinking that "magnitude of effect" (relative to everything else in the "card universe") should come into here somewhere. Return to Innocence would still be annoying if it were common, right? And Disarm? This is probably why (pretty much) no one minds Blood Doll being so good, though. If it were rare, people would most likely complain. Likewise Conditioning. Kine Resources Contested. Josh and uncommons fall on both sides, it seems

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message > news:20021107161003...@mb-fp.aol.com... > > [I wrote, re Blood Doll vs other inferior pool-gaining masters] > > > >Right. Which is why it's a "staple" and the others aren't. > > > > Should we just say (for the appropriate cards): > > if it's a common, it's a staple; > > if it's a rare, it's overpowered? > > > > Not a horrible "definition". > > Heh. I can't help thinking that "magnitude of effect" (relative to > everything else in the "card universe") should come into here > somewhere. Return to Innocence would still be annoying if it were > common, right? And Disarm? Disarm would be fine. Just overprinted I suspect. I was responding to Karol Magda about this elsewhere in this thread. To me, "stapleness" implies a designer-intended common utility effect that itself doesn't constrain overall strategy. Return to Innocence could be a staple if the game had been designed around letting vampires burn themselves to effect large bleeds. If so, the game would need to branch out into a number of alternative substrategies within that reality, or else provide alternative strategies that were as powerful and/or somehow could turn RtI against itself. (Bounce actually does that somewhat but bounce itself is deemed too narrow to be considered an answer.) Were this true, it could reasonably be thought of as a staple. Then it probably shouldn't be a rare, of course. But none of this is true. So it's overpowered. This is why I say, commonality isn't really proof that a card is or isn't a staple. It's just that if a card truly functions as a staple, it _should_ be common because it's going to be used to effect many different strategies. Another clue, by the way, involves whether the card was originally printed in a base set. Although in rare cases, certain cards get printed in expansions that ultimately become staples (at least sort of) because they drop into the game so nicely. Carrion Crows is a good example of this because it became such a nice partner to Aid From Bats and animalism really needed the combat option. Normally, though, most staples were created in the beginning and the game has "grown up" around them. So it's unlikely that an expansion rare is going to qualify. A card is an expansion rare because it was thought of as a highly specialized card to begin with. Trying to justify a card like that as a "staple" would be like uprooting a tree and planting it by one the end of one of its outside branches. The tree is gonna look kind of funny that way...and probably not stand up very well. Fred

Snapcase <snap...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1833a0d65...@news.optonline.net>... > In article <196f2577.02110...@posting.google.com>, > jsp...@sprynet.com says... > > > Maybe, but I have to agree with Fred. We constantly have problems with > > cards that have been changed, and every game, EVERY GAME breaks down > > at some point when someone has to stop and check a card to see what > > the text has been changed to and whether clarifications/errata have > > been issued on it. It's incredibly irritating, and turns off new > > players. > > Looking at the perspective of a new player, I could see how it would be > a detriment. From the perspective of a veteran, every time they upgrade > old cards it's like a portion of my collection has been given a new > lease on life. I don't think it's going to happen a whole lot more, I'd agree, if most of the changes made the cards better. The changes to 2nd Tradition, Majesty, 4th Tradition, Temptation of Greater Power, etc. did not make them better. Many will argue that changes to those cards were needed, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether it is irritating to have the text on them changed. > though. My guess is we'll see a few cards relating to the gangrel > altered in Anarchs (Shackles of Enkidu and Gangrel Revel come to mind) > and that'll be it, barring errata to cards that absolutely need it. > > > If White Wolf is going to change card texts, I think they should then > > reprint the changed cards, and make them available for a small fee > > from the White Wolf website. Like packs of 10 2nd Traditions with the > > new text for $1. > > Well, the text of 2nd tradition was changed long before it was ever > reprinted in CE. But this idea is actually really damn good. I'd > gladly pay a bit to get a bunch of updated reprints, instead of having > to buy/trade for starter-only cards. I don't suppose we have a shot at > seeing this ever happen? Unlikely. I *would* like to see a set of reprinted cards, with EVERY card that has had a text change in it, all done in the ORIGINAL format. They could call it "Vampire: Classic Edition" or something. I'd buy it to get correct wording on cards that don't have a jarring design change from the rest of my collection, and new players could buy it to get their hands on useful rares that have been changed. But I don't expect them to do that either, at least not for a couple of years. White Wolf might eventually try it to attempt to capitalize on nostalgia, it would be pretty cheap to update and reprint all those cards (compared to printing all new ones, anyway), and it might be a useful PR move to placate older players. But they won't do it soon because it would undermine their position that the new design is the only design, and there is no going back. JSpektr

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DC9689C...@removethis.com>... > Iain Wilson wrote: > > If you don't like it, you don't have to play with the "new cards". > > GOSH, it sure would be nice if that were true! But of course, it's not. > To be fully competitive in a competitive game, I need to make use of all > viable tools offered or I'm crippling myself. But never mind that, even. > Even if never use a modified card, the fact is that my opponents can and > I have no control of what they put in their deck. In fact, these kinds > of things are worse in an opponent's deck. At least he had the chance > to look up his cards before he built them into the deck. I have to be > aware there's even a change before I can think to look it up - as I'm not > going to constantly look up every card all my opponents use as they use > them because that would be insane. Personally, I've been doing this, and not playing with any changed cards. Unfortunately, in a competitive environment, that rules out many decks. I have a Daughters of Cacophony deck I'm working on for the Eye of Overpowered Cheese tournament, and it just flat-out doesn't work well enough without Majesty. Ditto my Eurobrujah deck and 2nd Tradition/Thoughts Betrayed/Fame. It has been fun to be forced to play unusual decks, I've been doing a lot of Tzemisce, because most Animalism/Auspex/Vissiccitude cards haven't been changed. But it is not a limitation I would prefer to have. Also, like Fred said, your opponents frequently play cards with incorrect text. That causes a huge problem you can't control. The problem is worse for newbies and players without net access. Last night, an older player that had just returned to the game had his entire deck ruined because several cards he'd based it around no longer did what they said. He was a good sport about it, but how does this help us bring back old players? Should we just tell them "too bad, White Wolf hates you and doesn't want your business, all your old stuff doesn't work anymore and there was no way for you to know about it"? When I came back to the game last fall, I didn't even know White Wolf was reprinting cards. It's not as if they advertise, or put up posters in comic shops, at least not around here. Old and new players aren't going to know about the errata, and it is going to hurt the game when they are surprised by it. The best solution I can think of is to stop issuing card text changes unless absolutely necessary, and to included a list of all changes in the rule books in the starters, even if that means doubling the size of the rule book. JSpektr

Snapcase wrote: > > In article <196f2577.02110...@posting.google.com>, > jsp...@sprynet.com says... > > > Maybe, but I have to agree with Fred. We constantly have problems with > > cards that have been changed, and every game, EVERY GAME breaks down > > at some point when someone has to stop and check a card to see what > > the text has been changed to and whether clarifications/errata have > > been issued on it. It's incredibly irritating, and turns off new > > players. > > Looking at the perspective of a new player, I could see how it would be > a detriment. From the perspective of a veteran, every time they upgrade > old cards it's like a portion of my collection has been given a new > lease on life. Yea, and those exact same cards become someone else's time bomb. You may be able to remember every change made to every card all the time without fail. Have mercy on those who don't, however. It may only take one additional pool or blood cost to make a function you though was possible impossible and lose a game by it. Or one less cost to make a function you though your opponent couldn't take turn into something he could and lose a game by it. Sometimes I screw up for lack of reading a card, or only reading it superficially and not truly noticing something that's important. That's my fault. However, not knowing the card was even changed is something that's hard to pin down on any one person. Even the guy who built the deck will forget once in a while and what are others supposed to do when he does? It's not worth it rehabilitating cards this way. > I don't think it's going to happen a whole lot more, though. Actually, I renamed this branch of the "Group 4 ultimatum" thread when Legbiter told me that is was being considered to rehabilitate all "cards on the banned and useless list", whatever that is, through rewording. As I know of lots of useless cards in the game, such a list could be massive. > > If White Wolf is going to change card texts, I think they should then > > reprint the changed cards, and make them available for a small fee > > from the White Wolf website. Like packs of 10 2nd Traditions with the > > new text for $1. > > Well, the text of 2nd tradition was changed long before it was ever > reprinted in CE. Hmmm. Of course, they changed it a second time. But now that you mention it, I'd forgotten that. They were going to need to reword it anyway so it didn't work the gunky, confusing way it was originally written. I guess it didn't exactly matter what the new wording was for these purposes. Well, I guess that makes me feel better about their rewording of one card, anyway. Fred

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DCAA1C3...@removethis.com>... > Karol Magda wrote: > > > > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DC97AE1...@removethis.com>... > > > Karol Magda wrote: > > > > > > > > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DC89164...@removethis.com>... > > > > > Karol Magda wrote: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > In T1.5 there is vast banned list. > > > > > > It's not vast enough. Last I looked, T1.5 still allowed things liked > > > Juzam Djinn, Ernam Djinn, and other things that they'd never print nowadays. > > > The fact that they _wouldn't_ print such a thing in a current expansion tells > > > you there's a problem. And that is my exact point. > > > > Wrong, Erham Djinn is in print now (and legal in T2). > > It may be that they've finally loosened up on creatures. Particularly green > creatures, after years of people talking about what a joke green was as a > color. None the less, I repeat, such experience with T1.5 is only fairly recent > then so you can't really rely on long-haul statements about how many new-issue cards > are useable in T1.5 at this point. Not if design policy has recently changed. > > And, as the another poster mentioned, there's still other things allowed in T1.5 > they would clearly never reprint - which is my point. Green is VERY viable for a long time now. Again, completely out of touch and still arguing... Most of the cards they can reprint (according to their reprint policy) might be someday reprinted. (if there is need to) > > > (from further down she wrote) I am male. > > > > Grinning Demon is comparable to Juzam > > > > Haven't seen it but I would be shocked. "It's the 'new' Juzam!" has been old joke > > > on the Magic newsgroup for years. > > > > Grinning Demon Cost 2BB Creature - Demon 6/6 At the beginning of your > > upkeep, you lose 2 life. Morph 2BB (You may play this face down as a > > 2/2 creature for 3 Turn it face up any time for its morph cost.) > > > > Be shocked now. > > Sorry. I don't consider it to be as good as Juzam. Care to explain why ? (besides, if I admitted it, my arguments would fail) [snip] > > Multilands are not in extended right now. You should probably be more > > in touch with magic if you want to ramble about it. > > I haven't looked in on it in two years. I have a few specific details wrong (which > I already conceded were suspect) but so what? Please address how this affects the > overall issue. Simply finding an incorrect statement that doesn't alter the > underpinnings of the other person's argument is irrelevant. Because someone on crack too thinks he can fly. (just an example, no offense meant) Last time I checked incorrect statements do altered the underpinnings of the other person's argument, most of the time. > To the extent Extended has become "fair", it has also turned into a slow-moving T2 > that bans whole expansions and editions of the base set at a time. So it can not be > seen as a good example for another CCG to emulate. Your cards rotate through states: > being legal for all tournaments, being legal for Extended, T1, and T1.5, then only > for T1 and T1.5 at some point. Unless reprinted, they then become effectively useless > as no one wants to play unbalanced T1 OR T1.5. This is one of the reasons I stopped > playing Magic. I explained (in my original post), what could be learned from Magic case, and how to learn from it. T1/T1.5 has same following (tournamentwise) as V:TES have at least. (just amusing fact, nothing more) > > > > Hovewer almost no-brainer cards do exists in V:TES , one classic > > > > example would be a blood doll (and I am not saying it is broken, I am just saying > > > > that most people when they create decks put 3-5 copies of blood doll > > > > automatically in) > > > > > > ...what you're talking about is not an overpowered card. It's called > > > a "staple", and it differs from overpowered cards in that its function is > > > consciously intended by the designers. In theory, they could issue other cards > > > that fill similar functions but frequently, the one card fills the function so > > > well that they just make it a common and assume people will use them in large > > > numbers. In the case of Blood Dolls, there's Tribute to the Master, which can > > > work better in a weeny deck and Minion Tap which can work better in a high-cap > > > vampire deck, and things like Consanguineous Boon if you want to trust your > > > ability to call and pass votes, but Blood Doll is probably the best one. And > > > that's fine. You just reprint it on a regular basis and everyone, old and new, > > > can use it. > > > > So what if I call all broken / powerfull cards 'staple' ? > > What if you do? Is anyone going to believe you? Does your "staple" lend itself > to a making one easy, obvious deck that tends to dominate the game or does it get > used as a building block in lots of completely different types of decks? Was its > effect clearly intended by the designers or did its use (particularly in combination > with one or a small number of other cards) seem to surprise them? > > It's not always cut and dried whether a card is a "staple" or a broken card. But > usually there are fairly obvious clues to discern the two different situations. > The bottom line is whether it seems to help or hurt the game as a whole. I don't believe in your staple philosophy, sorry. No-brainer cards (call it staples or whatever, I do not care) are quite bad/boring. [snip] > > Actually they are quite honest. Just go read www.wizards.com/magic > > where designers talk about things they do and WHY they do it. > > I didn't say anything about being literally dishonest with their reasoning. I said > being totally honest about overpowered old cards and what truly needs to be done > about them. I mean I do think the DCI has some concept of balancing the game, > they just can't bring themselves to the inevitable, indisputable conclusion that > if they wouldn't print an old card in this year's expansion because it is now > considered too powerful, then they shouldn't allow it in its original form in > T1.5. To me, that seems obvious. Why the DCI can't see that is perplexing. May I suggest you read www.wizards.com/magic sometimes, yet again ? > > What I am saying that adding new cards to the system will walpaperize > > some cards in process no matter how would you like to prevent it (why > > should I play with pokers in my !Salubri when there is weighted > > walking stick in format ?) > > I don't understand the question. The two cards clearly have their differences > and you might choose to use either, depending on whether you care how easy the > weapon is to put into play, how quickly it goes away and whether you're more > likely to see Fortitude damage prevention or Kiaysd vampires in your metagame. > Clearly, Weighted Walking Stick does not "wallpaperize" Poker. It simply > provides another alternative that does the same thing with somewhat different > specifics. Because going Gift of Bellona/Poker way is WAY too much fragile than WWStick way (and few card slots have to be dedicated to it, too) Same case could be made with respect to Concealed Weapon/Poker ws WWStick in AUS/CEL close range combat for example. Poker WAS wallpaperized by WWStick. > I think you need to come up with a different example to express your question. > > > > > Would you thing that some of the following things would be good for > > > > the game: > > > > > > > > 1)printing 5 more aus/AUS intercept cards > > > > 2)printing 5 more obf/OBF stealth cards > > > > > > > > 1) would lead to players putting 4-6 enhanced senses in the deck > > > > and rest intercept slots would be filled with single copies of given > > > > intercept cards avaiable, that way one entire principle of > > > > game/deckbuilding would be, well nonexistant. > > > > > > > > 2) same as 1 with regard to stealth > > > > > > My opinion is simply that there > > > are already so many different types of these cards that it really doesn't > > > come up much if players want to avoid the problem anyway. So it doesn't > > > strike as changing the game much to give them yet more options. Often, > > > however, they want one particular function such as the maneuver granted > > > by Spirit's Touch at superior. If so, then they wind up needing to use > > > multiple copies of Spirit's Touch instead of just any old intercept > > > reaction card and the rule will come into play. If they were to start > > > printing cards that had exactly the same function with different names, > > > then it would change the game over time. > > > > Most of the time, what you need is different intercept cards. > > Sure. So what? Not all the time. And even if so, all you've done is > change the game a bit by adding more variety. That's not evidence of a > problem, per se. No, some game principles (which are there for good reason, I believe) would be made obsolete. > > > > 3)printing 5 more for/FOR prevent cards > > > > 6)printing more dominate bleed cards > > > > 7)printing more presence bleed cards > > > > > 3),6),7) - the cards would be too good or too bad compared to what we > > > > have in their categories now. Both options are not good. > > > > > > It isn't clear to me that such cards would necessarily be too good or > > > too bad. I agree it's bad if it happens. But if such cards are too > > > bad, you've wasted some cardboard. If they're too good, then that's > > > when errata things. > > > > If they are bad - wallpaper printed, point proven. > > If they are good - old card wallpaperized, point proven. > Those are mistakes in design. If they are bad, they are ignored, which is > not a problem. If they are good, as I said, they will get errata or get > banned. Also not a problem. I don't know what your point could be. This > does not cause the overall problem you claimed. No, that's an inherent problem of adding (many) new cards to the system. > > > > 4)printing some more ANI intercept cards > > > > 5)printing some more free OBT stealth cards > > > > > 4),5) - the entire balance between disciplines would be throwed out of > > > > window in process > > > > > > It could be. You can simply reprint the existing free OBT stealth cards > > > or ANI intercept cards in future expansions if it's the designers' intent > > > to limit the number of different named cards. So this is not really an > > > issue, either. > > > > It is, you don't get new cards in that category and therefore you will > > create less incentive for old players to buy (parts) of new set. > So? That situation already exists. We already have reprints in sets. There > are ways to reprint cards that tend to funnel them into places that they can > have little or no effect on new card sales. Put them precons. Reprint in > sets like Camarilla Edition that are intended mainly for new players (and get > rid of most or all new cards in such sets). Or reprint few enough cards in > boosters intended to release new cards that old players won't care very much. > I believe you're struggling to insist that there's a problem here but there > isn't. It has a reasonably easy alternative solution. And I suggest another > alternative solution below (i.e. the Elder Intervention/Pack Tactics and > bleed modifier types of solutions). Reprints only solve problem partially (that acess to most of the old cards is difficult for new players). As new cards are printed some parts of old players collection will become obsolete. > > Although I feel that reprints are necessary (in current state, since > > game is just being reintroduced to larger audience) they are quite > > boring. > > Sure. That's why White Wolf should try to isolate them to places that new > players can buy and you can ignore. > > I desperately want to see new cards for old disciplines. If that > > didn't happen soon, I am afraid the game will become too dull for me > > soon :( > Sure. You can have new cards for old disciplines. There's nothing here that > prevents it. Your last example, about discipline balance issues with respect > to a limitation in named cards that will do a certain thing (e.g. free stealth > for obtenebration) may place limitations on designing a few sorts of isolated > things but so what? Even that has an answer. Notice what they did for Elder > Intervention and Pack Tactics? They didn't want two disciplineless +2 intercept > cards allowed to react to the same bleed action. So they just wrote it straight > out: you may not use both cards against the same action. Notice what they do > for bleed modifiers. They have lots of different named bleed action modifiers > that do different things but you can only use one of them in a given action > anyway (excepting the case of Command of the Beast). Your issues have other > solutions aside from grouping library cards. Elder Intervention and Pack Tactics is nice example why grouping is good. Same goes for action modifier example. Notice that another solution would be to print little number somewhere on the card. Saved place (in card text), could be used for something better then. Rather then adding stupid lines of text which would eventually appear on many cards (and in long run would cause great confusion) why not rather implement much robust system ? > > > > So what do you suggest ? Banning 100 most abusive cards in the game ? > > > > Guess what ? Even after that another 100 most abusive cards appear. > > > > > > That's the old Magic newsgroup refrain, isn't it? My reply to it is invariable: > > > cards that are randomly distributed in terms of what can loosely be called, > > > "power". This distribution is a classic bell-shaped curve in which the most > > > powerful cards are a relative few located at the top of the curve. Lop off > > > this thin "tip" of the curve and other cards will, indeed become "the most > > > powerful". However, once you've lopped off enough of the tip, the cards left > > > on top are only a little bit more powerful than most of the rest of the cards > > > in the middle. At that point, the game is now much better because it's much > > > harder to choose the best cards and strategies. Life is now good. > > > > What if power level of cards has different distribution ? What then ? > > Entire construction out of window. > > It doesn't have a different distribution. There's no reason it should. I doesn't have to have different distribution. Normal distribution (with different parameters than classic bell curve you are suggesting) would be sufficient for counterexample. > > > Rather than banning cards, of course, you can errata them. WotC goes to the > > > other side of errata fanaticism: they almost entirely refuse to do it at all, > > > ever. That's their choice but regardless of which choice they make, it's much > > > better than simply ignoring the problem which they've done. And yes, in T1.5, > > > a *lot* of cards would need to be dealt with. Dozens, maybe over a hundred, > > > just because they printed so many cards before the idea of game balance > > > penetrated the thick skulls of the Magic design team. That's unfortunate, but > > > it still doesn't help to ignore a real problem that exists and pretend T1.5 > > > is balanced in its current form. It isn't. Not even close. > > > > Actually when I talked with one of my friend who does not play CCG > > anymore about how things WotC do ( no errata, rather phasing it out and > > printing lesser version) and how things WW do (errata when card is too > > powerfull) he considered WotC approach better one. So I guess it's > > matter of taste. (note: I do prefer WW approach, but I can understand > > the other one) > > It is a matter of taste, I suppose. But the results speak for themselves. No > one is satisfied with the end result in Magic. People leave the game inevitably > because they consider it to be a huge money sucker that ultimately leaves them > with far too many dead cards for various reasons. The game as a whole survives, and gets better as times goes on (despite people leaving for one reason or another) > Be that as it may, the overall point I was making was that the two approaches > were different. Whether you consider the White Wolf approach superior not is > orthogonal to the conclusion that grouping library cards are not necessary to > answer a potential problem in V:tES that you see in Magic. Since the same > conditions do not apply in V:tES as in Magic, you can't claim that the same > eventual problem will occur. Actually the problem is inherent to each CCG. Adding new cards to current card set (without limiting their interaction in some way) will walpaperize old some old cards and will cause some new cards not to be even played. > > > > The number of cards played in given format is some percentage of > > > > number of cards in format. The greater the number of cards in format , > > > > the smaller the percentage. > > > > > > I disagree. > > > > Care to say why? > > I already have: because overpowered cards are fixed in V:tES whereas they're > allowed to fester in Magic. Every archetype out there is built from some sub-pool of the avaiable cards. If you add more cards to that sub-pool some old cards will not be used anymore. It's that simple. > > > > So grouping library cards would actually make more of your cards > > > > playable in the long run. I can't see why it is bad thing. > > > > > > It's a bad thing because 1) it's not necessary, 2) it's too complicated, and > > > 3) it clearly annoys people. > > > > 1) we have precedence > > 2) ditto > > So? Precedence is not a reason to do something if it was a bad thing. And > whatever you may think of grouping vampires, again, the same conditions do > not apply to library cards so the same answer is not necessary. > > > 3) So what ? The product is not aimed at people who cries sky is > > falling everytime something annoys them. > > Annoying people is a bad thing to do if you don't have a good reason to do it. > I'll accept bad things if you have a greater good thing come from it. But you > haven't shown anything good would come from grouping library cards. 3) we have precedence :) The conditions with library grouping are quite similar (or they will be if there would be some vast influx of library cards to classic disciplines (the ones they appeared in jyhad) ) > (Elided several questions I've already answered.) > > > > > > > Grouping of library cards would open vast posibilities for new cards > > > > > > and abilities which do have an impact and are not broken (and it may > > > > > > become a problem otherwise in (not so) distant future) > > > > > > > > > > It is unlikely to become a problem. At least, let it become a true > > > > > problem and then we can evaluate what to do about it. The MtG example > > > > > is not applicable to V:tES. > > > > > > > > I would rather identify a possible problem , analyze it and prevent > > > > it. The let us destroy a world so we can built it anew attitude is > > > > something I do not subscribe to. > > > > > > It's not destroying the world to rebuilt it anew. It's a question of not > > > fixing things that aren't broken. If you go down that road, you never > > > discover whether the thing was ever going to become broken in the first > > > place. We don't know whether this will ever be broken because attempting > > > to use experience from Magic, as you are, is not valid. > > > > I don't saw any point made that would made my example not valid. > > Sorry. > > I guess we'll have to disagree about that. Sure. > You've essentially conceded that the > philosophies of the designers of the two different game clearly differ in terms > of handling overpowered cards. Some of the other issues you brought up are > either irrelevant and/or have better answers than grouping library cards. > Inevitably, people will vary in how they look at complex issues such as these. > But I think the case for group library cards at this point is extremely weak. And (even if I did) so what ? The problem is not about handling overpowered cards (or is only partialy). The problem is that adding new cards while keeping old cards in format cause - 1) format to be impossible to balance 2) wallpaperization of old cards 3) insignificance of new cards 4) creates BIG advantage to old or new players (depending whether 2 or 3 is prevalent) 5) make old players quit and new players scared All of this issues could be solved differently that grouping, yes. This solutions does not adress those problems that nicely as grouping does. Therefore I think that grouping solution is quite robust. Karol

