WotC - They Don't Listen to YOU, the customer

WotC apparantly does not really care for what we think, the customer, they will do what they deem is the best for their own purposes. They no longer are a gaming company that serves it's players but serves the market for marketability. This is apparent with the Jyhad CCG. Despite strong sentiments that players DO NOT want the card back changed, WotC has gone ahead and done so. For the sake of "marketability". This is also apparent with the Duelist Convocation, they don't care about those who started playing the game with their so called "broken cards" such as the spoilers and such. They want Type II to be the standard so they can sell more of their new "balanced" expansion sets. Ultimately, they want to tell YOU how to play the game. They want YOU to accept their new GENERIC, uncontroversial, next to squeeky clean, card games. This is apparent with their removal of most of the "demon" cards from Magic Fourth Edition and the changing of the Jyhad game name. -The Doc -- #$%*#$*@ REAL: drk...@netcom.com + VIRTUAL: drk...@gnu.ai.mit.edu *@#$*@#$ *$%&%#$* The Dream Theater Archives: ftp.netcom.com: /pub/dr/drkhoe/dt &*@#$*@$ **%^$#$% WWW: "ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/dr/drkhoe/www/dthome.html" #$**@#*$ *$*$*$*# Reality Enhancement Software - Engineering Reality *$&#*#@$

Incidentally, this kind of post is NOT apropriate to rec.game-trading-cards.misc. What do players of non-jyhad non-magic care about WoTC's latest betrayl? In article <drkhoeD8...@netcom.com>, Dr. Mosh <drk...@netcom.com> wrote: > >This is apparent with the Jyhad CCG. Despite strong sentiments that players >DO NOT want the card back changed, WotC has gone ahead and done so. For the >sake of "marketability". I'll agree with you on VtES; what they did was entirely unnessary, and amounted to abandoing all of their previous players. >This is also apparent with the Duelist Convocation, they don't care about those >who started playing the game with their so called "broken cards" such as the >spoilers and such. They want Type II to be the standard so they can sell more >of their new "balanced" expansion sets. Bull. They do care about those who started with the indisputably broken cards like multis, loti, and moxen, which is why type I stil exists. However, WoTC wants to produce the best, most intresting game they can, and a game in which certain rare cards wil enhance any deck, and significantly increase your hance of winning the game, regardless of strategy, is not interestingly playable, and is not a good game. If you want a dull, non-random, unintresting game, play war with a stacked deck, or play magic with a deck consisting of 27 wheels of fortune, 29 Black Loti, and 4 feldon's canes. > >Ultimately, they want to tell YOU how to play the game. They want YOU to Of course they do. That's their job, they created the game, and on them is the onus to modify it. -- Joshua Kronengold -- mn...@dorsai.org GCS/MU d? H++ s:- !g !p+ !au a- w+ !v+? C+++>++++ US++>L++++ P+ L++ 3 E++ N++ K++ !W M V-- -po+(---) Y+ t+(--) 5++ !j R++ G++++('''') tv-- b+++ D B--- e+* u++* h! f+ r++ n--- !x*

Joshua Kronengold (mn...@dorsai.org) wrote: > Incidentally, this kind of post is NOT apropriate to > rec.game-trading-cards.misc. What do players of non-jyhad non-magic > care about WoTC's latest betrayl? > In article <drkhoeD8...@netcom.com>, Dr. Mosh <drk...@netcom.com> wrote: > > > >This is apparent with the Jyhad CCG. Despite strong sentiments that players > >DO NOT want the card back changed, WotC has gone ahead and done so. For the > >sake of "marketability". > I'll agree with you on VtES; what they did was entirely unnessary, and > amounted to abandoing all of their previous players. > >This is also apparent with the Duelist Convocation, they don't care about those > >who started playing the game with their so called "broken cards" such as the > >spoilers and such. They want Type II to be the standard so they can sell more > >of their new "balanced" expansion sets. > Bull. They do care about those who started with the indisputably > broken cards like multis, loti, and moxen, which is why type I stil > exists. However, WoTC wants to produce the best, most intresting game > they can, and a game in which certain rare cards wil enhance any deck, > and significantly increase your hance of winning the game, regardless > of strategy, is not interestingly playable, and is not a good game. If > you want a dull, non-random, unintresting game, play war with a > stacked deck, or play magic with a deck consisting of 27 wheels of > fortune, 29 Black Loti, and 4 feldon's canes. -----------> Jesus get a clue... of COURSE Type II is made for Wot$ to make more money by forcing the player to constantly buy more cards. If this WASN'T the case they would put out a Type II "acceptable" list that had cards from the last few expansions and the last few main editions as ALWAYS OK... but of course they will never do this as they want to keep you buying the next expansion etc ad nauseum... Plus this has nothing to do with Type I... why try to change the subject? Considering you will have to keep buying sets to compete in Type II.. maybe you should just buy a Lotus and a couple Moxes to do Type I? Probably will even work out cheaper this way. Wot$ has become just another corporation... yanking "offensive" cards etc... Do you also violently stick up for MacDonald's and Pepsi?? [ quoted text not captured ]

> Joshua Kronengold (mn...@dorsai.org) wrote: >> drk...@netcom.com wrote: >> > >> >This is apparent with the Jyhad CCG. Despite strong sentiments that players >> >DO NOT want the card back changed, WotC has gone ahead and done so. For the >> >sake of "marketability". > >> I'll agree with you on VtES; what they did was entirely unnessary, and >> amounted to abandoing all of their previous players. This illustrates a *great* point that JD Wiker, WotC AOL Rep, made the other day. I paraphrase: WotC has playtested Jyhad/V:tES with multiple card backs and found that it was playable. NO ONE has had the chance to try it *except* WotC. Still, people with no real evidence or experience are whining and moaning about it. The same has held true for most of the changes to 4E. Try it, and if you have a real problem with the game, complain *then*. You show your ignorance and short-sightedness when you post like this. -- Marc Schmalz, a.k.a. Sparky!! 00mls...@virgo.bsuvc.bsu.edu Chairman, National Caucus for the Ethical Treatment of the Bit Bucket "Put Edwina back in bowl."

Navin R. Johnson (00mls...@bsuvc.bsu.edu) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] The problem with whining about it THEN is that if it DOES flop because people dont like it , WOTC arent likely to print X million of the new cards with the old backs on them so as people who want to play with their original cards and the expansions , without having conspicuously marked decks , can do so , when Y million VTES cards remain gathering dust on store shelves all over the world . This isnt going to be a reversible change , even WOTC wants to , because its going to be the same pain all over again . Your theory about try it , then if you dont like it , complain is a joke , because by the time we get to test it , it WILL be too late to go back (well probably) , so if we dont like it we WILL be stuck with it . This would seem to be a useless argument anyway as WOTC have apparently - and stupidly , in my opinion - decided that the change IS going to happen . VTES may be a big success where Jyhad failed (note that my view is that Jyhad IS a success but evidently someone didnt think so ) , but I doubt it . As a further point my group tried a few games in which we allowed one type of marked card back , so as to simulate the new conditions . After about 5 or six games it became apparent that marked cards didnt give anyone a HUGE advantage , because everyone else had it , but they DID take a lot of guess work and the surprise element away . I DISLIKED this intensely as did the rest of the group - we're back to unmarked cards . If theres something I want from the new set it looks like im going to miss out because I flatly refuse to repurchase everything , and I refuse to play with a marked deck . Complain all you want about any ignorance or short-sightedness that you can find in the above statements , but youre going to have to find some pretty good arguments to make me change my mind on this. Die VTES Die,Die JA Chapman

jac...@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr JA Chapman) writes: > Navin R. Johnson (00mls...@bsuvc.bsu.edu) wrote: > : Try it, and if you have a real problem with the game, complain *then*. > : You show your ignorance and short-sightedness when you post like this. > As a further point my group tried a few games in which we allowed > one type of marked card back , so as to simulate the new conditions . > Complain all you want about any ignorance or short-sightedness > that you can find in the above statements , but youre going to have to > find some pretty good arguments to make me change my mind on this. If you have tried it, as you say you have, then the comment wasn't directed at you. If you've tried it, you're in a very small minority that knows what they're talking about. Congrats. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1995May22.1...@orion.bsuvc.bsu.edu>, Navin R. Johnson <00mls...@bsuvc.bsu.edu> wrote: >If you have tried it, as you say you have, then the comment wasn't >directed at you. If you've tried it, you're in a very small minority >that knows what they're talking about. Congrats. This is the most over used comment on the net (the "if you know what you're talking about then the comment wasn't directed at you" thing). Guess what, I think more people know what they're talking about than you think. JD's statement (as it was relayed to us) has nothing to do with what we're saying since nobody has said that the game will be unplayable once the change has been made. Don't dismiss comments because you think that you know more than the commenter. Read them first, don't dismiss them out of hand as JD (and sometimes Tom) seems to want to do. | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "There. That should do nicely. After all, we don't want the locals to see grannies clipped to trash bins by their teeth, do we?" -- Mr. Gone