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<aqe8gg$9c22e$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... > "Karol Magda" <karol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:df69cc0d.02110...@posting.google.com... > > > Some kind of new alternative victory condition would be nice in that > > respect (like some card that would say that if player has no library > > he is ousted would be nice addition to HoS stupid Slaughterhouse deck) > > Sure. But it might make Slaughterhouses too powerful then. :-) Maybe :) At least there would be reason to put them in the deck :) > I'm wary, in general, of "somebody gets ousted" cards that act > outside the "ousted at 0 pool" framework. The pool-gain/destruction > dynamic is one of the core concepts of VTES in my opinion, and should > be circumvented only with great caution. The conditions written on such cards would have to be quite severe. However since that other game (YESSS, I am still using examples from that other game ! ) have such cards (and they do have an impact on tournament scene ocassionally) I believe such cards could be made here too. An example would be: Master cost X pool (where X is LOT) Put this card in play, at the beggining of your untap phase if SEVERE conditions are met, burn this card to oust your prey or something. Any minion controlled by another methusalah can do bad things to you, your minions or this card. This is just example :) . To balance such card would be tricky business, of course. Karol

Karol Magda wrote: > Would you thing that some of the following things would be good for > the game: > > 1)printing 5 more aus/AUS intercept cards > 2)printing 5 more obf/OBF stealth cards > 3)printing 5 more for/FOR prevent cards > 4)printing some more ANI intercept cards > 5)printing some more free OBT stealth cards > 6)printing more dominate bleed cards > 7)printing more presence bleed cards > 1) would lead to players putting 4-6 enhanced senses in the deck > and rest intercept slots would be filled with single copies of given > intercept cards avaiable, that way one entire principle of > game/deckbuilding > would be , well nonexistant. > > 2) same as 1 with regard to stealth > > 3),6),7) - the cards would be too good or too bad compared to what we > have in their categories now. Both options are not good. > 4),5) - the entire balance between disciplines would be throwed out of > window in process Ok, I'll take a shot at it: 1) Card ausA Reaction [aus] +1 intercept [AUS] Acting minion gets -1 stealth. Card ausB Reaction X+1 blood [aus] +1 intercept [AUS] +X intercept Card ausC Reaction 1 blood [aus] Only usable when this minion is attempting to block an ally or younger vampire. +2 intercept. [AUS] As above, but with +3 intercept. Card ausD Reaction [aus] +1 intercept [AUS] As above, and if the action is successfully blocked, this minion gets +1 strength on the first round of combat. Card ausE Reaction [aus] +1 intercept. [AUS] Only usable during a bleed action. This minion may burn up to X blood to get +X+1 intercept, where X is the current amount of bleed. 2) Card obfA Action Modifier [obf] +1 stealth [OBF] The blocking minion has -1 intercept until the end of the turn. Card obfB Action Modifier 1 blood [obf] The blocking minion has -1 intercept. [OBF] Usable by an untapped ready vampire other than the acting minion. Tap this minion. Reduce a blocking minion's intercept to 0. Card obfC Action Modifier [obf] Only usable during a Political action. +2 stealth. This minion may not cast any votes during this action. [OBF] As above, but this minion may cast votes from his/hers title. Card obfD Action Modifier 1 blood [obf] +1 stealth [OBF] As above, and this minion gains First Strike during combat until the end of the action. Card obfE Action Modifier [obf] Only usable as this action is announced. Choose a younger vampire. That vampire has -1 intercept until the end of the action. [OBF] As above, but with -2 intercept. 3) Card forA Combat [for] Prevent 2 non-aggravated damage from a strike. [FOR] Prevent 2 damage from a strike. Card forB Combat [for] Prevent all damage from a strike when in combat with an ally or younger vampire. [FOR] Prevent all damage from a strike. Card forC Combat 1 blood [for] Only usable if this minion has taken (non-prevented) damage this combat. Prevent any damage up to the amount that has been successfully inflicted on this minion in this combat. [FOR] As above, and the oposing minion takes an amount of damage equal to the damage prevented this way. Card forD Combat 1 blood [for] Prevent all enviromental damage to this vampire during this round. [FOR] Prevent all damage inflicted to this vampire inflicted during this strike resolution. Card forE Combat [for] Prevent 1 damage [FOR] Reduce 1 damage 4) Card aniA Reaction [ani] Only usable if this minion has a retainer. Usable by a tapped minion. This minion untaps and attempts to block with +1 intercept. The retainer takes 1 damage at the end of the action. [ANI] As above, but with +2 intercept. Card aniB Reaction 1 blood [ani] Only usable if this minion successfully blocks an action. Untap this minion (play after combat, if any) [ANI] As above, and this minion gains +1 intercept until the end of the turn. Card aniC Combat 1 blood [ani] Only usable at the end of combat. Put this card on the opposing minion with X counters, where X is the amount of damage successfully inflicted on that minion during this combat. Once during each of this minion's actions, you may burn 1 counter from this card to give one of your minions +1 intercept. Burn this card when it has no more counters. (ANI] As above, but any number of counters may be burned at one time. 5) Card obtA Action Modifier [obt] +1 stealth, only usable when hunting. [OBT] As above, and this minion gains 1 extra blood if the hunt is successful. Card obtB Action Modifier [obt] +1 stealth, only usable on a non-bleeding action. [OBT] As above, with an optional maneuver if combat occurs. Card obtC Action Modifier [obt] Only usable by a ready untapped vampire other than the acting minion. Tap this vampire. The acting minion gains +1 stealth. [OBT] As above, and if combat occurs the blocking minion takes 1 damage before range is set. 6) Card domA Action Modifier [dom] Only usable when this vampire successfully bleeds your prey. Put this card on this vampire. You may burn this card when announcing a bleed action to gain +1 bleed. [DOM] As above, with +1 stealth. Card domB Action 1 blood [dom] Bleed at +1 bleed. Younger vampires get -1 intercept when attemptng to block this action. [DOM] Bleed at +1 bleed. Vampires get -1 intercept when attempting to block this action. Card domC Action Modifier After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to further increase the bleed amount. [dom] Only usable when a bleed action is announced. Chose an ally or younger vampire. This minion gains +X bleed, where X is the bleed capacity of the chosen minion. [DOM] As above, but you may chose an older vampire. 7) Card preA Action [pre] Only usable by a titled vampire. Bleed at +1, gain 1 pool if successfull. [PRE] Only usable by a titled vampire. Bleed at +X bleed, where X is the amount of votes this vampire has. Card preB Action Modifier After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to further increase the bleed amount. Only usable when this action is announced. [pre] +1 bleed. [PRE] +2 bleed. Card preC Action [pre] Bleed at +1 bleed. [PRE] Bleed at +1 bleed. If this action is successful, put this card on the acting minion. This minion may burn this card to gain 2 votes during a political action. (I give all rights to this cards to WW. Feel free to use them) That should be enough. They may need some balancing, but I think that most of these cards could be introduced in the game without producing any of the problems that you claim. I rest my case (and myself :) Flux

Fred writes: >A few people seem to have trouble with the concept that a massive >amount of errata could be that bad for the game because they insist on >looking at it from the standpoint of how minor a single instance is. >I am attempting to demonstrate why leaning on this tool too much over >time actually causes a serious problem. Originally I was thrilled about card rehabilitation but now I'm having second thoughts. We have 2 new players coming this week and I dread having to explain to them "oh, I know this card SAYS this but it really does..." Reining in cards like Majesty is important enough we have to deal with it but Blood Puppy could have stayed as it was (ie, in my folder :-) I can see why WW would want to do this though; it's another attempt to be fair to existing card owners and not force them onto the buying treadmill. If they had added a CE "Blood Poopy" card which worked the way the errata'd BP did, all us old hands would be at a disadvantage. They way they do it now maximizes the ability of old players to stay in without buying more. So, as usual, there are tradeoffs. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

"jspektr" <jsp...@sprynet.com> wrote in message news:196f2577.0211...@posting.google.com... > > He was a good sport about it, but how does > this help us bring back old players? Should we just tell them "too > bad, White Wolf hates you and doesn't want your business, all your old > stuff doesn't work anymore and there was no way for you to know about > it"? Well, if you like the game and want it to continue to succeed, I wouldn't recommend saying that, no. You might instead try something like "White Wolf decided that game balance was crucial to keeping the game interesting, so they changed a lot of cards that they determined to be overpowered as originally printed." :-) > When I came back to the game last fall, I didn't even know White Wolf > was reprinting cards. It's not as if they advertise, or put up posters > in comic shops, at least not around here. Old and new players aren't > going to know about the errata, and it is going to hurt the game when > they are surprised by it. The best solution I can think of is to stop > issuing card text changes unless absolutely necessary, and to included > a list of all changes in the rule books in the starters, even if that > means doubling the size of the rule book. That's a really good idea, I think. Putting the complete "card text migrations" webpage in the rulebook would be really helpful in (a) providing an easily-portable reference that people might actually have with them whenever playing and (b) getting the word out to people who aren't already WW-website-aware. (It'd be almost like Fred's "The Book!") Josh flying south for the winter

Karol Magda wrote: > > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DCAA1C3...@removethis.com>... > > Karol Magda wrote: > > > > > > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DC97AE1...@removethis.com>... > > > > Karol Magda wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DC89164...@removethis.com>... > > > > > > Karol Magda wrote: > > It may be that they've finally loosened up on creatures. Particularly green > > creatures, after years of people talking about what a joke green was as a > > color. None the less, I repeat, such experience with T1.5 is only fairly recent > > then so you can't really rely on long-haul statements about how many new-issue cards > > are useable in T1.5 at this point. Not if design policy has recently changed. > > > > And, as the another poster mentioned, there's still other things allowed in T1.5 > > they would clearly never reprint - which is my point. > > Green is VERY viable for a long time now. Again, completely out of > touch and still arguing... You need to read more carefully. I didn't say Green wasn't viable. (Though in truth, such a judgment is somewhat subjective, wouldn't you agree?) I said that for years people talked about what a joke green was as a color. This is an accurate statement. And what is this, "still arguing" comment intended to mean. If you believe that simply pointing out some isolated inaccuracy in another person's facts completely demolishes his entire argument, I'm afraid you're mistaken. If I've gotten something wrong, I will apologize for it (and have), but you need to show how that affects the issue we're posting about. Not simply expect him to go away. That won't be happening, I'm afraid. (Further down, on the issue of my being uninformed that Ernham Djinn had been reprinted:) > Last time I checked incorrect statements do altered the underpinnings > of the other person's argument, most of the time. They can. But the Ernham thing wasn't an underpinning of my argument so it's meaningless. Or you need to show how it is, if you believe it is. > > > > > Grinning Demon is comparable to Juzam > > > > > > Haven't seen it but I would be shocked. "It's the 'new' Juzam!" has been > > > > old joke on the Magic newsgroup for years. > > > > > > Grinning Demon Cost 2BB Creature - Demon 6/6 At the beginning of your > > > upkeep, you lose 2 life. Morph 2BB (You may play this face down as a > > > 2/2 creature for 3 Turn it face up any time for its morph cost.) > > > > > > Be shocked now. > > > > Sorry. I don't consider it to be as good as Juzam. > > Care to explain why ? (besides, if I admitted it, my arguments would > fail) Because it's not. What do you want me to say? I look at the card text and I look at a creature that doesn't appear to be something that's as good as Juzam Djinn. Sorry. (Comments elided which contained no new arguments.) ... > > > What I am saying that adding new cards to the system will walpaperize > > > some cards in process no matter how would you like to prevent it (why > > > should I play with pokers in my !Salubri when there is weighted > > > walking stick in format ?) > > > > I don't understand the question. The two cards clearly have their differences > > and you might choose to use either, depending on whether you care how easy the > > weapon is to put into play, how quickly it goes away and whether you're more > > likely to see Fortitude damage prevention or Kiaysd vampires in your metagame. > > Clearly, Weighted Walking Stick does not "wallpaperize" Poker. It simply > > provides another alternative that does the same thing with somewhat different > > specifics. > > Because going Gift of Bellona/Poker way is WAY too much fragile than > WWStick way (and few card slots have to be dedicated to it, too) First of all, that's a clearly subjective opinion. Other people might see it differently. For one thing, it seems absolutely bizarre to complain that "Poker is fragile" when the card you're comparing it to goes away automatically after 2-3 uses! Certainly in certain circumstances, Poker is much better than Weighted Walking stick. Besides, you seem determined to look at it from the standpoint of your Salubri antitribu deck. I think people might find that another deck that makes extensive use of Disguised or Concealed Weapon cards would work better with Pokers. I think this simply reveals your own bias. It doesn't prove what you're saying about V:tES cards over time. [ quoted text not captured ] I've shown that they would not - in the situation where the superior card text is used. So this is not actually true. It's only a thing that happens in the specific instance you're complaining about. But simply indicating that the effects of continually printing more intercept or stealth choices would somehow change the game in some minor way over time is hardly the same things as demonstrating that a problem exists. Or that solving this problem is worth the drastic solution you propose. Every time they print new cards, the game is changed in some way. That, you have to learn to live with. (More non-new arguments elided) ... > > > I desperately want to see new cards for old disciplines. If that > > > didn't happen soon, I am afraid the game will become too dull for me > > > soon :( > > > Sure. You can have new cards for old disciplines. There's nothing here that > > prevents it. Your last example, about discipline balance issues with respect > > to a limitation in named cards that will do a certain thing (e.g. free stealth > > for obtenebration) may place limitations on designing a few sorts of isolated > > things but so what? Even that has an answer. Notice what they did for Elder > > Intervention and Pack Tactics? They didn't want two disciplineless +2 intercept > > cards allowed to react to the same bleed action. So they just wrote it straight > > out: you may not use both cards against the same action. Notice what they do > > for bleed modifiers. They have lots of different named bleed action modifiers > > that do different things but you can only use one of them in a given action > > anyway (excepting the case of Command of the Beast). Your issues have other > > solutions aside from grouping library cards. > > Elder Intervention and Pack Tactics is nice example why grouping is > good. Same goes for action modifier example. Huh?!? Please back up and explain the logic behind that statement. Elder Intervention and Pack Tactics is an example of how to solve the problem you cited _without_ doing something drastic like grouping. So how do you figure it's a "nice example why grouping is good". > > > > > So what do you suggest ? Banning 100 most abusive cards in the game ? > > > > > Guess what ? Even after that another 100 most abusive cards appear. > > > > > > > > That's the old Magic newsgroup refrain, isn't it? My reply to it is invariable: > > > > cards that are randomly distributed in terms of what can loosely be called, > > > > "power". This distribution is a classic bell-shaped curve in which the most > > > > powerful cards are a relative few located at the top of the curve. Lop off > > > > this thin "tip" of the curve and other cards will, indeed become "the most > > > > powerful". However, once you've lopped off enough of the tip, the cards left > > > > on top are only a little bit more powerful than most of the rest of the cards > > > > in the middle. At that point, the game is now much better because it's much > > > > harder to choose the best cards and strategies. Life is now good. > > > > > > What if power level of cards has different distribution ? What then ? > > > Entire construction out of window. > > > > It doesn't have a different distribution. There's no reason it should. > > I doesn't have to have different distribution. Normal distribution > (with different parameters than classic bell curve you are suggesting) > would be sufficient for counterexample. I suppose. So it might work or it might not, depending on what you think the distribution curve of the power cards looks like. But your original assertion was that banning "100 most abusive cards" will cause another 100 "most abusive" cards to appear. I explained why I thought banning or issuing errata to the most abusive cards DOES work and doesn't simply cause the situation you fear. I believe Scott Johnson has SHOWN that it works, given how much the game improved after the 7/7 errata he issued a few year ago. People complained a great deal but the result was undeniably a better game. Abusive cards were NOT replaced by other cards that were equally abusive. You can believe it or you can refuse to believe it but I think the evidence speaks for itself. In fact, my only quibble with it was whether he went to far and issued more errata than he had to to fix the game. (More non-new arguments elided) ... > > You've essentially conceded that the > > philosophies of the designers of the two different game clearly differ in terms > > of handling overpowered cards. Some of the other issues you brought up are > > either irrelevant and/or have better answers than grouping library cards. > > Inevitably, people will vary in how they look at complex issues such as these. > > But I think the case for group library cards at this point is extremely weak. > > And (even if I did) so what? The problem is not about handling > overpowered cards (or is only partialy). The problem is that adding > new cards while keeping old cards in format cause - > > 1) format to be impossible to balance > 2) wallpaperization of old cards > 3) insignificance of new cards > 4) creates BIG advantage to old or new players (depending whether 2 or > 3 is prevalent) > 5) make old players quit and new players scared I disagree that any of these are true in V:tES. They are true in Magic BECAUSE of the differences in the designers' handling of overpowered cards in each game. The *MTG* T1 and T1.5 formats are impossible to balance because the *MTG* designers refuse to ban or errata cards that are overpowered unless the card in question reaches an unnecessarily high level of perniciousness. Remove that policy and I believe you'll find that T1.5 can be balanced, that new cards do not routinely wallpaperize old cards, nor visa versa. Absent (1), (2), and (3), you will then find that old players needn't have nearly as large an advantage over new players in T1.5 once the new players collect a fairly reasonable number of cards. Since old players don't have the huge advantage, T2 needn't be the "standard" format it is now. It can become a format for new players to play in until their collections become large enough to compete reasonably well with older players. Given THAT, in turn, the standard format would become T1.5 and it would become a very popular format. Therefore, older players needn't feel that newer players have an advantage, either. It all works. The reason I don't play Magic anymore is twofold: the DCI refuses to fix T1.5 and make is useful, as the could; and 2) WotC issues too many expansions every year causing poor card design and costing me too much money to keep up. Slow down the expansions and I think you'll find THAT helps avoid card imbalance - leading to all these good results I cited about above as well. Fred