In article <1995May22.0...@orion.bsuvc.bsu.edu>, Navin R. Johnson <00mls...@bsuvc.bsu.edu> wrote: >This illustrates a *great* point that JD Wiker, WotC AOL Rep, made the >other day. > >I paraphrase: >WotC has playtested Jyhad/V:tES with multiple card backs and found >that it was playable. NO ONE has had the chance to try it *except* >WotC. Still, people with no real evidence or experience are whining >and moaning about it. The same has held true for most of the changes >to 4E. > >Try it, and if you have a real problem with the game, complain *then*. >You show your ignorance and short-sightedness when you post like this. Aside from the fact that *anyone* can try it (you don't have to be a rocket scientist to use Magic cards as marked ones), I don't dispute this. I've said it before here on the newsgroups. The game is still playable. Magic was, and Jyhad/V:tES will be. It's not just about whether the game is playable or not. It's about changing the dynamic of the game, adding a new (undesired) factor to the game, and it's also about a lack of respect. By adding mixed decks to the game, a certain element of the game changes. Now some people will have marked decks not by choice, but by force (best example: expansions. In every Magic expansion, there has been at least one card that I decide is invaluable, and add to many of my decks. This will happen in V:tES, and I will then have (for example) only Necromancy cards with the Vampire backs and only vampires with Necromancy with the Vampire backs). And others will have a very easy time marking decks (a strategy which can be effective despite claims that it doesn't "break the game"). Finally, the last thing, and perhaps the straw that pushes me away from the game is the lack of respect implied in the change. I read an interview with Dr. Garfield in which he stated that in playtesting they found that AK cards with different backs didn't make a difference, yet player preference was to keep the backs the same, and lo, the backs were the same. Yet in Jyhad, even though marking decks is slightly *more* advantageous (an assertation that I will defend, should anyone want me to, in e-mail), the backs were changed anyway. This is not the first time that Jyhad players have felt less respected than Magic players, and by departing so drastically from the opinions we've expressed, we feel that WotC does not care if we buy their game. I have put forth the notion on several occassions that Magic is an A-title game while Jyhad is a B-title. I still feel that way, and the name change is just a confirmation in my mind of this trend. I don't have a problem with this, but as someone who feels sleighted by this decision, I do not see the need to purchase more of a game in which I have already completed my investment, nor do I wish to "try" a game in which marking will be a factor, because I don't have to be told how it will affect the game, I know. It won't break the game, but it is still an effect that I do not want. If WotC doesn't respect that opinion enough to abide by it, I do not as a customer see a need to continue buying the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

If it is that annoying to people why shouldn't WotC consider this solution: keep the Jyhad card backs for the countries that want them, and market V:tES to the middle east/Isreal. If they can print Italian cards especially for Italy <or those who are speak the language>, why can't they target their distribution better? It would seem that if they can keep all the print runs straight for Magic with all the various languages that they could do the same for the Jyhad cards and the new backs. Has anyone else thought about this in this manner? -- ----- sah...@bga.com

[ quoted text not captured ] I have, but the logic behind this solution seems to counter what I understood about this whole issue. If I'm wrong, please e-mail me about this, since this portion of the thread has ceased to be really connected with Magic. And not too many e-mails, please, since I'm only a casual Jyhad player. At any rate, I thought that: 1) The reason the card backs were being changed was that no one who didn't know about the White Wolf game knew the game was about vampires. The above solution implies that this was because people wrote in offended by the Jyhad name. 2) Could WotC use the Jyhad name if they wanted to? I'd heard that they and WW had some kind of falling out, and WW refused to extend their copyright agreement. At any rate, I apologize if I'm wrong; like I said, I only play Jyhad once in a while, with someone else's cards. Later. Rei "Leaper" Nakazawa First time appearing in the Jyhad group, it seems...

In article <3pscm1$m...@girtab.usc.edu>, Rei Nakazawa <naka...@girtab.usc.edu> wrote: >2) Could WotC use the Jyhad name if they wanted to? I'd heard that >they and WW had some kind of falling out, and WW refused to extend >their copyright agreement. If WW and WotC had had a falling out, I doubt we'd see any more of the game at all. V:tES had to be re-ngotiated. This is, as far as I know, a completely unsubstantiated rumor. [ quoted text not captured ]

Rei Nakazawa <naka...@girtab.usc.edu> wrote: >1) The reason the card backs were being changed was that no one >who didn't know about the White Wolf game knew the game was about >vampires. The above solution implies that this was because people >wrote in offended by the Jyhad name. More of the second and less of the first. Had it just been a matter of people not realizing what "Jyhad" meant, we would not have changed the card backs. >2) Could WotC use the Jyhad name if they wanted to? I'd heard that >they and WW had some kind of falling out, and WW refused to extend >their copyright agreement. We requested the name change, and White Wolf signed the contract allowing us to do so. Jyhad/V:TES is a licensed game, so I'd be very surprised if the contract specifically mentioned which terms could and couldn't be used. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Charles M. Kozierok (i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu) wrote: : What next? Have you ever noticed that professional tennis : players always serve to the same two spots in the service box? : Deep in the corner or down the middle, almost every time. : Is it boring? If WotC was running the pro tennis circuit, what would they do? : X out those parts of the box to force people to serve elsewhere? Agree. For another example, some openings in chess are so common that most masters have them memorized ahead for scores of moves in dozens of permutations. But are these openings restricted? ("Sorry Mr. Kasparov, you can only use one opening with the King's pawn.") Just goes to show that Magic and/or WotC is not as mature as chess. I wish WotC would show some more confidence in the integrity of the game and the players. For truly classic games (like chess) most problems correct themselves (or rather, are corrected by clever players and new strategies--not by imposed changes from the manufacturer and its minion, the tournament organization) and current sales do not drive overall competitive quality or enjoyment. In WotC's defense (imagine that--me defending WotC), the whole CCG genre has not been around long enough to be "mature." But still, WotC consistently seems to choose heavy-handed (and profit-driven) intervention instead of letting the players take their game in new directions. Masato Hayakawa mas...@uclink.berkeley.edu