Flux <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:<3DCBC9D6...@netc.pt>... [ quoted text not captured ] Good card and I will play one in my deck. > Card ausB > Reaction > X+1 blood > [aus] +1 intercept > [AUS] +X intercept incredibly weak > Card ausC > Reaction > 1 blood > [aus] Only usable when this minion is attempting to block an ally or > younger vampire. +2 intercept. > [AUS] As above, but with +3 intercept. weak > Card ausD > Reaction > [aus] +1 intercept > [AUS] As above, and if the action is successfully blocked, this minion > gets +1 strength on the first round of combat. incredibly strong, think AUS/CEL > Card ausE > Reaction > [aus] +1 intercept. > [AUS] Only usable during a bleed action. This minion may burn up to X > blood to get +X+1 intercept, where X is the current amount of bleed. weak > 2) > Card obfA > Action Modifier > [obf] +1 stealth > [OBF] The blocking minion has -1 intercept until the end of the turn. worth putting one in the deck > Card obfB > Action Modifier > 1 blood > [obf] The blocking minion has -1 intercept. > [OBF] Usable by an untapped ready vampire other than the acting minion. > Tap this minion. Reduce a blocking minion's intercept to 0. probably too strong > Card obfC > Action Modifier > [obf] Only usable during a Political action. +2 stealth. This minion may > not cast any votes during this action. > [OBF] As above, but this minion may cast votes from his/hers title. weak > Card obfD > Action Modifier > 1 blood > [obf] +1 stealth > [OBF] As above, and this minion gains First Strike during combat until > the end of the action. weak > Card obfE > Action Modifier > [obf] Only usable as this action is announced. Choose a younger vampire. > That vampire has -1 intercept until the end of the action. > [OBF] As above, but with -2 intercept. quite weak > 3) > Card forA > Combat > [for] Prevent 2 non-aggravated damage from a strike. > [FOR] Prevent 2 damage from a strike. interesting > Card forB > Combat > [for] Prevent all damage from a strike when in combat with an ally or > younger vampire. > [FOR] Prevent all damage from a strike. interesting but rolling is probably generally better > Card forC > Combat > 1 blood > [for] Only usable if this minion has taken (non-prevented) damage this > combat. Prevent any damage up to the amount that has been successfully > inflicted on this minion in this combat. > [FOR] As above, and the oposing minion takes an amount of damage equal > to the damage prevented this way. huh ? > Card forD > Combat > 1 blood > [for] Prevent all enviromental damage to this vampire during this round. > [FOR] Prevent all damage inflicted to this vampire inflicted during this > strike resolution. probably weak > Card forE > Combat > [for] Prevent 1 damage > [FOR] Reduce 1 damage huh for superior version > 4) > Card aniA > Reaction > [ani] Only usable if this minion has a retainer. Usable by a tapped > minion. This minion untaps and attempts to block with +1 intercept. The > retainer takes 1 damage at the end of the action. > [ANI] As above, but with +2 intercept. weak and fragile > Card aniB > Reaction > 1 blood > [ani] Only usable if this minion successfully blocks an action. Untap > this minion (play after combat, if any) > [ANI] As above, and this minion gains +1 intercept until the end of the > turn. weak > Card aniC > Combat > 1 blood > [ani] Only usable at the end of combat. Put this card on the opposing > minion with X counters, where X is the amount of damage successfully > inflicted on that minion during this combat. Once during each of this > minion's actions, you may burn 1 counter from this card to give one of > your minions +1 intercept. Burn this card when it has no more counters. > (ANI] As above, but any number of counters may be burned at one time. weak > 5) > Card obtA > Action Modifier > [obt] +1 stealth, only usable when hunting. > [OBT] As above, and this minion gains 1 extra blood if the hunt is > successful. superior has to be reworded otherwise it's extremely weak > Card obtB > Action Modifier > [obt] +1 stealth, only usable on a non-bleeding action. > [OBT] As above, with an optional maneuver if combat occurs. could be interesting > Card obtC > Action Modifier > [obt] Only usable by a ready untapped vampire other than the acting > minion. Tap this vampire. The acting minion gains +1 stealth. > [OBT] As above, and if combat occurs the blocking minion takes 1 damage > before range is set. weak > 6) > Card domA > Action Modifier > [dom] Only usable when this vampire successfully bleeds your prey. Put > this card on this vampire. You may burn this card when announcing a > bleed action to gain +1 bleed. > [DOM] As above, with +1 stealth. weak > Card domB > Action > 1 blood > [dom] Bleed at +1 bleed. Younger vampires get -1 intercept when > attemptng to block this action. > [DOM] Bleed at +1 bleed. Vampires get -1 intercept when attempting to > block this action. weak > Card domC > Action Modifier > After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to > further increase the bleed amount. > [dom] Only usable when a bleed action is announced. Chose an ally or > younger vampire. This minion gains +X bleed, where X is the bleed > capacity of the chosen minion. > [DOM] As above, but you may chose an older vampire. weak > 7) > Card preA > Action > [pre] Only usable by a titled vampire. Bleed at +1, gain 1 pool if > successfull. > [PRE] Only usable by a titled vampire. Bleed at +X bleed, where X is the > amount of votes this vampire has. very powerfull > Card preB > Action Modifier > After playing this card, you cannot play another action modifier to > further increase the bleed amount. Only usable when this action is > announced. > [pre] +1 bleed. > [PRE] +2 bleed. as written weak > Card preC > Action > [pre] Bleed at +1 bleed. > [PRE] Bleed at +1 bleed. If this action is successful, put this card on > the acting minion. This minion may burn this card to gain 2 votes during > a political action. interesting > (I give all rights to this cards to WW. Feel free to use them) > That should be enough. > They may need some balancing, but I think that most of these cards could > be introduced in the game without producing any of the problems that you > claim. No, not really. If those cards say belonged to disciplines called dark ages animalism, dark ages dominate etc... they would be perfectly viable, if they were added to current ani dom etc. card pool their impact would be in most cases marginal. Karol Karol

[snip] > And what is this, "still arguing" comment intended to mean. If you believe that > simply pointing out some isolated inaccuracy in another person's facts completely > demolishes his entire argument, I'm afraid you're mistaken. If I've gotten > something wrong, I will apologize for it (and have), but you need to show how that > affects the issue we're posting about. Not simply expect him to go away. That > won't be happening, I'm afraid. Look, you are out of touch with magic for two years. Do you feel that your view of how thinks are in magic is accurate ? > (Further down, on the issue of my being uninformed that Ernham Djinn had > been reprinted:) > > Last time I checked incorrect statements do altered the underpinnings > > of the other person's argument, most of the time. > > They can. But the Ernham thing wasn't an underpinning of my argument so > it's meaningless. Or you need to show how it is, if you believe it is. [you wrote] It's not vast enough. Last I looked, T1.5 still allowed things liked Juzam Djinn, Ernam Djinn, and other things that they'd never print nowadays. The fact that they _wouldn't_ print such a thing in a current expansion tells you there's a problem. And that is my exact point. [/you wrote] Showing that Erham Djinn was reprinted invalidate your point. (about grinning demon) > > Care to explain why ? (besides, if I admitted it, my arguments would > > fail) > > Because it's not. What do you want me to say? I look at the card text and I > look at a creature that doesn't appear to be something that's as good as Juzam > Djinn. Sorry. Giving some reasons would be suficient... > (Comments elided which contained no new arguments.) It's easier to elide them and write some smart line than to answer them, don't you think ? > > > > What I am saying that adding new cards to the system will walpaperize > > > > some cards in process no matter how would you like to prevent it (why > > > > should I play with pokers in my !Salubri when there is weighted > > > > walking stick in format ?) > > > > > > I don't understand the question. The two cards clearly have their differences > > > and you might choose to use either, depending on whether you care how easy the > > > weapon is to put into play, how quickly it goes away and whether you're more > > > likely to see Fortitude damage prevention or Kiaysd vampires in your metagame. > > > Clearly, Weighted Walking Stick does not "wallpaperize" Poker. It simply > > > provides another alternative that does the same thing with somewhat different > > > specifics. > > > > Because going Gift of Bellona/Poker way is WAY too much fragile than > > WWStick way (and few card slots have to be dedicated to it, too) > > First of all, that's a clearly subjective opinion. Other people might see it > differently. For one thing, it seems absolutely bizarre to complain that "Poker > is fragile" when the card you're comparing it to goes away automatically after > 2-3 uses! Certainly in certain circumstances, Poker is much better than > Weighted Walking stick. Besides, you seem determined to look at it from the > standpoint of your Salubri antitribu deck. I think people might find that > another deck that makes extensive use of Disguised or Concealed Weapon cards > would work better with Pokers. I think this simply reveals your own bias. It > doesn't prove what you're saying about V:tES cards over time. I stated two examples of decks where WWStick is far superior to poker. You didn't showed ANY counterexample... Going 6 Gifts (6 concealed) and 6 poker vs say 10 WWStick and 2 other cards is fragile and inefficient. [ quoted text not captured ] Again, you didn't show anything. It's irrelevant whether I have precognition or spirit's touch superior effect most of the time. What is relevant is to reduce chance of clumping my hand with multiply copies of same intercept card. > (More non-new arguments elided) It's easier to elide them and write some smart line than to answer them, don't you think ? > > > > I desperately want to see new cards for old disciplines. If that > > > > didn't happen soon, I am afraid the game will become too dull for me > > > > soon :( > > > > Sure. You can have new cards for old disciplines. There's nothing here that > > > prevents it. Your last example, about discipline balance issues with respect > > > to a limitation in named cards that will do a certain thing (e.g. free stealth > > > for obtenebration) may place limitations on designing a few sorts of isolated > > > things but so what? Even that has an answer. Notice what they did for Elder > > > Intervention and Pack Tactics? They didn't want two disciplineless +2 intercept > > > cards allowed to react to the same bleed action. So they just wrote it straight > > > out: you may not use both cards against the same action. Notice what they do > > > for bleed modifiers. They have lots of different named bleed action modifiers > > > that do different things but you can only use one of them in a given action > > > anyway (excepting the case of Command of the Beast). Your issues have other > > > solutions aside from grouping library cards. > > > > Elder Intervention and Pack Tactics is nice example why grouping is > > good. Same goes for action modifier example. > > Huh?!? Please back up and explain the logic behind that statement. Elder > Intervention and Pack Tactics is an example of how to solve the problem > you cited _without_ doing something drastic like grouping. So how do you > figure it's a "nice example why grouping is good". Because it's FAR more robust than stupid Elder Intervention / Pack Tactics example. Do you know what robust means ? [ quoted text not captured ] Counterexample #1 - after restriction of Black Vise new power cards like Land Tax or Necropotence were abused. Counterexample #2 - recent CE erratas of some power cards (or MRP curse to be exact) > (More non-new arguments elided) It's easier to elide them and write some smart line than to answer them, don't you think ? [ quoted text not captured ] Look. T1.5 have like 10 000 of cards. Most of the cards can interact with themselves one way or another. Just compute the number of two/three/four cards combos. (waiting for him to do so....) See, big number isn't it ? Well and any of this combo can be really abusive. How can you prevent it from happening ? If we want to balance say tsimisce we have to take into account about 100 ani/aus/vic/tsimisce cards and about 400 ? relevant generic cards. We had to prevent abusive combos within this category at least and make it balanced with similar 15? or so subsystems. Not that easy task, but still manageable. Now imagine we had say 10 more cards in each subsystem. Karol

Karol Magda wrote: > Flux <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:<3DCBC9D6...@netc.pt>... > >>Karol Magda wrote: >> >>>Would you thing that some of the following things would be good for >>>the game: >>> >>>1)printing 5 more aus/AUS intercept cards >>>2)printing 5 more obf/OBF stealth cards >>>3)printing 5 more for/FOR prevent cards >>>4)printing some more ANI intercept cards >>>5)printing some more free OBT stealth cards >>>6)printing more dominate bleed cards >>>7)printing more presence bleed cards >> >> > 1) would lead to players putting 4-6 enhanced senses in the deck >> > and rest intercept slots would be filled with single copies of given >> > intercept cards avaiable, that way one entire principle of >> > game/deckbuilding >> > would be , well nonexistant. >> > >> > 2) same as 1 with regard to stealth >> > >> > 3),6),7) - the cards would be too good or too bad compared to what we >> > have in their categories now. Both options are not good. >> > 4),5) - the entire balance between disciplines would be throwed out of >> > window in process >> >> >>Ok, I'll take a shot at it: <snip card list and coments> I do agree with some of your comments regarding card balance, but I think you underestimate the usefullness of variety and combinations. Those cards were not designed to stand by themselves, they are supposed to add to the existing card base. >>That should be enough. >>They may need some balancing, but I think that most of these cards could >>be introduced in the game without producing any of the problems that you >>claim. > > > No, not really. If those cards say belonged to disciplines called dark > ages animalism, dark ages dominate etc... they would be perfectly > viable, if they were added to current ani dom etc. card pool their > impact would be in most cases marginal. I'd say quite the opposite. By themselves, these are mostly weak cards. But if you combo them with existing cards, you gain a whole lot more possibilities, and some might even become too strong instead. Anyway, the point was not to make new 'staple' cards (that would be hard to do without a climb up the power curve), but to prove that new card can be introduced without producing the problems that you claimed. I think I did reasonably well on that point :) Flux

Karol Magda wrote: > > [snip] > > > If I've gotten > > something wrong, I will apologize for it (and have), but you need to show how that > > affects the issue we're posting about. > > Look, you are out of touch with magic for two years. Do you feel that > your view of how thinks are in magic is accurate ? How things are at this instant? Obviously not. At least, it's not completely accurate, although it's also not that clear how much things have changed. As of a couple of years ago, my view was accurate enough. Certainly enough to make a number of relevant observations about the differences between Magic and Jyhad that you missed or the you were waving your hand over. > > (Further down, on the issue of my being uninformed that Ernham Djinn had > > been reprinted:) > > > Last time I checked incorrect statements do altered the underpinnings > > > of the other person's argument, most of the time. > > > > They can. But the Ernham thing wasn't an underpinning of my argument so > > it's meaningless. Or you need to show how it is, if you believe it is. > > [you wrote] > It's not vast enough. Last I looked, T1.5 still allowed things liked > Juzam Djinn, Ernam Djinn, and other things that they'd never print > nowadays. > The fact that they _wouldn't_ print such a thing in a current > expansion tells > you there's a problem. And that is my exact point. > [/you wrote] > > Showing that Erham Djinn was reprinted invalidate your point. It does not invalidate my point. As has been pointed out to you more than once - and you never respond to - there are *other* things besides Ernham Djinn which they will never reprint in a current set yet they still allow in T1.5. Netreps have acknowledged this truth for years. And it is the relevant point. *Not* one single card I mentioned that they apparently changed their minds about. You need to pay attention to the relevance of my examples. I indicated that a certain class of cards existed: the class of cards that were designed and printed in the past in older Magic expansions that WOULD NOT AND COULD NOT be printed in the next expansion because of their very nature: they are considered to be too powerful or too radical to risk printing such a card. I gave an example of one such card: Ernham Djinn. You replied that Ernham does not belong in the class because it has been reprinted. That's true, but that doesn't mean this class of cards does not exist. In fact, the designers have said straight out that this class of cards exist. They may change their minds about which cards qualify but that is irrelevant to the central point. > > (about grinning demon) > > > > Care to explain why ? (besides, if I admitted it, my arguments would > > > fail) > > > > Because it's not. What do you want me to say? I look at the card text and I > > look at a creature that doesn't appear to be something that's as good as Juzam > > Djinn. Sorry. > > Giving some reasons would be suficient... OK. Because it's not a 5/5 creature that has only one point of damage per turn as a drawback. Grinning Demon's drawback is much worse then Juzam's. Of course, this whole line of argument is mindless. The evaluation of which creatures are or are not as good as which other creatures are clearly subjective. You might make a decent argument if the two cards were near identical but they're obviously not that much alike. So we're wasting our time. > > (Comments elided which contained no new arguments.) > > It's easier to elide them and write some smart line than to answer > them, don't you think ? No I don't think. I removed them because I *already* answered them and you never responded to my answers. I'm not prepared to go mindlessly arguing in circles because you don't care to address the points I made. ... Concerning whether Weighted Walking Stick obsolesces ("wallpaperizes") Poker, thus demonstrating Karol's idea that cards become systematically obsolete over the course of time, I wrote: > > First of all, that's a clearly subjective opinion. Other people might see it > > differently. For one thing, it seems absolutely bizarre to complain that "Poker > > is fragile" when the card you're comparing it to goes away automatically after > > 2-3 uses! Certainly in certain circumstances, Poker is much better than > > Weighted Walking stick. Besides, you seem determined to look at it from the > > standpoint of your Salubri antitribu deck. I think people might find that > > another deck that makes extensive use of Disguised or Concealed Weapon cards > > would work better with Pokers. I think this simply reveals your own bias. It > > doesn't prove what you're saying about V:tES cards over time. > > I stated two examples of decks where WWStick is far superior to poker. > You didn't showed ANY counterexample... I don't have to show any counterexample. One, two, or ten examples of how one card is better in a given deck than another shows nothing. To demonstrate obsolescence, you must show that the card you believe is superior is the better choice in *all* decks at *all* times. Or I'll settle for, "in the vast majority of times" for practical purposes. You can't give only one or two examples and expect anyone to accept this. To demonstrate this point, you must use inductive reasoning. For instance: two weapons that cost the same but one causes more damage than the other some of time and has no drawbacks that the other doesn't also have. If you cannot do this, your assertion is not proved. [ quoted text not captured ] *Most* of the time. BUT NOT *ALL* THE TIME. You are assuming the designers intend that the number of intercept cards available to use at inferior is supposed to be limited. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD: THAT'S *YOUR* ASSUMPTION! IT'S *NOT* MY ASSUMPTION!!! I showed that there could be another reason that multiple Auspex intercept cards exist: so they can do something else at superior. Since I don't assume what you assume, and because there's no reason anyone *ELSE* should assume what you assume, your theories about how this relates to grouping library cards are questionable. ... > > > > > I desperately want to see new cards for old disciplines. If that > > > > > didn't happen soon, I am afraid the game will become too dull for me > > > > > soon :( > > > > > > Sure. You can have new cards for old disciplines. There's nothing here that > > > > prevents it. Your last example, about discipline balance issues with respect > > > > to a limitation in named cards that will do a certain thing (e.g. free stealth > > > > for obtenebration) may place limitations on designing a few sorts of isolated > > > > things but so what? Even that has an answer. Notice what they did for Elder > > > > Intervention and Pack Tactics? They didn't want two disciplineless +2 intercept > > > > cards allowed to react to the same bleed action. So they just wrote it straight > > > > out: you may not use both cards against the same action. Notice what they do > > > > for bleed modifiers. They have lots of different named bleed action modifiers > > > > that do different things but you can only use one of them in a given action > > > > anyway (excepting the case of Command of the Beast). Your issues have other > > > > solutions aside from grouping library cards. > > > > > > Elder Intervention and Pack Tactics is nice example why grouping is > > > good. Same goes for action modifier example. > > > > Huh?!? Please back up and explain the logic behind that statement. Elder > > Intervention and Pack Tactics is an example of how to solve the problem > > you cited _without_ doing something drastic like grouping. So how do you > > figure it's a "nice example why grouping is good". > > Because it's FAR more robust than stupid Elder Intervention / Pack > Tactics example. Do you know what robust means ? I know what 'robust' means. I simply can't imagine how it applies to this situation. The Elder Intervention/Pack Tactics example works fine in the handful of situations it's actually necessary to address your concern. ... (Concerning Karol's assertion that, "Banning the 100 most abusive cards in the game will only cause another 100 cards to become 'abusive'" and my reply that the normal distribution of power in cards will assure that this is not an endless cycle. He replies that this depends on what the normal distribution of power in cards truly looks like. I replied:) > > I suppose. So it might work or it might not, depending on what you think the > > distribution curve of the power cards looks like. But your original assertion was > > that banning "100 most abusive cards" will cause another 100 "most abusive" cards > > to appear. I explained why I thought banning or issuing errata to the most abusive > > cards DOES work and doesn't simply cause the situation you fear. I believe Scott > > Johnson has SHOWN that it works, given how much the game improved after the 7/7 > > errata he issued a few year ago. People complained a great deal but the result was > > undeniably a better game. Abusive cards were NOT replaced by other cards that were > > equally abusive. You can believe it or you can refuse to believe it but I think > > the evidence speaks for itself. In fact, my only quibble with it was whether he > > went to far and issued more errata than he had to to fix the game. > > Counterexample #1 - after restriction of Black Vise new power cards > like Land Tax or Necropotence were abused. > > Counterexample #2 - recent CE erratas of some power cards (or MRP > curse to be exact) Why are you giving counterexamples? Counterexamples prove nothing. I already conceded, "It might work or it might not." Counterexamples don't prove something can *never* work. They can only prove that the thing *sometimes* doesn't work. In this case, I assert these counterexamples don't even prove *THAT*: 1) Magic examples, as I've stated many times don't apply. The DCI doesn't ban all abusive cards anyway so who cares what happens in Magic? Black Vise was abusive, Land Tax was abusive, and Necropotence was abusive. In this case, the problem is that the DIC just didn't ban enough cards to get near the point of fixing the problem. Doesn't mean the problem couldn't be fixed. It just means the DCI wasn't willing to do what truly needed to be done. 2) I don't agree that recent CE erratas of power cards were necessary, anyway. That the V:tES designers seem a bit over finicky about the slightly more powerful cards says nothing about the generally principle that's in dispute. And even if they were necessary, who said there were any more abusive cards? > > The reason I don't play Magic anymore is twofold: the DCI > > refuses to fix T1.5 and make is useful, as the could; and 2) WotC issues > > too many expansions every year causing poor card design and costing me > > too much money to keep up. Slow down the expansions and I think you'll > > find THAT helps avoid card imbalance - leading to all these good results > > I cited about above as well. > > Look. T1.5 have like 10 000 of cards. Most of the cards can interact > with themselves one way or another. Just compute the number of > two/three/four cards combos. (waiting for him to do so....) See, big > number isn't it ? Well and any of this combo can be really abusive. > How can you prevent it from happening ? You stay alert to it as you design the cards. Part of the problem is that Magic designers are careless and put out expansions far too quickly to properly balance cards. And when they do make mistakes, they leave them in the game as is instead of fixing them. So *of course* you get problems like this. The other thing I've touched on is the issue of combinations in Magic. Due to the fact that Magic is 4CL, the designers way of balancing combinations is to make sure most combination cards don't work well as single cards. Then they count on the fact that it's hard to get a combination of cards into play reliably. In the short run, this seems to work well enough. In the long run, they don't pay enough attention to how much payoff a given combination provides - so the issue comes up time and again in T1.5. Jyhad designers are much more sensitive to how combinations of cards could possibly work because there are no card limits in Jyhad. > If we want to balance say tsimisce we have to take into account about > 100 ani/aus/vic/tsimisce cards and about 400 ? relevant generic cards. > We had to prevent abusive combos within this category at least and > make it balanced with similar 15? or so subsystems. Not that easy > task, but still manageable. > Now imagine we had say 10 more cards in each subsystem. You do it by setting limits on what any single card is allowed to do in various respects. In Magic, one card is frequently worthless by itself but changes the rules of the game completely: for instance the way Moat does nothing directly for you but makes non-Flying creatures irrelevant as long as it's in play. Cards like that are dangerous over time. I believe the Jyhad designers are much more careful about such things. It generally isn't necessary that you directly compare every card to every other card to expose problems with combinations if you're careful about what kind of cards you allow to be designed. Or at least, it lessens the chance that an error will occur if you're careful. And if you do make a mistake, it can be fixed. Without grouping. Fred

In article <df69cc0d.0211...@posting.google.com>, karol...@yahoo.com says... > Look, you are out of touch with magic for two years. Do you feel that > your view of how thinks are in magic is accurate ? Well, type 1.5 hasn't changed much in the past 2 years, so his points about said format don't have any less weight, really. > Showing that Erham Djinn was reprinted invalidate your point. He did indeed choose the wrong creatures/cards to point out as "power cards". Had he said "Hypnotic Specter" or "Mana Drain" or "The Abyss", he would have gotten the point across. The point is still there, though. > Again, you didn't show anything. It's irrelevant whether I have > precognition or spirit's touch superior effect most of the time. This seems a bit shortsighted. It depends completely on what your deck does, wants to do ideally, and what it's going up against. > What is relevant is to reduce chance of clumping my hand with multiply > copies of same intercept card. Well, if you're going up against a deck running Immortal Grapple, you're really gonna want that maneuver instead of the ability to prevent 1. > Because it's FAR more robust than stupid Elder Intervention / Pack > Tactics example. Do you know what robust means ? Grouping library cards is certainly more all-encompassing. But you need to show WHY this "robustness" is good for the game. If the game can get by very well on EI/PT type text, there is no need to introduce it. > Counterexample #1 - after restriction of Black Vise new power cards > like Land Tax or Necropotence were abused. We're talking Type 1 here now? Necropotence had its place in a few decks, but it certainly didn't get overused until the Donate/Delusions fiasco. Land Tax is a mediocre card in a format where few decks can utilize basic lands (you'll note that it's neither restricted or banned). Both don't mean as much in a format where Timetwister, Ancestral and Wheel of Fortune are legal. These cards didn't have their usefulness shoot through the roof when Vice got restricted/banned, the entire deckstyle that wanted to play them did. Black Vice singlehandedly prevented the slower/draw more cards control deckstyle. When you can do six to nine damage on the first turn by dropping multiple vices in their face, to a deck that wants to slow down and control the game, you've basically won before they even hit their first draw step. Especially when their deckstyle plays into getting hit more by the vices. > Counterexample #2 - recent CE erratas of some power cards (or MRP > curse to be exact) What new power cards have risen to the top in their place? > Look. T1.5 have like 10 000 of cards. Most of the cards can interact > with themselves one way or another. Just compute the number of > two/three/four cards combos. (waiting for him to do so....) See, big > number isn't it ? Well and any of this combo can be really abusive. > How can you prevent it from happening ? Quite simply, by designing the cards more carefully. Type 1 and 1.5 have become *more* broken over the years because Wizards DOES NOT LOOK at those formats when designing new cards. They haven't cared about them since they printed Ice Age and introduced type 2. They print whatever cards they want to make Type 2 a fast-selling format, and worry about restricting or banning them from the older formats later.

In article <df69cc0d.02111...@posting.google.com>, karol...@yahoo.com says... <some cards snipped> > > Card ausA > > Reaction > > [aus] +1 intercept > > [AUS] Acting minion gets -1 stealth. > > Good card and I will play one in my deck. Agreed. > > Card ausB > > Reaction > > X+1 blood > > [aus] +1 intercept > > [AUS] +X intercept > > incredibly weak It already exists in a slightly different form (see Gestalt). > > 2) > > Card obfA > > Action Modifier > > [obf] +1 stealth > > [OBF] The blocking minion has -1 intercept until the end of the turn. > > worth putting one in the deck Eh. I'd rather just put in Faceless Night. > > Card obfB > > Action Modifier > > 1 blood > > [obf] The blocking minion has -1 intercept. > > [OBF] Usable by an untapped ready vampire other than the acting minion. > > Tap this minion. Reduce a blocking minion's intercept to 0. > > probably too strong It's weaker than Blanket of Night, really. > > Card obtA > > Action Modifier > > [obt] +1 stealth, only usable when hunting. > > [OBT] As above, and this minion gains 1 extra blood if the hunt is > > successful. > > superior has to be reworded otherwise it's extremely weak Both need to be reworded. Just weak all around. > > Card domA > > Action Modifier > > [dom] Only usable when this vampire successfully bleeds your prey. Put > > this card on this vampire. You may burn this card when announcing a > > bleed action to gain +1 bleed. > > [DOM] As above, with +1 stealth. > > weak I like it. A bonding that doesn't count as a bonding. Basically spying mission that can't be used to bleed responsibly, but actually works as a good bleed enhancer. > > Card preA > > Action > > [pre] Only usable by a titled vampire. Bleed at +1, gain 1 pool if > > successfull. > > [PRE] Only usable by a titled vampire. Bleed at +X bleed, where X is the > > amount of votes this vampire has. > > very powerfull Way too good. > No, not really. If those cards say belonged to disciplines called dark > ages animalism, dark ages dominate etc... they would be perfectly > viable, if they were added to current ani dom etc. card pool their > impact would be in most cases marginal. How would restricting the access of those cards to a minimal set of vampires increase their viability? They would be the "only choice" for those vampires, but just because you print weak cards and give them to a small set of vampires, doesn't make them good cards (or grouping a good idea). Perhaps in a "dark ages only" tournament. I'd rather play with whatever library cards I want, though. -Snapcase

Flux <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:<3DD14DEE...@netc.pt>... [ quoted text not captured ] They failed on that aspect miserably. Cards in weak category are well weak compared to what we have in given disciplines. Therefore if you printed them, they would make no impact. Point proven. Card classified as strong/too strong would make some of the old cards obsolete. Point proven. Cards clasified as interesting usually (my personal experience) turn out to be either weak (most of the time) or strong (seldom) Card classified as: I would put one in the deck (along with 265 similar redunant different named cards) would be bad for deck constructing. (it would became no-brain process in some aspects) All of this classification was made on assumption that those cards would be added to current cardpool. If they were separated somewhat from current cardpool (be it group thingy or dark ages disciplines thingy) they would probably all made impact if their comparative weakness to existing disciplines would be redeemed by making some facets of (say) dark ages disciplines stronger than in the existing disciplines (combat?). > >>That should be enough. > >>They may need some balancing, but I think that most of these cards could > >>be introduced in the game without producing any of the problems that you > >>claim. > > No, not really. If those cards say belonged to disciplines called dark > > ages animalism, dark ages dominate etc... they would be perfectly > > viable, if they were added to current ani dom etc. card pool their > > impact would be in most cases marginal. > > I'd say quite the opposite. By themselves, these are mostly weak cards. > But if you combo them with existing cards, you gain a whole lot more > possibilities, and some might even become too strong instead. I explained above why this is not true. > Anyway, the point was not to make new 'staple' cards (that would be hard > to do without a climb up the power curve), but to prove that new card > can be introduced without producing the problems that you claimed. I > think I did reasonably well on that point :) No, you failed. I showed that those problems I talked about would appear. Karol

[ quoted text not captured ] Wrong. They are stackable with current cards, and that alone makes a huge difference. You'd put in copies of existing cards first, but if you needed an extra effect you'd use these. You can't get over +(whatever) intercept with current cards, these new cards, even if they look weak to you, would let you push that boundary. > Card classified as strong/too strong would make some of the old cards > obsolete. Point proven. Take a second look at what you call 'too strong'. You claim ausD (+1 intercept, +1 strength) is 'too strong' (I partially agree, I intended to give +1 strength to one strike, but anyway). Which card will this replace? In combat decks, it might replace Spirit's Touch. But then you lose the maneuver, which is quite usefull. For defense, you'd want ST or Precognition. For sheer intercept, any of those would do equally well. So, which card will this one replace? Another example: obfB (-1 intercept, reduce intercept to 0). Too strong? Maybe, because you can combo it with Elder Impersonation. What does it replace? Elder Impersonation is the closest you get to this effect, yet it is clearly superior to this. This would never replace Elder Impersonation, yet it would combo perfectly with it. Doesn't look like it fits your definition either. > Cards clasified as interesting usually (my personal experience) turn > out to be either weak (most of the time) or strong (seldom) 'Interesting' cards usually means that you would put one, in some cases. That's what they were designed for, they are good but have a limited use. Compare with Fast Hands. It's great if someone else on the table is using a Flamethrower, it's useless if nobody's playing equipment. That doesn't make it a weak card, nor does it make it useless. > Card classified as: I would put one in the deck (along with 265 > similar redunant different named cards) would be bad for deck > constructing. (it would became no-brain process in some aspects) You only made that comment on 2 cards. That hardly makes it 265 similar redundant different named cards. That's because I took that problem into consideration, and chose to add a couple of similar cards, because I don't think a couple more will break the game. Apparently, the current design team thought the same when designing Domain of Evernight. > All of this classification was made on assumption that those cards > would be added to current cardpool. No, you made this classification by _comparing_ them to the current cardpool. That is not the same thing. Compare Increased Strength to the existing cardpool (at the time). By itself, Torn Signpost would be better 90% of the times. But that hardly makes IS useless or too weak. Another similar (and more recent) example: Lapse (at pot). +2 strength for 2 blood? What where they thinking? Just use TS!! Yet I've seen several peole here advocating the use of Lapse in pot decks, because it's stackable with TS, it only requires inf pot, and you can expect to regain the investment with a Taste. It loses out in a direct comparison, but it's good when combined. >>Anyway, the point was not to make new 'staple' cards (that would be hard >>to do without a climb up the power curve), but to prove that new card >>can be introduced without producing the problems that you claimed. I >>think I did reasonably well on that point :) > > > No, you failed. > > I showed that those problems I talked about would appear. You didn't. - You didn't show how these [aus] and [obf] cards would lead to problems 1) and 2). Yes, it could occur if you design enough cards around the '+1 stealth/intercept' template, but you asked for 5, I gave you 5. If you asked for more, I might have designed them all differently. - You didn't show how these [for] cards would replace the existing cards, or how they'd be inferior and not usable (btw, 'Reduce 1 damage' is supposed to mean 'Prevent 1 damage, even if it is unpreventable'). - You didn't show how the [ani] and [obt] would throw the entire balance between disciplines out of the window. - The only point I could give you based on your comments would be regarding the [dom] and [pre] cards. But even then I think a rebalancing of those cards would be enough. I think most of those effects would be different enough from existing cards to make them usable without replacing current cards. For example: if you remove the 'Only playable as the action is announced' from domC ('chose younger vampire and gain +X bleed'), it would usually be as good as Threats at inf, and potentially better than Conditioning at SUP. You might what to put a few in if there's a Laptop deck around, at worst you don't lose much when compared to Threats anyway. Flux

[cards and their discussion snipped] > > No, not really. If those cards say belonged to disciplines called dark > > ages animalism, dark ages dominate etc... they would be perfectly > > viable, if they were added to current ani dom etc. card pool their > > impact would be in most cases marginal. > > How would restricting the access of those cards to a minimal set of > vampires increase their viability? They would be the "only choice" for > those vampires, but just because you print weak cards and give them to a > small set of vampires, doesn't make them good cards (or grouping a good > idea). Perhaps in a "dark ages only" tournament. I'd rather play with > whatever library cards I want, though. Because weakness in some parts of "dark ages" disciplines could be mended by making some other parts of this disciplines stronger (compared to existing disciplines counterparts). This would lead to slightly different flavour of dark ages disciplines. Now do it in a way where you do not separate those cards and power escalation will be present. A good example of what I have in mind is spiritus. The spiritus have better combat than auspex have but worse combat than animalismus have. The reverse is true with regarding of intercept capabilities. That way spiritus feels different and ANI/AUS deck have better intercept and worse combat than ANI/SPI as a result. So result of some kind of card restriction would be that each subset would have different feel but would be balanced overall. Karol

Flux <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:<3DD271CF...@netc.pt>... [ quoted text not captured ] If they are weak by their own why should I bother. The general idea (of my deckbuilding) is to put cards in the deck that are good on their own but work even better when combined with other cards in my deck. > > Card classified as strong/too strong would make some of the old cards > > obsolete. Point proven. > > Take a second look at what you call 'too strong'. > > You claim ausD (+1 intercept, +1 strength) is 'too strong' (I partially > agree, I intended to give +1 strength to one strike, but anyway). > Which card will this replace? In combat decks, it might replace Spirit's > Touch. But then you lose the maneuver, which is quite usefull. For > defense, you'd want ST or Precognition. For sheer intercept, any of > those would do equally well. So, which card will this one replace? If it was reworded to meet designers intent I would play one in deck. As it is now the card could be too easily abused in AUS/CEL intercept combat IMO. (high level intercept analysis follows, feel free to disagree ;) ) I categorize auspex intercept cards into roughly as follows 1) pure intercept - enhanced senses 2) bleed defence intercept - telepatic misdirection, my enemies enemy 3) combat intercept - precognition - spirit's touch 4) prey oriented intercept - eagle's sight - melange When building intercept deck one of the challenges is to have enough intercept for decks you definitely want to block but not that many intercept cards that for deck you definitely do not want to block That's why most of my intercept comes from group 2) The group 1) is also important because it allows me to do thing I want to do very often (intercept) most efficiently. Group 3) and group 4) are less important and are a filler groups most of the times note that to most (or to almost every) of the intercept decks that I built (and I built many of them) or that I saw it was quite irrelevant whether he draw precognition or spirits touch - if he failed to block it was clearly irrelevant. If he do not failed to block it might have mattered on ocassion but not in a way that player would sacrifice 2/2 of each setup for 4/0 or 0/4 setup. There is enough redunancy in disciplines now. Printing some more redunant cards could possibly "break" * some rules that are in effect now. * I refer to the fact that vampire cannot play same reaction card twice, printing more (say 1-2) *equivalent* intercept cards in each category would "break" this rule in the way (as it would became useless) It might not be end of the world sure, but at least carefull consideration would be in place before doing so. > Another example: obfB (-1 intercept, reduce intercept to 0). > Too strong? Maybe, because you can combo it with Elder Impersonation. > What does it replace? Elder Impersonation is the closest you get to this > effect, yet it is clearly superior to this. This would never replace > Elder Impersonation, yet it would combo perfectly with it. > Doesn't look like it fits your definition either. than 1/1 setup would be better than 2/0 or 0/2 setup. Same possible problems as with intercept example. Not to mention that deckbuilding process would become less creative. > > Cards clasified as interesting usually (my personal experience) turn > > out to be either weak (most of the time) or strong (seldom) > 'Interesting' cards usually means that you would put one, in some cases. > That's what they were designed for, they are good but have a limited use. > Compare with Fast Hands. It's great if someone else on the table is > using a Flamethrower, it's useless if nobody's playing equipment. That > doesn't make it a weak card, nor does it make it useless. It does make it useless in most cases. (as it does nothing in most relevant cases) > > Card classified as: I would put one in the deck (along with 265 > > similar redunant different named cards) would be bad for deck > > constructing. (it would became no-brain process in some aspects) > You only made that comment on 2 cards. That hardly makes it 265 similar > redundant different named cards. > That's because I took that problem into consideration, and chose to add > a couple of similar cards, because I don't think a couple more will > break the game. Apparently, the current design team thought the same > when designing Domain of Evernight. The point is that new cards needs to be printed (for WW to make money) Sure you can print card to existing disciplines here and there (like it is happening right now) and nothing bad will happen. If you decide to print 40 new dominate cards (or auspex, or animalism or whatever) serious problems might arise. > > All of this classification was made on assumption that those cards > > would be added to current cardpool. > No, you made this classification by _comparing_ them to the current > cardpool. That is not the same thing. > Compare Increased Strength to the existing cardpool (at the time). By > itself, Torn Signpost would be better 90% of the times. But that hardly > makes IS useless or too weak. Adding them to current cardpool means that they will be compared with cards from current cardpool. > Another similar (and more recent) example: Lapse (at pot). +2 strength > for 2 blood? What where they thinking? Just use TS!! > Yet I've seen several peole here advocating the use of Lapse in pot > decks, because it's stackable with TS, it only requires inf pot, and you > can expect to regain the investment with a Taste. > It loses out in a direct comparison, but it's good when combined. IS is higly stackable quite redunant effect to Torn Signpost. (and much better than Lapse in that aspect, no Lapse in my weenie potence (not that I have one) ) > >>Anyway, the point was not to make new 'staple' cards (that would be hard > >>to do without a climb up the power curve), but to prove that new card > >>can be introduced without producing the problems that you claimed. I > >>think I did reasonably well on that point :) > > No, you failed. > > I showed that those problems I talked about would appear. > You didn't. I did ;) > - You didn't show how these [aus] and [obf] cards would lead to problems > 1) and 2). Yes, it could occur if you design enough cards around the '+1 > stealth/intercept' template, but you asked for 5, I gave you 5. If you > asked for more, I might have designed them all differently. The point is it's you need to have room open for designing more (since WW makes money by expanding player base and by pleasing old customers) > - You didn't show how these [for] cards would replace the existing > cards, or how they'd be inferior and not usable (btw, 'Reduce 1 damage' > is supposed to mean 'Prevent 1 damage, even if it is unpreventable'). superior wording is still problematic ;) > - You didn't show how the [ani] and [obt] would throw the entire balance > between disciplines out of the window. I did say that they are weak - problematic in other ways (insignificance of new cards) > - The only point I could give you based on your comments would be > regarding the [dom] and [pre] cards. But even then I think a rebalancing > of those cards would be enough. I think most of those effects would be > different enough from existing cards to make them usable without > replacing current cards. > For example: if you remove the 'Only playable as the action is > announced' from domC ('chose younger vampire and gain +X bleed'), it > would usually be as good as Threats at inf, and potentially better than > Conditioning at SUP. You might what to put a few in if there's a Laptop > deck around, at worst you don't lose much when compared to Threats anyway. You could hardly design better dominate bleed action that GtU is. You could hardly design better bleed modifiers than current ones. If you do power escalation appears. If you do not insignificance appears. Yes you could design cards that would be better than existing cards in some (cornercase) ocassions but overall those cards would not be used (because "almost always better" is better then "better in cornercase") Karol