In article <1995May22.0...@orion.bsuvc.bsu.edu>, 00mls...@bsuvc.bsu.edu (Navin R. Johnson) wrote: > WotC has playtested Jyhad/V:tES with multiple card backs and found > that it was playable. NO ONE has had the chance to try it *except* > WotC. Still, people with no real evidence or experience are whining > and moaning about it. The same has held true for most of the changes > to 4E. Is this the same playtesting group that didn't think people would be playing decks of (pre-Convocation) nothing but moxes? Anyway, there's a rather lenghty testimonial by someone who played with different backs -- Jyhad ones from his basic set and V:TES ones from the expansion set. Cedric.

: Agree. For another example, some openings in chess are so common that : most masters have them memorized ahead for scores of moves in dozens of : permutations. But are these openings restricted? ("Sorry Mr. Kasparov, : you can only use one opening with the King's pawn.") Not a valid association. The point that we are arguing over is not how we play the game, it's what pieces we use to play the game. In that sense, chess has ZERO variety, and for good reason- what would happen if I decided to play with 1 King and 15 queens? Why on earth would I ever want to play with a pawn (don't starts roasting me on chess tactics- you guys know what I mean). WotC is trying to make a game much like chess, in that a variety of tactics are viable, without one being dominant. Yes, taking out multilands reduces the flexibilty of a deck. My Type I deck is currently four colors, and I would not be able to do such a deck under 4e, but looking at my deck, one would notice that I have two main colors, with white and black thrown in for their staple spells and nothing more (Disenchant, Swords/Plows, Serras, Mind Twist, Tutor, Underworld Dreams). What happens when I take out these two colors? I have to make up for gaping holes in my deck with inferior versions of those spells. But that's what I get for playing Red/Blue. There are very few strategies that require three or more colors. The extra colors are usually thrown in for these same reasons. Yes, WotC is trying to dictate the play of the game, but not in a way that would actually harm the game- they are trying to promote strategy, both in deck building and playing. Choosing colors is supposed to be a big part of the game, but never was with duals around. Now we're just going to have to think a little more when building a deck. Frank

: >1) The reason the card backs were being changed was that no one : >who didn't know about the White Wolf game knew the game was about : >vampires. The above solution implies that this was because people : >wrote in offended by the Jyhad name. : More of the second and less of the first. Had it just been a matter of : people not realizing what "Jyhad" meant, we would not have changed : the card backs. So you change the BOX/Wrapper and display boxes to say 'Vampire - The Eternal Struggle', but the card backs? Can I turn in my current Jyhad cards to get TES versions? We should start a pool - how long until Jyhad tourneys disallow the old card backs.

Charles M. Kozierok <i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> wrote: >No. There's a difference between defining a game and steering >people in how to play it. You don't see the makers of any other >game changing the "rules" because "in a tournament there were >too many people playing the game in a similar way", do you? Sure do. SFB routinely tweaks the tourny ships, when they decide that one ship is too strong/weak. Their tourny rules are different at each Origins. The NBA decided that there wasn't enough outside shooting last year, so moved the 3 point line in. The NFL thought there was too much field goal kicking going on the year before last, so changed where a team would recover a missed FG - and people attempted fewer FG's. I could continue to spew examples, but won't. -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://astrowww.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

In article <3q0mva$m...@life.ai.mit.edu>, i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Charles M. Kozierok) wrote: >In article <Andrew_Brecher-...@cluster-68.cluster.brown.edu>, >Andrew Brecher <Andrew_...@brown.edu> wrote: >} In article <drkhoeD8...@netcom.com>, drk...@netcom.com (Dr. Mosh) wrote: >} >} >Ultimately, they want to tell YOU how to play the game. They want YOU to >} >} I don't see anyone bitching about them including a rulebook. Isn't that >} just them telling me how to play the game? > >No. There's a difference between defining a game and steering >people in how to play it. You don't see the makers of any other >game changing the "rules" because "in a tournament there were >too many people playing the game in a similar way", do you? If all (or most) tournament players play the game in a certain way, that's a good sign of the game being broken. The whole point behind these changes is to >prevent< the game from being steered in the same directions, allowing more variety. >What next? Have you ever noticed that professional tennis >players always serve to the same two spots in the service box? >Deep in the corner or down the middle, almost every time. >Is it boring? If WotC was running the pro tennis circuit, what would they do? >X out those parts of the box to force people to serve elsewhere? Not if serving to those spots were "too basic to the game", to use their words. -- - Andrew Brecher (andrew_...@brown.edu) <insert disclaimer here>