> > Look, you are out of touch with magic for two years. Do you feel that > > your view of how thinks are in magic is accurate ? > > Well, type 1.5 hasn't changed much in the past 2 years, so his points > about said format don't have any less weight, really. The other things have changed however (how designers design new cards, looks on certain issues, etc.) > > Showing that Erham Djinn was reprinted invalidate your point. > > He did indeed choose the wrong creatures/cards to point out as "power > cards". Had he said "Hypnotic Specter" or "Mana Drain" or "The Abyss", > he would have gotten the point across. The point is still there, > though. Yes, those cards are better examples really. I will adress this point in reply to his post. > > Again, you didn't show anything. It's irrelevant whether I have > > precognition or spirit's touch superior effect most of the time. > This seems a bit shortsighted. It depends completely on what your deck > does, wants to do ideally, and what it's going up against. > > What is relevant is to reduce chance of clumping my hand with multiply > > copies of same intercept card. > Well, if you're going up against a deck running Immortal Grapple, you're > really gonna want that maneuver instead of the ability to prevent 1. If he allows me to cycle intercept when he plays grapple both would be sufficient since my combat hand would be quite comparable to his ;) > > Because it's FAR more robust than stupid Elder Intervention / Pack > > Tactics example. Do you know what robust means ? > Grouping library cards is certainly more all-encompassing. But you need > to show WHY this "robustness" is good for the game. If the game can get > by very well on EI/PT type text, there is no need to introduce it. You would need to errata all the previous versions of EI/PT :) The point I try to make (but which is sadly not getting through) is that if you print large quantity of cards to existing many problems may/will arise. My base assumption were: 1) new cards have to be printed 2) need for new cards for old disciplines (it's sad that difference between group 1/2 tremere and group 2/3 tremere is like 6 cards in crypt and max 10 cards in library) If you do not agree with any of those assumptions then entire discussion is irrelevant > > Counterexample #1 - after restriction of Black Vise new power cards > > like Land Tax or Necropotence were abused. > We're talking Type 1 here now? Necropotence had its place in a few > decks, but it certainly didn't get overused until the Donate/Delusions > fiasco. Land Tax is a mediocre card in a format where few decks can > utilize basic lands (you'll note that it's neither restricted or > banned). Both don't mean as much in a format where Timetwister, > Ancestral and Wheel of Fortune are legal. These cards didn't have their > usefulness shoot through the roof when Vice got restricted/banned, the > entire deckstyle that wanted to play them did. Black Vice > singlehandedly prevented the slower/draw more cards control deckstyle. > When you can do six to nine damage on the first turn by dropping > multiple vices in their face, to a deck that wants to slow down and > control the game, you've basically won before they even hit their first > draw step. Especially when their deckstyle plays into getting hit more > by the vices. We are taking about T2 and how Land Tax and Necropotence was not abused in format where Black Vise was restricted and how they were abused after. > > Counterexample #2 - recent CE erratas of some power cards (or MRP > > curse to be exact) > What new power cards have risen to the top in their place? From top of my head: GtU, Conditioning, Dreams of Sphinx, Powerbase Montreal Also note that since V:TES is slower game some problems appear later than in Magic (but appear they will) > > Look. T1.5 have like 10 000 of cards. Most of the cards can interact > > with themselves one way or another. Just compute the number of > > two/three/four cards combos. (waiting for him to do so....) See, big > > number isn't it ? Well and any of this combo can be really abusive. > > How can you prevent it from happening ? > Quite simply, by designing the cards more carefully. That's always an option. Vast amount of combination will get you even if you do WANT and have TIME to design cards carefully. > Type 1 and 1.5 have become *more* broken over the years because Wizards > DOES NOT LOOK at those formats when designing new cards. They haven't > cared about them since they printed Ice Age and introduced type 2. They > print whatever cards they want to make Type 2 a fast-selling format, and > worry about restricting or banning them from the older formats later. True to some extent. The entire case could be make with just extended,t2 and block constructed (as new cards are designed for those formats are balanced for those formats but problems still arises (worldgorger dragon case which enabled second turn kill in extended)*). *and before Fred jumps here saying: That's because they are putting so many cards so fast! I say that: i) cards are designed from 1-2 year in advance on average and there is enough time and resources to test them ii) many peoples from design team earned their job by breaking cards in Pro Tours so there is also quality in testing not only quantity. Karol

[snip] > How things are at this instant? Obviously not. At least, it's not completely accurate, > although it's also not that clear how much things have changed. As of a couple of years > ago, my view was accurate enough. Certainly enough to make a number of relevant > observations about the differences between Magic and Jyhad that you missed or > the you were waving your hand over. Which ones did I miss (or wawed my hand over). Restate them. > It does not invalidate my point. As has been pointed out to you more > than once - and you never respond to - there are *other* things besides > Ernham Djinn which they will never reprint in a current set yet they still > allow in T1.5. Netreps have acknowledged this truth for years. And it is the > relevant point. *Not* one single card I mentioned that they apparently > changed their minds about. > You need to pay attention to the relevance of my examples. I indicated that > a certain class of cards existed: the class of cards that were designed and > printed in the past in older Magic expansions that WOULD NOT AND COULD NOT > be printed in the next expansion because of their very nature: they are > considered to be too powerful or too radical to risk printing such a card. > I gave an example of one such card: Ernham Djinn. You replied that Ernham > does not belong in the class because it has been reprinted. That's true, > but that doesn't mean this class of cards does not exist. In fact, the > designers have said straight out that this class of cards exist. They may > change their minds about which cards qualify but that is irrelevant to the > central point. Even without that class of cards such vast formats are impossible to balance (unless you restrict the card interaction in some way, and that's what grouping is all about, restricting card interaction so format become more manageable) (about grinning demon part 21) > OK. Because it's not a 5/5 creature that has only one point of damage per turn > as a drawback. Grinning Demon's drawback is much worse then Juzam's. > Of course, this whole line of argument is mindless. The evaluation of which > creatures are or are not as good as which other creatures are clearly subjective. > You might make a decent argument if the two cards were near identical but they're > obviously not that much alike. So we're wasting our time. You forgot to take Morph mechanics in account We are wasting our time with this entire debate since we have zero control on what vtes future will bring ;) > > > (Comments elided which contained no new arguments.) > > > > It's easier to elide them and write some smart line than to answer > > them, don't you think ? > > No I don't think. I removed them because I *already* answered them and you never > responded to my answers. I'm not prepared to go mindlessly arguing in circles > because you don't care to address the points I made. Why do I have exactly same (reversed) feeling ? ;) I restated my position so you could better reply to my position (and in turn I could better understand you). Sadly you passed the oportinity. > Concerning whether Weighted Walking Stick obsolesces ("wallpaperizes") Poker, > thus demonstrating Karol's idea that cards become systematically obsolete over > the course of time, I wrote: > > > First of all, that's a clearly subjective opinion. Other people might see it > > > differently. For one thing, it seems absolutely bizarre to complain that "Poker > > > is fragile" when the card you're comparing it to goes away automatically after > > > 2-3 uses! Certainly in certain circumstances, Poker is much better than > > > Weighted Walking stick. Besides, you seem determined to look at it from the > > > standpoint of your Salubri antitribu deck. I think people might find that > > > another deck that makes extensive use of Disguised or Concealed Weapon cards > > > would work better with Pokers. I think this simply reveals your own bias. It > > > doesn't prove what you're saying about V:tES cards over time. > > > > I stated two examples of decks where WWStick is far superior to poker. > > You didn't showed ANY counterexample... > > I don't have to show any counterexample. One, two, or ten examples of how one > card is better in a given deck than another shows nothing. To demonstrate > obsolescence, you must show that the card you believe is superior is the better > choice in *all* decks at *all* times. Or I'll settle for, "in the vast majority of > times" for practical purposes. You can't give only one or two examples and expect > anyone to accept this. To demonstrate this point, you must use inductive reasoning. > For instance: two weapons that cost the same but one causes more damage than the > other some of time and has no drawbacks that the other doesn't also have. If you > cannot do this, your assertion is not proved. The instance you are refering is clearly instance stricly inferior/superior cards (chainsaw/gas powered chainsaw). I explained why such thinking is stupid and give some nice examples. You failed to respond to that. Now it's time for some inductive reasoning :) I will demonstrate that in almost every deck I want put poker in WWStick is better. Therefore as a result Poker is walpaperized by WWStick These are the decks I might want to have Poker in: 1) !Salubri 2) Midcap/weenie CEL close range combat 3) source of permanent damage for intercept combat case 1) and 2) was explained case 3) is easy to explain too since I will not use poker more than three times in such deck and it saves me an action to equip How can disciplinless reusable version of Torn Signpost not wallpaperize poker ? (note that WWStick does not wallpaperize Meat Hook since meat hook goes to different decks than poker do) [snipped many things] > > Again, you didn't show anything. It's irrelevant whether I have > > precognition or spirit's touch superior effect most of the time. What > > is relevant is to reduce chance of clumping my hand with multiply > > copies of same intercept card. > > *Most* of the time. BUT NOT *ALL* THE TIME. You are assuming the designers > intend that the number of intercept cards available to use at inferior is supposed > to be limited. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD: THAT'S *YOUR* ASSUMPTION! IT'S *NOT* > MY ASSUMPTION!!! I showed that there could be another reason that multiple Auspex > intercept cards exist: so they can do something else at superior. Since I don't > assume what you assume, and because there's no reason anyone *ELSE* should assume > what you assume, your theories about how this relates to grouping library cards > are questionable. > ... Screaming is unnecessary. The good thing about internet comunication is that you can vent yourself before you write your responce. I myself do this frequently. I advise you to do the same. When in trouble or in doubt run in circles scream and shout. I consider that your arguments failed you here. If you want to prove me otherwise you must restate your position in more polite version. [sniped some robustness issues we disagreed upon] > (Concerning Karol's assertion that, "Banning the 100 most abusive cards in the game > will only cause another 100 cards to become 'abusive'" and my reply that the normal > distribution of power in cards will assure that this is not an endless cycle. He > replies that this depends on what the normal distribution of power in cards truly > looks like. I replied:) > > > I suppose. So it might work or it might not, depending on what you think the > > > distribution curve of the power cards looks like. But your original assertion was > > > that banning "100 most abusive cards" will cause another 100 "most abusive" cards > > > to appear. I explained why I thought banning or issuing errata to the most abusive > > > cards DOES work and doesn't simply cause the situation you fear. I believe Scott > > > Johnson has SHOWN that it works, given how much the game improved after the 7/7 > > > errata he issued a few year ago. People complained a great deal but the result was > > > undeniably a better game. Abusive cards were NOT replaced by other cards that were > > > equally abusive. You can believe it or you can refuse to believe it but I think > > > the evidence speaks for itself. In fact, my only quibble with it was whether he > > > went to far and issued more errata than he had to to fix the game. > > > > Counterexample #1 - after restriction of Black Vise new power cards > > like Land Tax or Necropotence were abused. > > > > Counterexample #2 - recent CE erratas of some power cards (or MRP > > curse to be exact) > > Why are you giving counterexamples? Counterexamples prove nothing. I already > conceded, "It might work or it might not." Counterexamples don't prove something can > *never* work. They can only prove that the thing *sometimes* doesn't work. The case could be made that it almost never works and therefore some other solution (wich works more often) will be better. Very few cards are bad on their own, strength of fifth tradition would be less of a issue if minion tap would not exists. Again card interaction is what is problematic. > In this case, I assert these counterexamples don't even prove *THAT*: 1) Magic examples, > as I've stated many times don't apply. The DCI doesn't ban all abusive cards anyway > so who cares what happens in Magic? Black Vise was abusive, Land Tax was abusive, and > Necropotence was abusive. In this case, the problem is that the DIC just didn't ban > enough cards to get near the point of fixing the problem. Doesn't mean the problem > couldn't be fixed. It just means the DCI wasn't willing to do what truly needed to be > done. 2) I don't agree that recent CE erratas of power cards were necessary, anyway. > That the V:tES designers seem a bit over finicky about the slightly more powerful cards > says nothing about the generally principle that's in dispute. And even if they were > necessary, who said there were any more abusive cards? You stated many things many times , you didn't proved many things though. Examples of the cards which might be changed in future: Dreams of Sphinx, Powerbase Montreal, Conditioning, Govern the Unaligned, PtO The case could be made: 1) some of them are no brainers 2) they disable more archetypes than they enable 3) they turn the game to a fight over a control of this resource > > > The reason I don't play Magic anymore is twofold: the DCI > > > refuses to fix T1.5 and make is useful, as the could; and 2) WotC issues > > > too many expansions every year causing poor card design and costing me > > > too much money to keep up. Slow down the expansions and I think you'll > > > find THAT helps avoid card imbalance - leading to all these good results > > > I cited about above as well. I explained how this is not true in response to other poster. > > Look. T1.5 have like 10 000 of cards. Most of the cards can interact > > with themselves one way or another. Just compute the number of > > two/three/four cards combos. (waiting for him to do so....) See, big > > number isn't it ? Well and any of this combo can be really abusive. > > How can you prevent it from happening ? > You stay alert to it as you design the cards. Part of the problem is that > Magic designers are careless and put out expansions far too quickly to properly > balance cards. And when they do make mistakes, they leave them in the game > as is instead of fixing them. So *of course* you get problems like this. which is not true for extended,t2,block constructed > The other thing I've touched on is the issue of combinations in Magic. Due > to the fact that Magic is 4CL, the designers way of balancing combinations is > to make sure most combination cards don't work well as single cards. Then they > count on the fact that it's hard to get a combination of cards into play reliably. > In the short run, this seems to work well enough. In the long run, they don't > pay enough attention to how much payoff a given combination provides - so the > issue comes up time and again in T1.5. Jyhad designers are much more sensitive > to how combinations of cards could possibly work because there are no card > limits in Jyhad. they (magic designers) do pay attention, don't be mistaken > > If we want to balance say tsimisce we have to take into account about > > 100 ani/aus/vic/tsimisce cards and about 400 ? relevant generic cards. > > We had to prevent abusive combos within this category at least and > > make it balanced with similar 15? or so subsystems. Not that easy > > task, but still manageable. > > Now imagine we had say 10 more cards in each subsystem. > You do it by setting limits on what any single card is allowed to do in various > respects. In Magic, one card is frequently worthless by itself but changes the > rules of the game completely: for instance the way Moat does nothing directly > for you but makes non-Flying creatures irrelevant as long as it's in play. Cards > like that are dangerous over time. I believe the Jyhad designers are much more > careful about such things. I don't understand worthless by itself but changes rules of the game comletely line of though. > It generally isn't necessary that you directly compare every card to every other > card to expose problems with combinations if you're careful about what kind of > cards you allow to be designed. Or at least, it lessens the chance that an error > will occur if you're careful. And if you do make a mistake, it can be fixed. > Without grouping. No, the problems is that with vast free for all cards to interact format the mistakes can't be fixed easily. Karol

>>What new power cards have risen to the top in their place? > > > From top of my head: GtU, Conditioning, Dreams of Sphinx, Powerbase > Montreal Huh? All those cards were already at the top. They're not broken, but they are at the top. Ask anyone if they'd rather have a Dreams or a (pre-CE) ToGP on their deck, and 99% will say Dreams. The other 1% are the ones playing specialized decks. Flux

[ quoted text not captured ] Yet you use Increased Strength, which is completely useless by itself, and strong when combined with other cards. :P >>>Card classified as strong/too strong would make some of the old cards >>>obsolete. Point proven. >> >>Take a second look at what you call 'too strong'. >> >>You claim ausD (+1 intercept, +1 strength) is 'too strong' (I partially >>agree, I intended to give +1 strength to one strike, but anyway). >>Which card will this replace? In combat decks, it might replace Spirit's >>Touch. But then you lose the maneuver, which is quite usefull. For >>defense, you'd want ST or Precognition. For sheer intercept, any of >>those would do equally well. So, which card will this one replace? > > > If it was reworded to meet designers intent I would play one in deck. > As it is now the card could be too easily abused in AUS/CEL intercept > combat IMO. But you wrote above that strong/too strong means some old cards would be made obsolete. Yet this card, even though it is too strong, wouldn't replace any of the old cards consistently. Even less so if it were rebalanced. > (high level intercept analysis follows, feel free to disagree ;) ) > > I categorize auspex intercept cards into roughly as follows > > 1) pure intercept > > - enhanced senses > > 2) bleed defence intercept > > - telepatic misdirection, my enemies enemy > > 3) combat intercept > > - precognition > - spirit's touch > > 4) prey oriented intercept > > - eagle's sight > - melange > > When building intercept deck one of the challenges is to have enough > intercept for decks you definitely want to block but not that many > intercept cards that for deck you definitely do not want to block > > That's why most of my intercept comes from group 2) > The group 1) is also important because it allows me to do thing I want > to do very often (intercept) most efficiently. > > Group 3) and group 4) are less important and are a filler groups most > of the times That is dependant on metagame and personal preferences. A Toreador gun deck will probably want more group 3) cards in his deck, because he wants to actually block his predator (instead of bouncing) and can use the combat abilities. Then a Tzimisce deck will probably want more group 4), because otherwise they might have a poor offense. > note that to most (or to almost every) of the intercept decks that I > built (and I built many of them) or that I saw it was quite irrelevant > whether he draw precognition or spirits touch - if he failed to block > it was clearly irrelevant. In a Toreador gun deck you'll want ST over Precognition almost every time. In a Tzimisce deck, it's the other way around. > If he do not failed to block it might have mattered on ocassion but > not in a way that player would sacrifice 2/2 of each setup for 4/0 or > 0/4 setup. It also depends on what decks you're facing. Often +1 intercept will be enough against Political decks. In that case, going for a 0/4 setup might make enough of a difference over a 2/2 setup. > There is enough redunancy in disciplines now. Printing some more > redunant cards could possibly "break" * some rules that are in effect > now. > > * I refer to the fact that vampire cannot play same reaction card > twice, printing more (say 1-2) *equivalent* intercept cards in each > category would "break" this rule in the way (as it would became > useless) It might not be end of the world sure, but at least carefull > consideration would be in place before doing so. > > >>Another example: obfB (-1 intercept, reduce intercept to 0). >>Too strong? Maybe, because you can combo it with Elder Impersonation. >>What does it replace? Elder Impersonation is the closest you get to this >>effect, yet it is clearly superior to this. This would never replace >>Elder Impersonation, yet it would combo perfectly with it. >>Doesn't look like it fits your definition either. > > > than 1/1 setup would be better than 2/0 or 0/2 setup. Same possible > problems as with intercept example. Not to mention that deckbuilding > process would become less creative. 1/1 in this case would not always be better, because if you draw one obfB card and no EI you have a weaker effect. >>You only made that comment on 2 cards. That hardly makes it 265 similar >>redundant different named cards. >>That's because I took that problem into consideration, and chose to add >>a couple of similar cards, because I don't think a couple more will >>break the game. Apparently, the current design team thought the same >>when designing Domain of Evernight. > > > The point is that new cards needs to be printed (for WW to make money) > Sure you can print card to existing disciplines here and there (like > it is happening right now) and nothing bad will happen. If you decide > to print 40 new dominate cards (or auspex, or animalism or whatever) > serious problems might arise. Oh, so now it's _40_ cards? Well, I'm not up for it right now, but I might do it later ;) >>>All of this classification was made on assumption that those cards >>>would be added to current cardpool. >> > >>No, you made this classification by _comparing_ them to the current >>cardpool. That is not the same thing. >>Compare Increased Strength to the existing cardpool (at the time). By >>itself, Torn Signpost would be better 90% of the times. But that hardly >>makes IS useless or too weak. > > > Adding them to current cardpool means that they will be compared with > cards from current cardpool. Compare Call of the Hungry Dead to the existing cardpool. It's pointless. Even though there are similar cards, none of them can be used with CotHD. CotHD by itself is quite weak, another wake or untapped minion will defeat it. But it is usefull because you can easily combo it with Bonding and Spiritual Intervention, and there are plenty of +1 stealth actions to use it with. >>Another similar (and more recent) example: Lapse (at pot). +2 strength >>for 2 blood? What where they thinking? Just use TS!! >>Yet I've seen several peole here advocating the use of Lapse in pot >>decks, because it's stackable with TS, it only requires inf pot, and you >>can expect to regain the investment with a Taste. >>It loses out in a direct comparison, but it's good when combined. > > IS is higly stackable quite redunant effect to Torn Signpost. (and > much better than Lapse in that aspect, no Lapse in my weenie potence > (not that I have one) ) See above. IS is useless by itself, you need to draw a strike card to use it. That's a significant advantage of TS and Lapse. You can draw a deck combo that goes TS-Lapse-IG-Taste, and it will work even if TS or Lapse don't show up on time. If you try to do IS-IG-US-Taste, your combo completely fails if you don't draw the US. >>>I showed that those problems I talked about would appear. >> > >>You didn't. > > I did ;) > You didn't :) >>- You didn't show how these [aus] and [obf] cards would lead to problems >>1) and 2). Yes, it could occur if you design enough cards around the '+1 >>stealth/intercept' template, but you asked for 5, I gave you 5. If you >>asked for more, I might have designed them all differently. > > The point is it's you need to have room open for designing more (since > WW makes money by expanding player base and by pleasing old customers) > There is some room, that's the point I was making. If you design carefully, you can make the most out of the room you have. >>- You didn't show how these [for] cards would replace the existing >>cards, or how they'd be inferior and not usable (btw, 'Reduce 1 damage' >>is supposed to mean 'Prevent 1 damage, even if it is unpreventable'). > > superior wording is still problematic ;) > > >>- You didn't show how the [ani] and [obt] would throw the entire balance >>between disciplines out of the window. > > I did say that they are weak - problematic in other ways > (insignificance of new cards) In my defense on these two points, I'll say again that these are _first draft_ cards. Even LSJ has to playtest his designs, he doesn't always get it right the first time around - I think :) What is significant is that I provided several cards with new designs, ones that would (hopefully) be different enough from existing cards to be usable, even if they have do have to be tweaked a bit. >>- The only point I could give you based on your comments would be >>regarding the [dom] and [pre] cards. But even then I think a rebalancing >>of those cards would be enough. I think most of those effects would be >>different enough from existing cards to make them usable without >>replacing current cards. >>For example: if you remove the 'Only playable as the action is >>announced' from domC ('chose younger vampire and gain +X bleed'), it >>would usually be as good as Threats at inf, and potentially better than >>Conditioning at SUP. You might what to put a few in if there's a Laptop >>deck around, at worst you don't lose much when compared to Threats anyway. > > You could hardly design better dominate bleed action that GtU is. > > You could hardly design better bleed modifiers than current ones. > > If you do power escalation appears. If you do not insignificance > appears. Yes you could design cards that would be better than existing > cards in some (cornercase) ocassions but overall those cards would not > be used (because "almost always better" is better then "better in > cornercase") You don't need 'better' ones, what you need is 'different'. See Foreshadowing Destruction. Is it better than Conditioning? Worse than Threats? I see people use it sometimes, it must be worth something. Scouting Mission isn't better than GtU. It's not worse either. If you print a dominate bleed action card with '+3/+4 bleed, 3 blood', is it any better than GtU? Worse? Would someone use it? Ingrid Russo bleeds for 1+4+1+3=9 with Daring the Dawn... Yeah, I bet you'd see it sometimes. It wouldn't replace GtU though, most decks can't afford to burn that much blood. Flux

karol...@yahoo.com (Karol Magda) wrote in message news:<df69cc0d.02111...@posting.google.com>... > > Well, type 1.5 hasn't changed much in the past 2 years, so his points > > about said format don't have any less weight, really. > > The other things have changed however (how designers design new cards, > looks on certain issues, etc.) Neither of which have had much effect on 1.5, though. > > Well, if you're going up against a deck running Immortal Grapple, you're > > really gonna want that maneuver instead of the ability to prevent 1. > > If he allows me to cycle intercept when he plays grapple both would be > sufficient since my combat hand would be quite comparable to his ;) Except that unless you're planning to hit back with hand strikes, he's going to smash a new hole in the floor with your skull if that Grapple goes off. > The point I try to make (but which is sadly not getting through) is > that if you print large quantity of cards to existing many problems > may/will arise. That point has already been accepted and moved-on from. It was the basis of the current crypt grouping rule we have. What you haven't shown is that the restriction of the library cards is necessary to prevent more the same problems the crypt grouping was designed to prevent. > My base assumption were: > > 1) new cards have to be printed I'd like to see new cards printed as well, yes. > 2) need for new cards for old disciplines This would generally follow from the first assumption, since it's extremely unlikely they're going to introduce new disciplines in every set. > (it's sad that difference > between group 1/2 tremere and group 2/3 tremere is like 6 cards in > crypt and max 10 cards in library) Huh? > We are taking about T2 and how Land Tax and Necropotence was not > abused in format where Black Vise was restricted and how they were > abused after. Vise was rather broken to begin with, and was restricted and then banned. The example doesn't particularly transfer to VTES. > > What new power cards have risen to the top in their place? > > From top of my head: GtU, Conditioning, Dreams of Sphinx, Powerbase > Montreal What have these cards risen to the top in place of? As far as I know, people have been using GtU and Conditioning as long as the game has had tournaments. Dreams has always been a top-tier card. Powerbase Montreal? > Also note that since V:TES is slower game some problems appear later > than in Magic (but appear they will) Such as? > That's always an option. Vast amount of combination will get you even > if you do WANT and have TIME to design cards carefully. Well, I haven't heard LSJ say "I don't give a shit about careful design... and we'll rush sets out the door so we don't have the time to do it anyway..." Indeed, expansions from Sabbat War on have shown just the opposite (reprinting of Twisting the Knife excepted). > True to some extent. The entire case could be make with just > extended,t2 and block constructed (as new cards are designed for those > formats are balanced for those formats but problems still arises > (worldgorger dragon case which enabled second turn kill in > extended)*). Yeah, dragon was a bad bad mistake. And I'd venture to guess that the design team doesn't particularly look at extended as much as type 2 and sealed when designing new cards. How would groupings solve this problem? > ii) many peoples from design team earned their job by breaking cards > in Pro Tours so there is also quality in testing not only quantity. Yet cards continually slip through the cracks, in all formats. -Snapcase

karol...@yahoo.com (Karol Magda) wrote in message news:<df69cc0d.02111...@posting.google.com>... > Because weakness in some parts of "dark ages" disciplines could be > mended by making some other parts of this disciplines stronger > (compared to existing disciplines counterparts). This would lead to > slightly different flavour of dark ages disciplines. Examples? > Now do it in a way where you do not separate those cards > and power escalation will be present. How is power escalation present in the current environment? What new cards have been made that have immediately gone to the top of the power curve, wallpapering all other previous/similar cards? Note: your poker/wwstick example does not apply unless you can show how WWS is better in EVERY conceivable instance of having either a poker or a WWstick. > A good example of what I have in mind is spiritus. The spiritus have > better combat than auspex have but worse combat than animalismus have. > The reverse is true with regarding of intercept capabilities. That way > spiritus feels different and ANI/AUS deck have better intercept and > worse combat than ANI/SPI as a result. Well, yes. POT/ANI has a different feel (and worse intercept but better combat) than ANI/AUS. So what? > So result of some kind of card restriction would be that each subset > would have different feel but would be balanced overall. Assuming each subset was not any weaker or stronger than any other given subset, then yes, we would possibly have different flavors in each one. We now have three choices: 1. We retroactively assign library cards to a "grouping", thus making thousands of existing decks illegal and horribly altering the game. 2. We start grouping library cards from this point forward to a grouping (say all existing ones are "group 1"). -Problem with 2: New group will be extremely small compared to group 1. Less cards->less variety->less power. Solutions to problem: -a. Print absurdly powerful cards in the beginning. Your whole argument about power scale goes right out the window. -b. Print an absurd amount of new cards. We're basically going to have 2 completely different games, that can field decks against each other or within themselves. How long would a set of this size take to make with proper playtesting and development time? I don't want a different game. I spend enough collecting for this one. 3. Magic: the Gathering. Raise your hand if you want to go that route. -Snapcase

On Thursday 14 November 2002 15:22 in message <9945f27a.02111...@posting.google.com>, Snapcase mumbled something about: > karol...@yahoo.com (Karol Magda) wrote in message > news:<df69cc0d.02111...@posting.google.com>... > >> Now do it in a way where you do not separate those cards >> and power escalation will be present. > > How is power escalation present in the current environment? What new > cards have been made that have immediately gone to the top of the > power curve, wallpapering all other previous/similar cards? Note: > your poker/wwstick example does not apply unless you can show how WWS > is better in EVERY conceivable instance of having either a poker or a > WWstick. (butting in) Jaroslav Pascek would much rather have a Poker. Celerity decks based on Blur would much rather have a Poker. End of comparison. More discussion later (when i have time), especially about that very-inaccurate intercept analysis. My Tremere intercept/kill deck, for example, relies on having lots of Spirit's Touch for the free maneuver; it would be significantly weaker with Precognition, Melange, or that fictional +1 strength card.

Karol Magda wrote: > > [snip] > > > How things are at this instant? Obviously not. At least, it's not completely accurate, > > although it's also not that clear how much things have changed. As of a couple of years > > ago, my view was accurate enough. Certainly enough to make a number of relevant > > observations about the differences between Magic and Jyhad that you missed or > > the you were waving your hand over. > > Which ones did I miss (or wawed my hand over). Restate them. Well, the one I keep shouting at you over and over again is the Magic designers and the Jyhad designers have different policies about unbalanced cards. The Jyhad designers tend fix anything significantly more powerful than the norm - in fact, in my view they're so persnickety that they often can't resist the urge to fix fairly marginal or downright non- existant "problems". The Magic designers will not fix anything unless its causing a very extreme problem. The number of unbalanced cards that go unchecked in their card population is what causes many of the things that you cite as causing problems over the long term. Then there's the card limit issue. Magic is 4CL, Jyhad is NCL. I feel the difference makes Jyhad designers much more sensitive to the issue of card combination interactions - both the desirable and the undesirable ones. I have seen evidence in the design of the Jyhad cards that Jyhad designers put some thought into this. In all the years I followed Magic, I never once got the impression that Magic designers do anything to prevent problems with this except (usually) avoiding the repetition of a mistake they had previously made. Other than that, they seem to just waltz from one blunder to the next. Then there's the number of new Magic cards that systematically get designed every year. Two (relatively) "small" expansions and one complete new standalone. I don't know how many cards can reasonably and reliably be designed and play-tested in a given year before mistakes become prevalent. But I feel that Jyhad expansions, on the whole, are much better balanced and have far fewer mistakes than Magic expansions and I have to think time spent on each expansion has got to be one reason for it. For one thing, the print cycle makes it impossible to do much if any testing of two adjacent expansions by playtesters in Magic. If they would slow down the rate of expansions, quality would likely be much better but as of the time I bought my last box of Magic cards, they showed no sign they were even considering doing so. Those differences will do for starters. > > I indicated that > > a certain class of cards existed: the class of cards that were designed and > > printed in the past in older Magic expansions that WOULD NOT AND COULD NOT > > be printed in the next expansion because of their very nature: they are > > considered to be too powerful or too radical to risk printing such a card. > > Even without that class of cards such vast formats are impossible to > balance (unless you restrict the card interaction in some way, and > that's what grouping is all about, restricting card interaction so > format become more manageable) That statement is baseless. Of course they could balance T1.5. Just errata or ban the unbalanced cards. That's all. Granted, there may be an unusually high portion of cards in certain expansions (e.g. Alpha, Beta, Arabian Nights, Legends) which would be affected. But so? The WHOLE GAME is fucked up right now because of this. It's not like you'd have to mess with more than 10-15% of the cards in any one expansion (maybe 20% on the outside). And the percentage of cards overall would likely be 3% or less. That's a small price to pay in order to resolve the problems felt by all of the older players in the game who feel their past purchases of cards are ultimately becoming worthless. > (about grinning demon part 21) > > > OK. Because it's not a 5/5 creature that has only one point of damage per turn > > as a drawback. Grinning Demon's drawback is much worse then Juzam's. > > > Of course, this whole line of argument is mindless. The evaluation of which > > creatures are or are not as good as which other creatures are clearly subjective. > > You might make a decent argument if the two cards were near identical but they're > > obviously not that much alike. So we're wasting our time. > > You forgot to take Morph mechanics in account Sure. It's an advantage over Juzam but I'm not very impressed by it. > We are wasting our time with this entire debate since we have zero > control on what vtes future will bring ;) I'm not sure what the import of that statement is. We have no control over the future of Magic but we're not arguing about the future of Magic. We're arguing about the future of Jyhad based on your reliance on examples from Magic's past. > > > > (Comments elided which contained no new arguments.) > > > > > > It's easier to elide them and write some smart line than to answer > > > them, don't you think ? > > > > No I don't think. I removed them because I *already* answered them and you never > > responded to my answers. I'm not prepared to go mindlessly arguing in circles > > because you don't care to address the points I made. > > Why do I have exactly same (reversed) feeling ? ;) Because we likely are not understanding one another. I agree - past experience has shown that this is often a reciprocal state of affairs. > I restated my position so you could better reply to my position (and > in turn I could better understand you). Sadly you passed the > oportinity. I passed on it because 1) you should easily be able to look for yourself at what I said the first time you made these assertions; and 2) my experience when this happens is that if you didn't understand my answers the first time, chances are you will not understand them again and you will continue to restate your assertions without regard to my answers a third and likely subsequent times in the future. Posts just get longer and longer as neither side ever hears the other. Nothing gets resolved by such restatements. > > Concerning whether Weighted Walking Stick obsolesces ("wallpaperizes") Poker, > > thus demonstrating Karol's idea that cards become systematically obsolete over > > the course of time, Karol wrote: > > > I stated two examples of decks where WWStick is far superior to poker. > > > You didn't showed ANY counterexample... > > > > I don't have to show any counterexample. One, two, or ten examples of how one > > card is better in a given deck than another shows nothing. To demonstrate > > obsolescence, you must show that the card you believe is superior is the better > > choice in *all* decks at *all* times. Or I'll settle for, "in the vast majority of > > times" for practical purposes. You can't give only one or two examples and expect > > anyone to accept this. To demonstrate this point, you must use inductive reasoning. > > For instance: two weapons that cost the same but one causes more damage than the > > other some of time and has no drawbacks that the other doesn't also have. If you > > cannot do this, your assertion is not proved. > > The instance you are refering is clearly instance stricly > inferior/superior cards (chainsaw/gas powered chainsaw). I explained > why such thinking is stupid and give some nice examples. You failed to > respond to that. I failed to respond to that because it was lost in the middle of text which made a number of various rambling and somewhat irrelevant remarks about how you feel about the state of the game. My first recommendation is that in the future, if you have multiple examples of something you want to cite to prove something, use the best, simplest, most obvious one. Poker and Weighted Walking Stick simply do not demonstrate the problem you claim they do. Either card may be preferable in a situation depending on the details of that situation. If you want to bring up the issue of strictly one card strictly obsolescing another, then use the Chainsaw/GP Chainsaw example in the *first place*. That way we spend less time on side issues. (Though your reasoning on the obsolescence of Poker is so bad, I can't resist responding to it below anyway.) As far as Chainsaw/GP Chainsaw, this is a *mistake*. Card designers do not deliberately print one card that is supposed to make another one obsolete but sometimes it happens by accident (more or less). I never claimed the designers never made mistakes. In fact, I believe I've already addressed this point: if by mistake, the designers create a new card that's too strong, they can issue errata or ban it and thus fix it. At least, *Jyhad* designers can. So can Magic designers - but they won't. If by mistake, the designers print a card that's too weak, people can just ignore it and not play with it. No major harm done. In this case, the mistake was likely not Gas Powered Chainsaw. The mistake was likely the first card printed, Chainsaw. It was too weak. WotC didn't even bother to reprint it in the second edition. They printed a strictly better card in The Sabbat, and no one has to use Chainsaw. But Chainsaw was too weak whether a better card was printed in The Sabbat or not. So your concern about card obsolescence is still irrelevant: it's not that a better card was printed after Chainsaw, it's that Chainsaw was too weak in the first place. If this happens again in the future, it's fine for White Wolf to print a better card that obsolesces a overly weak current card. This is not a problem. > Now it's time for some inductive reasoning :) > > I will demonstrate that in almost every deck I want put poker in > WWStick is better. Therefore as a result Poker is walpaperized by > WWStick > > These are the decks I might want to have Poker in: > > 1) !Salubri > 2) Midcap/weenie CEL close range combat > 3) source of permanent damage for intercept combat These might be the decks *you* want to have Poker in. But they are no the only decks in which someone might want to use a poker. Therefore, you haven't covered all possibilities. I don't think you understand the concept of "inductive reasoning". You can't just wave your hand and severely limit the environment in which Poker is used. You have to _prove_ WWS is always better. > case 1) and 2) was explained > case 3) is easy to explain too since I will not use poker more than > three times in such deck and it saves me an action to equip I don't agree with these, either. But it doesn't matter. The whole proof is already wrong. > How can disciplinless reusable version of Torn Signpost not > wallpaperize poker ? Because you must use a difference copy of Torn Signpost each combat. Once you equip with Poker, it normally stays in place - excepting the usual means of removing it and its own special means. It doesn't have to be redrawn every combat. Both cards have their virtues and drawbacks - and even be used together. > [snipped many things] > > > > Again, you didn't show anything. It's irrelevant whether I have > > > precognition or spirit's touch superior effect most of the time. What > > > is relevant is to reduce chance of clumping my hand with multiply > > > copies of same intercept card. > > > > *Most* of the time. BUT NOT *ALL* THE TIME. You are assuming the designers > > intend that the number of intercept cards available to use at inferior is supposed > > to be limited. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD: THAT'S *YOUR* ASSUMPTION! IT'S *NOT* > > MY ASSUMPTION!!! I showed that there could be another reason that multiple Auspex > > intercept cards exist: so they can do something else at superior. Since I don't > > assume what you assume, and because there's no reason anyone *ELSE* should assume > > what you assume, your theories about how this relates to grouping library cards > > are questionable. > > ... > > Screaming is unnecessary. Sorry, I get frustrated. I feel your reasoning is very bad and this is leading to many errors in your conclusions. In this case, you point out accurate facts but the conclusion you draw from them is obviously (to me) unfounded. I've challenged it several times, yet you ignore or misunderstand the challenge and act as if your conclusion about the facts is reasonable. I get tired of that. > When in trouble or in doubt run in circles scream and shout. I'll try to keep that in mind, in the future. > I consider that your arguments failed you here. If you want to prove > me otherwise you must restate your position in more polite version. Do what you want. The point is, there is no issue here. You simply refuse to accept that unlimited numbers of Auspex intercept cards that give +1 intercept at inferior and do something unique at superior is not likely to be considered a problem by most reasonable people. I can't help that. It is not a good reason to group library cards. [ quoted text not captured ] Well, make the case if you can. I think we've chewed on this long enough to resolve that: 1) You believe this could be a problem in some environments; and 2) I believe this might now be a problem in some other environments; and 3) we don't seem to be able to convince one another that it is either always or never a problem because it really depends on what the power curve of the cards look like and that power curve likely varies from one environment to the next. You are also ignoring the point that how often a solution works is not the only criteria for deciding which solution is superior. If you're having problems with mice, you can set up mouse traps and get a cat. Or you can blow up your house, have the rubbish hauled away, and build a new house. I'll bet the second solution eliminates the problem more often than the first. Reasons why it might not be the *best* solution for the problem are left as an exercise for the student. > Very few cards are bad on their own, strength of fifth tradition would > be less of a issue if minion tap would not exists. Again card > interaction is what is problematic. It depends on what you mean. Card strength requires context, of course. But when the context are other unquestioned, backbone-of-the-game cards, this is an absurd, pedantic argument. Return to Innocence caused a problem because it made huge, game-winning bleeds possible - but only in combination with either lots of stealth or something like Day Operation that made the bleed unblockable. (Bounce notwithstanding, as it was decided that failure to play bounce should not cost someone a game by itself.) So one could ask, "Is Return to Innocence the problem or are all the stealth and unblockability cards the problem?" The answer is very obvious if you're being reasonable. Given that point, I strongly disagree with you. Most cards that are bad are identifiable as being problem cards _themselves_ - not simply in combination with other cards. Fifth Tradition is seen as the problem card because it fills any sized vampire from zero to capacity regardless of whether you can or cannot Minion Tap it afterward. Minion Tap, at the same time, is considered a staple or a foundation of the game. It cannot be removed or modified without making major modifications to many aspects of the game. So, yes - Fifth Tradition is the issue. Period. Strangely enough - and likely not coincidentally - I've had this exact same argument with other people: all Magic players. This way of seeing card balance in a CCG seems to me to be an obfuscation used to justify not solving real problems in Magic. This habit of excusing bad cards for being bad "only because they require other cards to function" is just an excuse for ducking the problem and not doing anything. So instead of fixing cards, you wind up rotating whole expansions out of an environment and thus causing all the problems Magic currently has. Stupid, stupid, stupid! > > In this case, I assert these counterexamples don't even prove *THAT*: 1) Magic examples, > > as I've stated many times don't apply. The DCI doesn't ban all abusive cards anyway > > so who cares what happens in Magic? Black Vise was abusive, Land Tax was abusive, and > > Necropotence was abusive. In this case, the problem is that the DIC just didn't ban > > enough cards to get near the point of fixing the problem. Doesn't mean the problem > > couldn't be fixed. It just means the DCI wasn't willing to do what truly needed to be > > done. 2) I don't agree that recent CE erratas of power cards were necessary, anyway. > > That the V:tES designers seem a bit over finicky about the slightly more powerful cards > > says nothing about the generally principle that's in dispute. And even if they were > > necessary, who said there were any more abusive cards? > > You stated many things many times , you didn't proved many things though. They're opinions, I agree. I am giving my opinions about why Magic is the way it is as alternative to _your_ opinions about the same issues - which are not proved, either. No one person can prove anything about these things unless he is given the power to try. Put me in charge of the DCI and I'll prove some things to you. > Examples of the cards which might be changed in future: > > Dreams of Sphinx, Powerbase Montreal, Conditioning, Govern the > Unaligned, PtO > > The case could be made: > > 1) some of them are no brainers Sorry, I have to laugh at this one. Dreams of the Sphinx and Powerbase: Montreal are on my list of being two of the more overrated cards in the game. They do have specific uses. But people use them a lot more often than can possibly be explained. Why are they so popular? Who knows? The other two, Conditions and Govern the Unaligned are classic staple cards. They were in the original Jyhad edition, have been reprinted many times, and are common cards. All signs that a card should be considered a staple, not overpowered. > 2) they disable more archetypes than they enable Certainly Dreams of the Sphinx and Powerbase: Montreal do no such thing. It's fairly conjectural about the other two. As I said, they're part of the whole foundation of the game. It's possible you could get rid of them and redesign the game into something richer and more interesting. But they've been in the game since day one so it's very tricky to say what the game would look like without them. I don't see any reason to bother. > 3) they turn the game to a fight over a control of this resource Only Powerbase: Montreal does that. And it was designed to do that. And I don't see why that's a bad thing. > > > Look. T1.5 have like 10 000 of cards. Most of the cards can interact > > > with themselves one way or another. Just compute the number of > > > two/three/four cards combos. (waiting for him to do so....) See, big > > > number isn't it ? Well and any of this combo can be really abusive. > > > How can you prevent it from happening ? > > > You stay alert to it as you design the cards. Part of the problem is that > > Magic designers are careless and put out expansions far too quickly to properly > > balance cards. And when they do make mistakes, they leave them in the game > > as is instead of fixing them. So *of course* you get problems like this. > > which is not true for extended,t2,block constructed Sure. Because of the limited number of cards. Basically, they ban whole expansions to solve problems instead of specific individual cards. If you ever need surgery, I hope your doctor does not think like this. Otherwise, you will see him walk into the operating room with an ax instead of a scalpel. (All the worse if what you need is brain surgery.) (The rest snipped because I believe we're down to differences in judgment. Not disputes that are likely to be resolvable.) Fred