In article <drkhoeD8...@netcom.com>, drk...@netcom.com (Dr. Mosh) wrote: >Ultimately, they want to tell YOU how to play the game. They want YOU to I don't see anyone bitching about them including a rulebook. Isn't that just them telling me how to play the game? -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Andrew_Brecher-...@cluster-68.cluster.brown.edu>, Andrew Brecher <Andrew_...@brown.edu> wrote: } In article <drkhoeD8...@netcom.com>, drk...@netcom.com (Dr. Mosh) wrote: } } >Ultimately, they want to tell YOU how to play the game. They want YOU to } } I don't see anyone bitching about them including a rulebook. Isn't that } just them telling me how to play the game? No. There's a difference between defining a game and steering people in how to play it. You don't see the makers of any other game changing the "rules" because "in a tournament there were too many people playing the game in a similar way", do you? If WotC came out and said "These are problems with the game. The rules will be changed as follows", that would be one thing. Annoying, but livable. But warping the game because people aren't playing it exactly the way Old Rich foresaw? What a crock. What next? Have you ever noticed that professional tennis players always serve to the same two spots in the service box? Deep in the corner or down the middle, almost every time. Is it boring? If WotC was running the pro tennis circuit, what would they do? X out those parts of the box to force people to serve elsewhere? It's assinine. Especially considering how much of WotC's "noble intentions" is probably just a plan to get everyone to plunk down more money. -*- charles

Charles M. Kozierok (i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu) wrote: : In article <Andrew_Brecher-...@cluster-68.cluster.brown.edu>, : Andrew Brecher <Andrew_...@brown.edu> wrote: : } In article <drkhoeD8...@netcom.com>, drk...@netcom.com (Dr. Mosh) wrote: [snip] : What next? Have you ever noticed that professional tennis : players always serve to the same two spots in the service box? : Deep in the corner or down the middle, almost every time. : Is it boring? If WotC was running the pro tennis circuit, what would they do? : X out those parts of the box to force people to serve elsewhere? : It's assinine. Especially considering how much of WotC's "noble : intentions" is probably just a plan to get everyone to plunk down : more money. : -*- : charles Here here! The entire MTG fiasco has gotten trite. Lets look at it from the Wotc point of view for a minute shall we: "Hmmm people just aren't buying enough Magic cards." "Yeah and the new players are griping about all the old power cards that they don't have." "Hey I've got it! Lets create a new tournament system. One that will make all the old cards unplayable. That'll force all the people with the old cards to buy new cards so they can play." "Yeah, you're right... everyone plays tourney legal, so even if they don't want to compete they'll have to buy the new cards just to play." "What about all those church groups that are griping about the demonic nature of cards?" "Well we can't get rid of those cards... what if we make them unplayable in tourneys? Then no one will want them, and then more people will play the game." "Wait a minute! What about all the old players that helped get us started, they won't like this." "Screw em. As long as we keep bringing in more people that we lose it doesn't matter." Well that's my 2 cents on what Wotc is doing to Magic. I used to be a strong supporter of the game, but now it's worse than Warhammer 40K was three years ago when Games Workshop changed the rules every month. Sick and tired of having spend $$$ on magic cards since December 93 only to have most of the cards I bought made unplayable... Joel

Charles M. Kozierok <i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> wrote: >You don't see the makers of any other >game changing the "rules" because "in a tournament there were >too many people playing the game in a similar way", do you? >If WotC came out and said "These are problems with the game. >The rules will be changed as follows", that would be one thing. Rules and cards are not changed simply because tournaments start to follow certain patterns. But tournaments do tend to expose any problems in the rules and in the cards, since tournament decks are going to be looking to exploit as many things as possible. In Magic, tournament decks often use direct damage, but we are not going to be removing direct damage from the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] But in another post, Tom Wylie wrote: >Serendib Efreets were removed because they are too good. Any creature >that's considered a staple tournament creature stands a good chance of >being too good, so it shouldn't be surprising that the Efreet got taken out. >We were not going to include it simply to have the opportunity to correct >it, and we fixed it in the translations because it seemed stupid to >continue to make a printing mistake when we had an easy opportunity to >fix it. > >Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. I think you can see why people (myself included) are under the impression that WotC watches tournament play and takes out or restricts cards that are used too often. This is an insane policy. It is analogous to FIDE (the world chess organization) banning the use of the Queen's Gambit because "it's too good". I used to enjoy Magic; why couldn't you have left it the hell alone instead of continually "dumbing it down" by removing or restricting any remotely powerful card? Mike