On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Derek Ray wrote: > Jaroslav Pascek would much rather have a Poker. I don't think Poker is in any way wall-papered by WWS. However, I'm not sure about your specific example. I'm assuming if you're doing Pokers and Pascek that you're also playing with DW, since Pascek is huge (meaning you want to maximize his action-efficiency) and doesn't have access to much in the way of stealth. If you grant that, then the WWS is a stand-alone card, which is clearly better than a two card combo. With one combat card, Pascek is hitting for four, and then four again with Pursuit. That's eight damage out of one combat card. If he's foiled by S:CE, no counters go on the card and it's ready to be used again. WWS is transient, so Poker gets points for sticking around, but eight damage out of one card is a pretty good return, and much more reliable than waiting for the combo. David Cherryholmes Prince of Durham, NC

On Saturday 16 November 2002 08:58 in message <Pine.GSO.4.21.02111...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu>, David Cherryholmes mumbled something about: > On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Derek Ray wrote: > >> Jaroslav Pascek would much rather have a Poker. > > I don't think Poker is in any way wall-papered by WWS. However, I'm not > sure about your specific example. I'm assuming if you're doing Pokers and > Pascek that you're also playing with DW, since Pascek is huge (meaning you > want to maximize his action-efficiency) and doesn't have access to much in > the way of stealth. If you grant that, then the WWS is a stand-alone Of course. The standard rule still applies; any CEL minion taking an action to equip with a weapon is an action that is worth losing a minion "now" to block, because it means you won't lose lots of minions "later". > card, which is clearly better than a two card combo. With one combat > card, Pascek is hitting for four, and then four again with > Pursuit. That's eight damage out of one combat card. If he's foiled by A two-card combo is not significantly more difficult to get in hand than a one-card combo, though -- we do it all the time over the course of the game, since very few single cards can provide an effect AND all appropriate modifiers (stealth being a biggie). Especially so for combat decks. Sure, you can be unlucky and not happen to get both CW and the weapon in hand relatively early on, but that's more of a deckbuilding issue. > S:CE, no counters go on the card and it's ready to be used again. WWS is > transient, so Poker gets points for sticking around, but eight damage out > of one card is a pretty good return, and much more reliable than waiting > for the combo. And now the potential problems: a minion may have only one Weighted Walking Stick. With Jaroslav breaking the damn things every other time he swings one (think The Hulk hitting people with a pool cue), you have to put a LOT of WWS in the deck in order to keep him properly equipped... risking a nasty case of hand jam if you don't constantly get into combat. Yes, you can hand one off to each of your other minions as well, but that requires that THOSE minions get into combat, and they may not be as-well equipped to deal with the situation as Jaroslav (the deck idea here being Jaroslav as the enforcer/defender, with a number of PRE weenies to hand out bleeds). All things considered, I'd ACTUALLY rather just pay 1 pool and give him a Bastard Sword. Permanent, doesn't break to Fortitude or Potence, and the pool cost is really negligible in the end, since the long-term efficiency is so good. -- Derek

[snip] > > Which ones did I miss (or wawed my hand over). Restate them. (Fred: Different approach to errata) [from now on these remarks are mostly with regard to T1.X , T2 an Block Constructed] The WotC seldom errata cards. They ban them. (and then print toned down version of the cards later) The WW errata cards to tone them down. Not that big difference (from balance POW of course only) (Fred: 4CL vs NCL) 4CL in magic (almost) directly translate to 6CL in Jyhad. It was demonstrated (by Legbiter IIRC) that one can build 6CL deck and be competitive in NCL enviroment. Most of the NCL decks can be translated to 6CL enviroment prety nicely too. Not that big difference. (Fred: Speed of how new magic product is prepared) WotC has lot of resources so that they (can) have wast army of testers. Also less time is needed to discover potentially abusive combos than in Vamipre given the fact that average Magic game last what? 15 minutes and average V:TES game last 1 hour and 30 minutes (although more testing data is gathered from average V:TES game than from average Magic game) When all taken into consideration, not that big difference. > Those differences will do for starters. Those differencies are quite irrelevant (or not that different) > > > I indicated that > > > a certain class of cards existed: the class of cards that were designed and > > > printed in the past in older Magic expansions that WOULD NOT AND COULD NOT > > > be printed in the next expansion because of their very nature: they are > > > considered to be too powerful or too radical to risk printing such a card. > > > > Even without that class of cards such vast formats are impossible to > > balance (unless you restrict the card interaction in some way, and > > that's what grouping is all about, restricting card interaction so > > format become more manageable) > That statement is baseless. Of course they could balance T1.5. Just errata or > ban the unbalanced cards. That's all. Granted, there may be an unusually high > portion of cards in certain expansions (e.g. Alpha, Beta, Arabian Nights, Legends) > which would be affected. But so? The WHOLE GAME is fucked up right now because > of this. It's not like you'd have to mess with more than 10-15% of the cards in > any one expansion (maybe 20% on the outside). And the percentage of cards overall > would likely be 3% or less. That's a small price to pay in order to resolve the > problems felt by all of the older players in the game who feel their past purchases > of cards are ultimately becoming worthless. Not sure if it is *baseless*. Free card interaction and wast amount of potentially killer combos avaiable (that will slip, no matter the quality control) IS problem (as demonstrated repeatably in the history of Magic) (about grinning demon part 22) > > You forgot to take Morph mechanics in account > Sure. It's an advantage over Juzam but I'm not very impressed by it. (you can kill your opponent turn sooner because of morph, because of morph it is never dead card) [snip] (about Chainsaw/Gas Powered Chainsaw) My original remark was that although there are few strictly superior cards in V:TES (like GPChainsaw vs Chainsaw example) still there are cards which are used almost always compared to their alternative (I gave examples of GtU/ Scounting Mission, Deflection/Redirection, Telepatic Misdirection/My Enemies Enemy and WWStick/Poker). (and how therefore the weaker alternative are wallpaperized kind of (or cornercased or whatever) To that you still do not responded. (Though your reasoning on > the obsolescence of Poker is so bad, I can't resist responding to it below anyway.) :) > > Now it's time for some inductive reasoning :) > > > > I will demonstrate that in almost every deck I want put poker in > > WWStick is better. Therefore as a result Poker is walpaperized by > > WWStick > > > > These are the decks I might want to have Poker in: > > > > 1) !Salubri > > 2) Midcap/weenie CEL close range combat > > 3) source of permanent damage for intercept combat > > These might be the decks *you* want to have Poker in. But they are no > the only decks in which someone might want to use a poker. Therefore, you > haven't covered all possibilities. > I don't think you understand the concept of "inductive reasoning". > You can't just wave your hand and severely limit the environment in > which Poker is used. You have to _prove_ WWS is always better. I can (always) restrict proof to cover only relevant cases (case: Deck I want not to put poker in is irrelevant) > > case 1) and 2) was explained > > case 3) is easy to explain too since I will not use poker more than > > three times in such deck and it saves me an action to equip > I don't agree with these, either. But it doesn't matter. The whole > proof is already wrong. No. > > How can disciplinless reusable version of Torn Signpost not > > wallpaperize poker ? > Because you must use a difference copy of Torn Signpost each combat. > Once you equip with Poker, it normally stays in place - excepting the > usual means of removing it and its own special means. It doesn't have > to be redrawn every combat. Both cards have their virtues and > drawbacks - and even be used together. Uhm, there is word: Reusable in my statement above. What can be used together: Torn Signpost and Poker (I suggest Meat Hook ;) ) or WWStick and Poker (I suggest remove Poker) or Torn Signpost and WWStick (I suggest Meat Hook) (about intercept) > > Screaming is unnecessary. > > Sorry, I get frustrated. I feel your reasoning is very bad and this is leading > to many errors in your conclusions. In this case, you point out accurate facts > but the conclusion you draw from them is obviously (to me) unfounded. I've > challenged it several times, yet you ignore or misunderstand the challenge and > act as if your conclusion about the facts is reasonable. I get tired of that. Your feel does NOT prove nothing. > > When in trouble or in doubt run in circles scream and shout. > I'll try to keep that in mind, in the future. I strongly suggest it. Taking into account repeatable personal attacks on me (not my arguments) I think that your arguments are failing you. > > I consider that your arguments failed you here. If you want to prove > > me otherwise you must restate your position in more polite version. > Do what you want. The point is, there is no issue here. You simply refuse to > accept that unlimited numbers of Auspex intercept cards that give +1 intercept > at inferior and do something unique at superior is not likely to be considered > a problem by most reasonable people. I can't help that. It is not a good > reason to group library cards. Most reasonoble people , eh ? I am completely reasonable here. In fact since I have great success with intercept decks (like winning tournaments (even big ones) ) with them (where most people claim that intercept can't win) I don't really care what reasonable people tell (unless they provide some empirical data I can provide on that topic) If you can provide them good, we can discuss. If not get lost. [snip] > > The case could be made that it almost never works and therefore some > > other solution (wich works more often) will be better. > > Well, make the case if you can. I think we've chewed on this long enough to resolve > that: 1) You believe this could be a problem in some environments; and 2) I believe this > might now be a problem in some other environments; and 3) we don't seem to be able to > convince one another that it is either always or never a problem because it really depends > on what the power curve of the cards look like and that power curve likely varies from > one environment to the next. The past experiences ? > You are also ignoring the point that how often a solution works is not the only criteria > for deciding which solution is superior. If you're having problems with mice, you can set > up mouse traps and get a cat. Or you can blow up your house, have the rubbish hauled away, > and build a new house. I'll bet the second solution eliminates the problem more often > than the first. Reasons why it might not be the *best* solution for the problem are left > as an exercise for the student. This example is quite wrong (in the context of this discussion since the difference between solutions are more subtle). Reserve exercise for the student comment for another situation. > > Very few cards are bad on their own, strength of fifth tradition would > > be less of a issue if minion tap would not exists. Again card > > interaction is what is problematic. > It depends on what you mean. Card strength requires context, of course. But when the > context are other unquestioned, backbone-of-the-game cards, this is an absurd, pedantic > argument. Return to Innocence caused a problem because it made huge, game-winning bleeds > possible - but only in combination with either lots of stealth or something like Day > Operation that made the bleed unblockable. (Bounce notwithstanding, as it was decided > that failure to play bounce should not cost someone a game by itself.) So one could ask, > "Is Return to Innocence the problem or are all the stealth and unblockability cards the > problem?" The answer is very obvious if you're being reasonable. Irrelevant. My comment was very few cards are bad on their own. >> Given that point, I strongly disagree with you. Most cards that are bad are identifiable > as being problem cards _themselves_ - not simply in combination with other cards. Fifth > Tradition is seen as the problem card because it fills any sized vampire from zero to > capacity regardless of whether you can or cannot Minion Tap it afterward. Minion Tap, > at the same time, is considered a staple or a foundation of the game. It cannot be > removed or modified without making major modifications to many aspects of the game. So, > yes - Fifth Tradition is the issue. Period. And so what ? My original comment was that Fifth Tradition would be less of a issue if Minion Tap didn't existed. > Strangely enough - and likely not coincidentally - I've had this exact same argument with > other people: all Magic players. This way of seeing card balance in a CCG seems to me to > be an obfuscation used to justify not solving real problems in Magic. This habit of > excusing bad cards for being bad "only because they require other cards to function" is > just an excuse for ducking the problem and not doing anything. So instead of fixing > cards, you wind up rotating whole expansions out of an environment and thus causing all > the problems Magic currently has. Stupid, stupid, stupid! Stupid for you does not mean stupid for everyone. [snip] > > Examples of the cards which might be changed in future: > > > > Dreams of Sphinx, Powerbase Montreal, Conditioning, Govern the > > Unaligned, PtO > > > > The case could be made: > > > > 1) some of them are no brainers > > Sorry, I have to laugh at this one. Dreams of the Sphinx and Powerbase: Montreal are > on my list of being two of the more overrated cards in the game. They do have specific > uses. But people use them a lot more often than can possibly be explained. Why are > they so popular? Who knows? Because your understanding of the game is flawed, maybe ? (as shown say in your response to ToR , Misdirection) Dreams of the Sphinx allow me to either speed up transfer process (so my deck will get to work turn or two sooner (in 12 turn game it is very significant) If I draw it later I can have perfect hand for three turns (again in 12 turn game very significant) All this is combined in one card. Extremely powerfull Powerbase Montreal allows you to generate up to 12 pool during average game for the cost of the MPA and a card slot. Again very significant. > The other two, Conditions and Govern the Unaligned are classic staple cards. They > were in the original Jyhad edition, have been reprinted many times, and are common > cards. All signs that a card should be considered a staple, not overpowered. Huh, as I said before I don't believe in staples (and give a reasons too) There are so many 'staples' in my decks sometimes that they outweight 'non-staple' parts. Looks like T1 magic , isn't it ? (if we decide to call restricted list a list of staple cards ;) ) > > 2) they disable more archetypes than they enable > Certainly Dreams of the Sphinx and Powerbase: Montreal do no such thing. But others perhaps ? > It's fairly conjectural about the other two. As I said, they're part of the whole > foundation of the game. It's possible you could get rid of them and redesign the > game into something richer and more interesting. But they've been in the game since > day one so it's very tricky to say what the game would look like without them. I > don't see any reason to bother. ToGP and Fifth Tradition and Second Tradition and Embrace and ... were in the game from Day 1 too :) > > 3) they turn the game to a fight over a control of this resource > Only Powerbase: Montreal does that. And it was designed to do that. And I don't > see why that's a bad thing. This is more of a taste issue I suppose. > > > > Look. T1.5 have like 10 000 of cards. Most of the cards can interact > > > > with themselves one way or another. Just compute the number of > > > > two/three/four cards combos. (waiting for him to do so....) See, big > > > > number isn't it ? Well and any of this combo can be really abusive. > > > > How can you prevent it from happening ? > > > You stay alert to it as you design the cards. Part of the problem is that > > > Magic designers are careless and put out expansions far too quickly to properly > > > balance cards. And when they do make mistakes, they leave them in the game > > > as is instead of fixing them. So *of course* you get problems like this. > > > > which is not true for extended,t2,block constructed > Sure. Because of the limited number of cards. Basically, they ban whole expansions > to solve problems instead of specific individual cards. If you ever need surgery, > I hope your doctor does not think like this. Otherwise, you will see him walk into > the operating room with an ax instead of a scalpel. (All the worse if what you need > is brain surgery.) Again not listening. Again providing bad example. Again mildly insulting at it. I would held you and your position in much higher regard probably if you was not insulting me all over the place. Right now my only advice is: Run in circles, scream and get lost. (and come back when you can provide arguments and not insults) Karol

> > > Well, type 1.5 hasn't changed much in the past 2 years, so his points > > > about said format don't have any less weight, really. > > > > The other things have changed however (how designers design new cards, > > looks on certain issues, etc.) > > Neither of which have had much effect on 1.5, though. I conceded already that we should probably talk about 1.X and up. :) > > > > Well, if you're going up against a deck running Immortal Grapple, you're > > > really gonna want that maneuver instead of the ability to prevent 1. > > If he allows me to cycle intercept when he plays grapple both would be > > sufficient since my combat hand would be quite comparable to his ;) > Except that unless you're planning to hit back with hand strikes, he's > going to smash a new hole in the floor with your skull if that Grapple > goes off. Yesss :) > > The point I try to make (but which is sadly not getting through) is > > that if you print large quantity of cards to existing many problems > > may/will arise. > That point has already been accepted and moved-on from. It was the > basis of the current crypt grouping rule we have. What you haven't > shown is that the restriction of the library cards is necessary to > prevent more the same problems the crypt grouping was designed to > prevent. > > My base assumption were: > > > > 1) new cards have to be printed > > I'd like to see new cards printed as well, yes. > > > 2) need for new cards for old disciplines > > This would generally follow from the first assumption, since it's > extremely unlikely they're going to introduce new disciplines in every > set. No :) We can get dark ages animalism as a "new" discipline ;) > > (it's sad that difference > > between group 1/2 tremere and group 2/3 tremere is like 6 cards in > > crypt and max 10 cards in library) > Huh? The deck is almost same ;) (where is the variety ?) > > We are taking about T2 and how Land Tax and Necropotence was not > > abused in format where Black Vise was restricted and how they were > > abused after. > Vise was rather broken to begin with, and was restricted and then > banned. The example doesn't particularly transfer to VTES. you are not listening :) The point is that as you cut cards at the top of the power curve they got repeatedly replaced. (sometimes by even more broken cards , necropotence is considered one of the most broken card ever printed) > > > What new power cards have risen to the top in their place? > > From top of my head: GtU, Conditioning, Dreams of Sphinx, Powerbase > > Montreal > What have these cards risen to the top in place of? As far as I know, > people have been using GtU and Conditioning as long as the game has > had tournaments. Dreams has always been a top-tier card. Powerbase > Montreal? They were used, yes. They were not thought to be top-top powerfull (because other such cards existed) > > Also note that since V:TES is slower game some problems appear later > > than in Magic (but appear they will) > > Such as? Most recent example is recent MRP curse many cards received. (the last time such sweeping changes were implemented was 7/7 errata time ?) (relatively long time might pass but past experience teach me that that time probably will come ?) > > That's always an option. Vast amount of combination will get you even > > if you do WANT and have TIME to design cards carefully. > Well, I haven't heard LSJ say "I don't give a shit about careful > design... and we'll rush sets out the door so we don't have the time > to do it anyway..." Indeed, expansions from Sabbat War on have shown > just the opposite (reprinting of Twisting the Knife excepted). > > True to some extent. The entire case could be make with just > > extended,t2 and block constructed (as new cards are designed for those > > formats are balanced for those formats but problems still arises > > (worldgorger dragon case which enabled second turn kill in > > extended)*). > Yeah, dragon was a bad bad mistake. And I'd venture to guess that the > design team doesn't particularly look at extended as much as type 2 > and sealed when designing new cards. How would groupings solve this > problem? That animate dead would be in different group than dragon (and if they have grouping implemented he would be since last time animate dead was reprinted in base set was like fifth edition at most) So there would be no such combo. > > ii) many peoples from design team earned their job by breaking cards > > in Pro Tours so there is also quality in testing not only quantity. > Yet cards continually slip through the cracks, in all formats. Because no matter hard you try it will happen ? (card interaction will get you ? , it is less problem in smaller format do you agree ? ) Karol

> Huh? > All those cards were already at the top. They're not broken, but they > are at the top. > Ask anyone if they'd rather have a Dreams or a (pre-CE) ToGP on their > deck, and 99% will say Dreams. The other 1% are the ones playing > specialized decks. You actually cannot compare ToGP to Dreams (one is generic other is very nongeneric master). You could compare ToGP say to PtO (Hello Gines ;) ) or Dreams to Elder Library. Karol

> > If they are weak by their own why should I bother. The general idea > > (of my deckbuilding) is to put cards in the deck that are good on > > their own but work even better when combined with other cards in my > > deck. > > Yet you use Increased Strength, which is completely useless by itself, > and strong when combined with other cards. :P Point. You caught me here :D . I should probably add ... unless the weak cards combos exceptionally well with other parts of my deck ;) Like with that IS example , not like with that Lapse example. (although if you want to introduce som new cornercases effects to the disciplines way like it was implemented in Bloodlines is way to go) (about intercept) > That is dependant on metagame and personal preferences. A Toreador gun > deck will probably want more group 3) cards in his deck, because he > wants to actually block his predator (instead of bouncing) and can use > the combat abilities. Then a Tzimisce deck will probably want more group > 4), because otherwise they might have a poor offense. No it is not really metagame dependant. The point is to be able to intercept a lot where you need it but in such way that intercept won't clump your hand at times you don't need it. > > note that to most (or to almost every) of the intercept decks that I > > built (and I built many of them) or that I saw it was quite irrelevant > > whether he draw precognition or spirits touch - if he failed to block > > it was clearly irrelevant. > In a Toreador gun deck you'll want ST over Precognition almost every > time. In a Tzimisce deck, it's the other way around. Huh ? I can get equal use of them in both deck (hence 2/2 rather than 0/4 or 4/0) > > If he do not failed to block it might have mattered on ocassion but > > not in a way that player would sacrifice 2/2 of each setup for 4/0 or > > 0/4 setup. > It also depends on what decks you're facing. Often +1 intercept will be > enough against Political decks. In that case, going for a 0/4 setup > might make enough of a difference over a 2/2 setup. Huh ? It might not make difference against this opponent. Against bleed stealth opponent it will make big difference. My setup is better (since it is indifferent to yours in one case and better in other cases) (it is up to you to provide cases where your design is better and mine is not ;) ) [snip] > Oh, so now it's _40_ cards? > Well, I'm not up for it right now, but I might do it later ;) Look so far we saw what ? One real card to each classic discipline (on average) over the course of 4 expansion ? [snip] > Compare Call of the Hungry Dead to the existing cardpool. It's > pointless. Even though there are similar cards, none of them can be used > with CotHD. CotHD by itself is quite weak, another wake or untapped > minion will defeat it. But it is usefull because you can easily combo it > with Bonding and Spiritual Intervention, and there are plenty of +1 > stealth actions to use it with. CotHD is not pointless compared to existing cardpool. It is much better against WWEF than Spiritual Intervention (but worse in other aspects) > >>Another similar (and more recent) example: Lapse (at pot). +2 strength > >>for 2 blood? What where they thinking? Just use TS!! > >>Yet I've seen several peole here advocating the use of Lapse in pot > >>decks, because it's stackable with TS, it only requires inf pot, and you > >>can expect to regain the investment with a Taste. > >>It loses out in a direct comparison, but it's good when combined. > > > > IS is higly stackable quite redunant effect to Torn Signpost. (and > > much better than Lapse in that aspect, no Lapse in my weenie potence > > (not that I have one) ) > > See above. IS is useless by itself, you need to draw a strike card to > use it. That's a significant advantage of TS and Lapse. You can draw a > deck combo that goes TS-Lapse-IG-Taste, and it will work even if TS or > Lapse don't show up on time. If you try to do IS-IG-US-Taste, your combo > completely fails if you don't draw the US. Assumtion: I will Taste back is dangerous. The combo IS-IG-US-Taste will not COMPLETELY fail if I don't draw US :) > >>>I showed that those problems I talked about would appear. > >>You didn't. > > I did ;) > You didn't :) I did :D > >>- You didn't show how these [aus] and [obf] cards would lead to problems > >>1) and 2). Yes, it could occur if you design enough cards around the '+1 > >>stealth/intercept' template, but you asked for 5, I gave you 5. If you > >>asked for more, I might have designed them all differently. > > The point is it's you need to have room open for designing more (since > > WW makes money by expanding player base and by pleasing old customers) > There is some room, that's the point I was making. If you design > carefully, you can make the most out of the room you have. Yes there is some room. I can agree with it. The question is: Is there enough room ? (and even if there is , how can you "solve" newbie vs stanby players problem logistically if say V:TES would consist of 3000 (just picking random number here) cards ?) (would not be number of reprints you have to provide each time well overshadow everything else and thus leading to ultimate stagnation ?) > >>- You didn't show how these [for] cards would replace the existing > >>cards, or how they'd be inferior and not usable (btw, 'Reduce 1 damage' > >>is supposed to mean 'Prevent 1 damage, even if it is unpreventable'). > > superior wording is still problematic ;) > >>- You didn't show how the [ani] and [obt] would throw the entire balance > >>between disciplines out of the window. > > I did say that they are weak - problematic in other ways > > (insignificance of new cards) > In my defense on these two points, I'll say again that these are _first > draft_ cards. Even LSJ has to playtest his designs, he doesn't always > get it right the first time around - I think :) Probably :) > What is significant is that I provided several cards with new designs, > ones that would (hopefully) be different enough from existing cards to > be usable, even if they have do have to be tweaked a bit. That is still debatable :) (since you would have to tweak them to prove your point :) ) [ quoted text not captured ] Yesss. I am all for different. I just feel it would be safer to group library cards by one way or another (be it grouping, dark age variants disciplines with similar connection to existing ones as we have in bloodlines or whatever) Karol

> > Because weakness in some parts of "dark ages" disciplines could be > > mended by making some other parts of this disciplines stronger > > (compared to existing disciplines counterparts). This would lead to > > slightly different flavour of dark ages disciplines. > > Examples? What examples ? What part of above statement you do not understand ? > > > Now do it in a way where you do not separate those cards > > and power escalation will be present. > How is power escalation present in the current environment? What new > cards have been made that have immediately gone to the top of the > power curve, wallpapering all other previous/similar cards? Note: > your poker/wwstick example does not apply unless you can show how WWS > is better in EVERY conceivable instance of having either a poker or a > WWstick. 95+ percent would be sufficient. If you do not believe that WWS/Poker is valid example, so be it. Nobody (so far) explained why it is not better to use WWS over Poker. (I explained my position, though) > > A good example of what I have in mind is spiritus. The spiritus have > > better combat than auspex have but worse combat than animalismus have. > > The reverse is true with regarding of intercept capabilities. That way > > spiritus feels different and ANI/AUS deck have better intercept and > > worse combat than ANI/SPI as a result. > Well, yes. POT/ANI has a different feel (and worse intercept but > better combat) than ANI/AUS. So what? Nothing. :) Well, not really. More such flavour would be better ? > > So result of some kind of card restriction would be that each subset > > would have different feel but would be balanced overall. > Assuming each subset was not any weaker or stronger than any other > given subset, then yes, we would possibly have different flavors in > each one. Cool, somebody is agreeing with me at least partially ;) > We now have three choices: > 1. We retroactively assign library cards to a "grouping", thus making > thousands of existing decks illegal and horribly altering the game. Do you really feel that there are thousands decks avaiable ? That was not case when grouping of vampire cards was introduced. :) > 2. We start grouping library cards from this point forward to a > grouping (say all existing ones are "group 1"). > -Problem with 2: New group will be extremely small compared to group > 1. Less cards->less variety->less power. No, I would not go with way two (as proposed) > Solutions to problem: > -a. Print absurdly powerful cards in the beginning. Your whole > argument about power scale goes right out the window. No this is quite absurd. The 2) is bad example in the first place and you know it. > -b. Print an absurd amount of new cards. We're basically going to > have 2 completely different games, that can field decks against each > other or within themselves. How long would a set of this size take to > make with proper playtesting and development time? I don't want a > different game. I spend enough collecting for this one. b) is quite absurd too. Analyzing 2) goes nowhere and you know it. > 3. Magic: the Gathering. Raise your hand if you want to go that > route. Depends ;) I want to play with all of my cards yet I want to see metagame changes too. (it might be possible that these two requirements are mutually exclusive) 4) group library cards in similar way it was done with vampire cards. 5) never openly group cards. Instead introduce say "dark ages" "ancient ages" "victorian ages" versions of current disciplines with possible crossover to existing ones if flavour allows (bloodlines style) 6)print new cards to existing disciplines without abovementioned siliness (I understand that that is an option too :) ) Karol

On Tuesday 19 November 2002 08:40 in message <df69cc0d.02111...@posting.google.com>, Karol Magda mumbled something about: >> How is power escalation present in the current environment? What new >> cards have been made that have immediately gone to the top of the >> power curve, wallpapering all other previous/similar cards? Note: >> your poker/wwstick example does not apply unless you can show how WWS >> is better in EVERY conceivable instance of having either a poker or a >> WWstick. > > 95+ percent would be sufficient. If you do not believe that WWS/Poker > is valid example, so be it. Nobody (so far) explained why it is not > better to use WWS over Poker. (I explained my position, though) Then you need to go back and read my post, where I explained exactly that in detail about two days ago. Really, Karol. You have to read OTHER threads too. >> 1. We retroactively assign library cards to a "grouping", thus making >> thousands of existing decks illegal and horribly altering the game. > > Do you really feel that there are thousands decks avaiable ? Yes. -- Derek

karol...@yahoo.com (Karol Magda) wrote in message news:<df69cc0d.02111...@posting.google.com>... > > > Because weakness in some parts of "dark ages" disciplines could be > > > mended by making some other parts of this disciplines stronger > > > (compared to existing disciplines counterparts). This would lead to > > > slightly different flavour of dark ages disciplines. > > > > Examples? > > What examples ? What part of above statement you do not understand ? Examples of "making some parts of a discipline strong and some weak" leading to a different "flavor". > 95+ percent would be sufficient. If you do not believe that WWS/Poker > is valid example, so be it. Nobody (so far) explained why it is not > better to use WWS over Poker. (I explained my position, though) See Derek's post for counterexamples. Thus it has not been shown that WWS is better than Poker (and there *are* non-cornercase examples of Poker being better than WWS). > > 1. We retroactively assign library cards to a "grouping", thus making > > thousands of existing decks illegal and horribly altering the game. > > Do you really feel that there are thousands decks avaiable ? Yes, I do. I haven't counted, but I'd venture to guess there's that there's several hundred in Lasombra Jeff's archives alone. > That was not case when grouping of vampire cards was introduced. :) I think you're severely underestimating the number of decks out there. Just go to http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/ . About 42 people and there's about 810 decks between them. > > 2. We start grouping library cards from this point forward to a > > grouping (say all existing ones are "group 1"). > > No, I would not go with way two (as proposed) Good. > > 3. Magic: the Gathering. Raise your hand if you want to go that > > route. > > Depends ;) I want to play with all of my cards yet I want to see > metagame changes too. (it might be possible that these two > requirements are mutually exclusive) In M:tG they are mutually exclusive. Groups rotate out, and are no longer legal for the "standard" tournament type. You can play with all the cards you want in Type 1 or 1.5, but good luck finding a tournament for them. > 4) group library cards in similar way it was done with vampire cards. The problem with that is that many library cards were reprinted between many sets, while vampires were not (only between Jyhad/Vtes and Sab/SW). CE is basically a collected reprint of previous sets. So you'd have a grouping that wouldn't really mean anything for some cards, and yet limit others. Indeed, some of the cards that wouldn't be limited are the ones you were posting as examples of "powercards that have risen to the top with the CE changes" (i.e. Govern the Unaligned and Conditioning). > 5) never openly group cards. Instead introduce say "dark ages" > "ancient ages" "victorian ages" versions of current disciplines with > possible crossover to existing ones if flavour allows (bloodlines > style) How is this much different from #2 above? You're putting all the current stuff in the "modern age" and the next "group" of library cards would be "dark ages". > 6)print new cards to existing disciplines without abovementioned > siliness > (I understand that that is an option too :) ) Indeed. It seems to be the current policy, and it seems to be working. -Snapcase

Karol Magda wrote: > > [snip] > > > > Which ones did I miss (or wawed my hand over). Restate them. > > (Fred: Different approach to errata) > > [from now on these remarks are mostly with regard to T1.X , T2 an > Block Constructed] > > The WotC seldom errata cards. They ban them. (and then print toned > down version of the cards later) > > The WW errata cards to tone them down. > > Not that big difference (from balance POW of course only) *GROANNNNNNNNNNN*!!! You've missed the point AGAIN!!! The point has nothing to do with whether the design teams choose to ban vs. errata. Either will suffice. Both fix problems with overpowered cards. It's the quality of cards *THAT* the designers of either game choose to ban or errata that's the critical difference. WotC leaves overpowered cards in place. WW doesn't. The difference exactly explains why things come to a head when the card population gets to thousands of cards. > (Fred: 4CL vs NCL) > > 4CL in magic (almost) directly translate to 6CL in Jyhad. It was > demonstrated (by Legbiter IIRC) that one can build 6CL deck and be > competitive in NCL enviroment. I'm not sure what this has to do with the metagame, however. Nor do I even agree that it's true. I don't know what Legbiter may have shown, but it's clear that XCL environments are necessarily different than playing under NCL. Thus, certain decks that are viable under a give XCL environment may very well not be viable under NCL. Some decks may but others are not. Anyway, it's not relevant. How decks translate from one environment to another has nothing to do with designing cards under either environment and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the point I was trying to make. > Most of the NCL decks can be translated to 6CL enviroment prety nicely too. Really? I'd like to see how a Shadow Twin deck works under 6 CL. > Not that big difference. Well, sorry I think it is. > (Fred: Speed of how new magic product is prepared) > > WotC has lot of resources so that they (can) have wast army of > testers. And how does this address the problem of testing adjacent expansions? Before you suggest it, I will tell you WotC Netreps have said straight out that no playtest groups are ever given multiple expansions to test simultaneously. It's a problem that cannot be solved by pure numbers. It requires more time between expansions. > Also less time is needed to discover potentially abusive > combos than in Vamipre given the fact that average Magic game last > what? 15 minutes and average V:TES game last 1 hour and 30 minutes > (although more testing data is gathered from average V:TES game than > from average Magic game) > > When all taken into consideration, not that big difference. Well, sorry, I think it is. This one in particular is based on anecdotal evidence so we're not likely to find a way to resolve it. But it's really not central to my argument so it doesn't matter. > > Those differences will do for starters. > > Those differencies are quite irrelevant (or not that different) If you don't think so, then you're going to assume the experiences of two unlike products will be the same over time. I can't help that. I've played Magic for years and I've been a critic of these things for years. (Well, not the 4CL thing. The 4CL thing in Magic is necessary - but the difference it causes between the two games is certainly real enough whether you agree with Magic's 4CL or not.) I've played Jyhad for years and these things are not a problem in Jyhad. So now you want me to believe that Jyhad needs grouping of library cards to solve problems that are not *in* Jyhad at all? Forget it. You're trying to shoehorn an unnecessary solution that isn't even necessary for Magic into Jyhad's world for no good reason. Below, I've snipped a lot of content based on these differences. There isn't much point to posting whole, long arguments that just snipe back and forth without much further to say. I've lodged my objections to the concept of using Magic as an "older brother" example of what will happen to Jyhad in the future. You reject my objections but don't give satisfactory reasons why they're incorrect or irrelevant. So we're stuck. > My original remark was that although there are few strictly superior > cards in V:TES (like GPChainsaw vs Chainsaw example) still there are > cards which are used almost always compared to their alternative (I > gave examples of GtU/ Scounting Mission, Deflection/Redirection, > Telepatic Misdirection/My Enemies Enemy and WWStick/Poker). (and how > therefore the weaker alternative are wallpaperized kind of (or > cornercased or whatever) > > To that you still do not responded. That statement is also baseless. I've responded to all these things. In essence: 1) Chainsaw was a mistake and the fact that WotC later printing a useful card that obsolesces Chainsaw does not demonstrate any problem. 2) Weighted Walking Stick does not obsolesce Poker period - a point that others besides me have disputed and which I notice no one else besides you has yet attempted to defend. (By the way, tell that to the guy who showed up with a bunch of Pokers in his deck at our Storyline tournament last Sunday. No, he did *not* care to replace them with Weighted Walking Sticks in spite of your opinion, thank you very much...) 3) The others are not examples of obsolescence, either. All have uses in different situations. (And I have seem prolific use of Scouting Mission, Redirection, and My Enemy's Enemy in the decks of very respectable players at Gencon and elsewhere. In fact, My Enemy's Enemy is considered a premium card! Certain people would be very surprised at your opinion of it.) > > > Now it's time for some inductive reasoning :) ... > > I don't think you understand the concept of "inductive reasoning". > > You can't just wave your hand and severely limit the environment in > > which Poker is used. You have to _prove_ WWS is always better. > > I can (always) restrict proof to cover only relevant cases (case: Deck > I want not to put poker in is irrelevant) Only if you *prove* they're not relevant - which you didn't bother to do. And I believe you cannot do. > > > How can disciplinless reusable version of Torn Signpost not > > > wallpaperize poker ? > > > Because you must use a difference copy of Torn Signpost each combat. > > Uhm, there is word: Reusable in my statement above. Sorry, I missed the significance of that. But the answer is the same. WWS is only somewhat reusable - it breaks after 1-3 uses. Poker only breaks against fortitude. So it cannot obsolesce Poker. > > The point is, there is no issue here. You simply refuse to accept that > > unlimited numbers of Auspex intercept cards that give +1 intercept at > > inferior and do something unique at superior is not likely to be considered > > a problem by most reasonable people. I can't help that. It is not a good > > reason to group library cards. > > Most reasonoble people , eh ? I am completely reasonable here. In fact > since I have great success with intercept decks (like winning > tournaments (even big ones) ) with them (where most people claim that > intercept can't win) I don't really care what reasonable people tell > (unless they provide some empirical data I can provide on that topic) > > If you can provide them good, we can discuss. If not get lost. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with grouping library cards. So you've won some games with intercept, so what? What has this to do with the potential problem of too many Auspex intercept cards which do the same thing (grant +1 intercept) at inferior but do something different at superior? Sounds to me like evidence that most other people don't believe there's _enough_ different intercept cards. Be that as it may, who cares? > [snip] [snip, indeed] > > You are also ignoring the point that how often a solution works is not the only criteria > > for deciding which solution is superior. If you're having problems with mice, you can set > > up mouse traps and get a cat. Or you can blow up your house, have the rubbish hauled away, > > and build a new house. I'll bet the second solution eliminates the problem more often > > than the first. > > This example is quite wrong (in the context of this discussion since > the difference between solutions are more subtle). It demonstrates my point: simple effectiveness in solving a problem is not the only criteria. You also need to make sure that the side-effects caused by your solution aren't worse than the original problem. > > > Very few cards are bad on their own, strength of fifth tradition would > > > be less of a issue if minion tap would not exists. Again card > > > interaction is what is problematic. > > > It depends on what you mean. Card strength requires context, of course. But when the > > context are other unquestioned, backbone-of-the-game cards, this is an absurd, pedantic > > argument. Return to Innocence caused a problem because it made huge, game-winning bleeds > > possible - but only in combination with either lots of stealth or something like Day > > Operation that made the bleed unblockable. (Bounce notwithstanding, as it was decided > > that failure to play bounce should not cost someone a game by itself.) So one could ask, > > "Is Return to Innocence the problem or are all the stealth and unblockability cards the > > problem?" The answer is very obvious if you're being reasonable. > > Irrelevant. My comment was very few cards are bad on their own. No cards are "bad on their own" by that definition of "bad". But it's a useless definition. You can not discern bad from good without a context so showing that cards are not bad outside of the context in which they are used essentially says nothing at all. > > Given that point, I strongly disagree with you. Most cards that are bad are identifiable > > as being problem cards _themselves_ - not simply in combination with other cards. Fifth > > Tradition is seen as the problem card because it fills any sized vampire from zero to > > capacity regardless of whether you can or cannot Minion Tap it afterward. Minion Tap, > > at the same time, is considered a staple or a foundation of the game. It cannot be > > removed or modified without making major modifications to many aspects of the game. So, > > yes - Fifth Tradition is the issue. Period. > > And so what ? My original comment was that Fifth Tradition would be > less of a issue if Minion Tap didn't existed. I suppose. But Minion Tap is a staple card so it doesn't matter. Minion Tap exists, must exist, and will continue to exist in the future. So it's a moot point. > [snip] [snip, indeed] > Again not listening. Again providing bad example. Again mildly insulting at it. ...and that's the problem. You're prepared to proposed this extreme solution based on your insistence on comparing Jyhad to a completely different game has been designed, expanded, and maintained using demonstrably inferior policies and you get "mildly insulted" when someone inconveniently points these things out to you. These points will exist whether you consider them "good examples" or not. Either way, it doesn't matter. Fred

In article <df69cc0d.02111...@posting.google.com>, karol...@yahoo.com says... > > This would generally follow from the first assumption, since it's > > extremely unlikely they're going to introduce new disciplines in every > > set. > > No :) We can get dark ages animalism as a "new" discipline ;) Basically what you're suggesting is the same discipline with new cards that can't interact with the current cards, right? Ignoring your fear of uber-combo for a minute, is there any other reason why that would be better than getting new (universally playable) animalism cards? > > > (it's sad that difference between group 1/2 tremere and group 2/3 > > > tremere is like 6 cards in crypt and max 10 cards in library) > > > Huh? > > The deck is almost same ;) (where is the variety ?) Umm... Which deck? I see a whole lot of potential with the new tremere that wasn't possible with the old. Presence, for example, is on a whole bunch more smaller tremere than it was before. > > Vise was rather broken to begin with, and was restricted and then > > banned. The example doesn't particularly transfer to VTES. > > you are not listening :) The point is that as you cut cards at the top > of the power curve they got repeatedly replaced. (sometimes by even > more broken cards , necropotence is considered one of the most broken > card ever printed) No, I get what you're saying just fine. The problem is, it's an example that doesn't transfer to VTES. You haven't given any evidence that the same thing has happened in this game. Vise's restriction and eventual banning changed the game completely. It allowed decks that could actually use Necro and Land Tax effectively to come into existence. Necro was more broken than Vise, but it wasn't playable until Vise was out of the way. Where's the parallel to VTES? > > What have these cards risen to the top in place of? As far as I know, > > people have been using GtU and Conditioning as long as the game has > > had tournaments. Dreams has always been a top-tier card. Powerbase > > Montreal? > > They were used, yes. They were not thought to be top-top powerfull > (because other such cards existed) Such as? This is what I'm looking for. What other cards existed that made people think Govern and Conditioning were not powerful that have been recently nerfed/banned/errated? > Most recent example is recent MRP curse many cards received. (the last > time such sweeping changes were implemented was 7/7 errata time ?) > (relatively long time might pass but past experience teach me that > that time probably will come ?) How are the sweeping changes of 7/7 causing problems? I thought they enabled the game to actually be playable? What are the problems of the CE alterations? What super-broken card has risen to the top now that Majesty costs 1 blood? > > Yeah, dragon was a bad bad mistake. And I'd venture to guess that the > > design team doesn't particularly look at extended as much as type 2 > > and sealed when designing new cards. How would groupings solve this > > problem? > > That animate dead would be in different group than dragon (and if they > have grouping implemented he would be since last time animate dead was > reprinted in base set was like fifth edition at most) But M:tG already has a grouping system. And the problem still came up. What happens when they print 2 cards like that in the same set? > > Yet cards continually slip through the cracks, in all formats. > > Because no matter hard you try it will happen ? (card interaction will > get you ? , it is less problem in smaller format do you agree ? ) Sure. If you have designers who know what the hell they're doing in a game that doesn't lend itself to the "one big turn broken combo", you're going to have a whole lot less of a problem. And if such a problem DOES come up, the makers of this game have had no qualms about altering cards or banning cards to compensate. There is no NEED for a grouping to stop the uber-combo. -- -Snapcase