Alec Habig (aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu) wrote: : The NBA decided that there wasn't enough outside shooting last year, so moved : the 3 point line in. : The NFL thought there was too much field goal kicking going on the year before : last, so changed where a team would recover a missed FG - and people attempted : fewer FG's. Different situation. The NFL, NBA, etc. are organizations whose audience is the spectators, not the players. The players are professionals who are paid to play for the spectators' enjoyment, not their own. If WotC paid me Michael Jordan's salary (hey, I can dream ;-)) to play Magic, they could make all the rules changes they want. In the case of MtG, it is a game where the main audience is the players. Rather than WotC paying us, we are paying them through our purchases. Therefore WotC's main concern should be our enjoyment of the game, not their vision of it. Masato Hayakawa mas...@uclink.berkeley.edu

Canticle (cant...@MBnet.MB.CA) wrote: : On 25 May 1995, Masato Hayakawa wrote: : > Alec Habig (aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu) wrote: : > : The NBA decided that there wasn't enough outside shooting last year, so moved : > : the 3 point line in. : > : The NFL t hought there was too much field goal kicking going on the year before : > : last, so c hanged where a team would recover a missed FG - and people attempted : > : fewer FG's. : > Different situation. The NFL, NBA, etc. are organizations whose audience : > is the spectators, not the players. The players are professionals who are : > paid to play for the spectators' enjoyment, not their own. If WotC paid : No offense intended, but you conveniently deleted his reference to the : changes made on a regular basis to Starfleet Battles in a tournament : setting. While the NBA and NFL may not be ideal comparisons with : Magic/Jyhad in a tournament setting, SFB certainly comes close. You're : not doing yourself any favours by deleting parts of a post which might : not do your argument any good. SFB players are not professionals paid to : play for the spectators enjoyoment. No offense taken. To be honest, I didn't address the "SFB" portion of the argument because I didn't really know what "SFB" is. (The original poster didn't define the acronym.) I assume it is a Star Trek board game? [stuff deleted] : fun. Tournaments can't possibly account for more than .01% of the games : of Magic played, at best, so changes in the rules for tourneys will have : relatively little impact overall on the game. People are free to play it : however they please, tourney legal or not, so unless major overhauls are : conducted in the actual core rules, WotC seems to be doing ok. The It is a myth that tournament rules affect only tournaments. While tournaments make up only a fraction of the games played, in my experience the majority of the games played and decks constructed are done so by "tournament" rules. Do people have 4 (or 6, or 10) Mind Twists in their denial decks? Why not? It's perfectly legal by the game rules. Why don't people play 20 Lightning Bolt, 20 Mountain decks? They almost guarantee a kill on turn 4, and can be put together for under $5. The "basic" rules (40 cards, no limits) result in totally "broken" decks in environments with any reasonable amount of card access. Tournament rules are the de facto standard. (If you want to hear me rant more about this, check my comments in the 'removal vs restriction' thread in rgtc.misc) [yet more stuff deleted] [stuff below moved] : > Rather than WotC paying us, we are paying them through our purchases. : > Therefore WotC's main concern should be our enjoyment of the game, not : > their vision of it. : improved upon, I hardly think that WotC is blindly adhering to a policy : geared towards removing all enjoyment from the game. Personally, I think You're misreading what I wrote. I never claimed WotC is intentionally trying to destroy our enjoyment of the game. That would be suicidal on their part. Rather, I am saying that the players' enjoyment of the game should be a higher priority than WotC's desire to get Magic to conform to their vision of what the game "should" be. To sum up, I guess I'm saying that the players have as much claim to Magic as WotC/DC. Our individual visions of ways to play the game are just as legitimate as Richard Garfield's (win-loss records aside ;-)). The beauty of Magic is that both WotC's vision and our own can be accomodated by the game--WotC should recognize that, rather than trying to change the game to suit its own vision. Masato Hayakawa mas...@uclink.berkeley.edu

In article <3q1jb2$o...@agate.berkeley.edu>, Masato Hayakawa <mas...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote: >Charles M. Kozierok (i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu) wrote: > >Agree. For another example, some openings in chess are so common that >most masters have them memorized ahead for scores of moves in dozens of >permutations. But are these openings restricted? ("Sorry Mr. Kasparov, >you can only use one opening with the King's pawn.") > >Just goes to show that Magic and/or WotC is not as mature as chess. I >wish WotC would show some more confidence in the integrity of the game >and the players. For truly classic games (like chess) most problems >correct themselves (or rather, are corrected by clever players and new >strategies--not by imposed changes from the manufacturer and its minion, >the tournament organization) and current sales do not drive overall >competitive quality or enjoyment. > >Masato Hayakawa >mas...@uclink.berkeley.edu > This chess analogy being bandied about is just awful, because in a chess game everyone has the exact same 16 pieces. Imagine if people could customize their chess sets like you customize their decks in Magic. Guess what? We'd see sets consisting of 15 queens and 1 king dominate. -- "I find that most philosophical discussions are psycho- // Bill Gilliland logically useful but, in the end, when you look back // historically at what was being said, and being said // "Semprini?" OY! OUT! with such vigour, it's almost always - to a degree - // nonsense!" (Richard Feynman) // ska...@u.washington.edu

In article <3q1ef4$l...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > >Charles M. Kozierok <i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> wrote: >>You don't see the makers of any other >>game changing the "rules" because "in a tournament there were >>too many people playing the game in a similar way", do you? >>If WotC came out and said "These are problems with the game. >>The rules will be changed as follows", that would be one thing. > >Rules and cards are not changed simply because tournaments start to follow >certain patterns. But tournaments do tend to expose any problems in the >rules and in the cards, since tournament decks are going to be looking to >exploit as many things as possible. In Magic, tournament decks often use >direct damage, but we are not going to be removing direct damage from the game. Yeah, you're just gonna make it so you have to sacrifice a creature to do it, that way everyone will have to have creatures... i.e. Goblin Grenade. > > >Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. > -- #$%*#$*@ REAL: drk...@netcom.com + VIRTUAL: drk...@gnu.ai.mit.edu *@#$*@#$ *$%&%#$* The Dream Theater Archives: ftp.netcom.com: /pub/dr/drkhoe/dt &*@#$*@$ **%^$#$% WWW: "ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/dr/drkhoe/www/dthome.html" #$**@#*$ *$*$*$*# Reality Enhancement Software - Engineering Reality *$&#*#@$

In article <3q1ef4$l...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: } } Charles M. Kozierok <i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> wrote: } >You don't see the makers of any other } >game changing the "rules" because "in a tournament there were } >too many people playing the game in a similar way", do you? } >If WotC came out and said "These are problems with the game. } >The rules will be changed as follows", that would be one thing. } } Rules and cards are not changed simply because tournaments start to follow } certain patterns. You're contradicting yourself. On this very newsgroup you said "Any creature that appears as a staple in tournaments makes itself a candidate for removal." Or something very close. -*- charles

: If all (or most) tournament players play the game in a certain way, that's : a good sign of the game being broken. The whole point behind these : changes is to >prevent< the game from being steered in the same : directions, allowing more variety. Your point? As I said before, I played in a tourney (won it) and fought in eight rounds. I did not see a SINGLE Serendib Efreet layed.

On 25 May 1995, Masato Hayakawa wrote: > Alec Habig (aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu) wrote: > : The NBA decided that there wasn't enough outside shooting last year, so moved > : the 3 point line in. > : The NFL thought there was too much field goal kicking going on the year before > : last, so changed where a team would recover a missed FG - and people attempted > : fewer FG's. > Different situation. The NFL, NBA, etc. are organizations whose audience > is the spectators, not the players. The players are professionals who are > paid to play for the spectators' enjoyment, not their own. If WotC paid No offense intended, but you conveniently deleted his reference to the changes made on a regular basis to Starfleet Battles in a tournament setting. While the NBA and NFL may not be ideal comparisons with Magic/Jyhad in a tournament setting, SFB certainly comes close. You're not doing yourself any favours by deleting parts of a post which might not do your argument any good. SFB players are not professionals paid to play for the spectators enjoyoment. > In the case of MtG, it is a game where the main audience is the players. As is SFB, which is a more valid example. One which you deleted. > Rather than WotC paying us, we are paying them through our purchases. > Therefore WotC's main concern should be our enjoyment of the game, not > their vision of it. As far as I'm concerned, Wizards of the Coast hasn't done anything to destroy the enjoyment of Magic:The Gathering for people who play it for fun. Tournaments can't possibly account for more than .01% of the games of Magic played, at best, so changes in the rules for tourneys will have relatively little impact overall on the game. People are free to play it however they please, tourney legal or not, so unless major overhauls are conducted in the actual core rules, WotC seems to be doing ok. The 'Demonic' cards deal was stupid, IMHO, but after seeing the ridiculous levels to which people in the US seem to go to get things they don't like banned, I can't say I'm surprised by it (still not happy, and I can't agree with it, but at least I can now understand the rationale). What is the big fuss over tournaments? Type I tournaments are still held and can still be sanctioned. The store I represent is holding a Type I (unsanctioned) tournament next month, and will be holding a Type II later in the summer as well. Type II is certainly geared more towards allowing the newer players to compete, and the only absence of fun I can see in that respect is the sick thrill some people get out of trashing people who have no chance. While I certainly think the rules could be altered or improved upon, I hardly think that WotC is blindly adhering to a policy geared towards removing all enjoyment from the game. Personally, I think the number of expansions allowed in Type II should be from the Dark on...it seems that WotC finally has a firm grasp on what constitutes a too powerful card or expansion...and if one or two spoilers come up, there is nothing preventing them from banning those cards from play or restricting them. One card from the Dark (Maze of Ith) and none from Fallen Empires doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. Of course, there is always the issue of people not being able to play with cards they may spent a great deal to aquire. Personally, I can't say anything to this beyond,"Bad break, but what of it?". Type I tourneys still exist, and there is nothing preventing you from using these cards in casual play. If you're going to spend hundreds of dollars so you can be competitive in a tournament, I can say only this- It's your choice. There are thousands of Magic players out there who just want to play in a tournament and have a chance, and that's what Type II seems geared towards (although I agree it has its flaws). I lost a lot of sympathy for some of the so called 'experienced' players when I saw their behaviour at a recent trading night at a competitors store (note I'm just as experienced as these people are...I've been playing Magic since Alpha...matter of fact, I cracked open one of the first starter decks that arrived in Winnipeg). These 'experienced' players were taking advantage of kids who had started playing with revised. I saw people trying to get dozens of multilands off of teens unaware that they had been removed from 4th Edition, and not informing these kids that multilands were discontinued. They were not amused with me when I informed these kids that multilands were no longer in print. If this is how the 'experienced' Type I supporters are going to behave...well, I am certainly not going to take their side. Just some random comments :) {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} {}Jeff Scott Franzmann {} Twinkle, twinkle, little bat {} {}Internet Representative {} How I wonder where you're at, {} {}Campaign Outfitters {} Up above the world so high {} {}Winnipeg, Manitoba {} Like a tea tray in the sky... {} {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} Opinions expressed above are not those of Campaign Outfitters. They're mine

[pls note the redirected follow-up line --jet] "masatoh" == Masato Hayakawa <mas...@uclink.berkeley.edu> writes: masatoh> Agree. For another example, some openings in chess are so masatoh> common that most masters have them memorized ahead for scores I think that's not such a good analogy, given that we can each afford all the pieces for a tournament legal chess set. :-) masatoh> of moves in dozens of permutations. But are these openings masatoh> restricted? ("Sorry Mr. Kasparov, you can only use one masatoh> opening with the King's pawn.") If played Kasparov, he'd kick my butt because he's good, not because he can afford all the pieces when I only have pawns and maybe a rook. :-) I've spent about $15 on MtG cards. I play in a league at work. No matter how good I get, I'd never be able to win in any tournament (other than sealed deck :-) unless I spent lots of money on cards. I think that's what WotC might be trying to fix. -- J. Eric Townsend j...@genmagic.com USA 408.774.4252 (play: j...@well.sf.ca.us) AT&T PersonaLink: A5803...@attpls.net <a href="http://www.spies.com/jet/jet.html">URL bandwagon of hipitude</a> *** Affiliation shown for identification and contact purposes only. ***

In article <3q448p$5...@agate.berkeley.edu>, Masato Hayakawa <mas...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote: >Canticle (cant...@MBnet.MB.CA) wrote: >: On 25 May 1995, Masato Hayakawa wrote: >: fun. Tournaments can't possibly account for more than .01% of the games >: of Magic played, at best, so changes in the rules for tourneys will have >: relatively little impact overall on the game. People are free to play it >: however they please, tourney legal or not, so unless major overhauls are >: conducted in the actual core rules, WotC seems to be doing ok. The > >It is a myth that tournament rules affect only tournaments. While >tournaments make up only a fraction of the games played, in my experience >the majority of the games played and decks constructed are done so by >"tournament" rules. Do people have 4 (or 6, or 10) Mind Twists in their >denial decks? Why not? It's perfectly legal by the game rules. Why don't >people play 20 Lightning Bolt, 20 Mountain decks? They almost guarantee a >kill on turn 4, and can be put together for under $5. The "basic" rules >(40 cards, no limits) result in totally "broken" decks in environments >with any reasonable amount of card access. Tournament rules are the de >facto standard. (If you want to hear me rant more about this, check my >comments in the 'removal vs restriction' thread in rgtc.misc) Yes most magems around here are based on Tourny rules. Type I Tourny rules. The only time I've seen anyone playing a Type II deck is when they are trying to tune one up for an upcomming tourney. And most of those people around here don't mind playing against Type I decks when they are doing it, since it tends to bring out more problems and lets them make thier decks better. And since cards that were removed from 4E aren't banned or restricted from Type one, we'll still be seing them for a long time.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jake Di Toro | dit...@cs.odu.edu | Karrde ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archivist rec.games.trading-cards.announce | "Sarcasm: The lubricant of Go to r.g.tc.a's home page at: | social intercourse." 'http://www.cs.odu.edu/~ditoro/Admin/' | -unknown -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sit...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Joshua Edward Sitarz) wrote: >So you change the BOX/Wrapper and display boxes to say 'Vampire - The >Eternal Struggle', but the card backs? Can I turn in my current Jyhad cards >to get TES versions? Peace Joshua, Unfortunately, it is too late for WotC to reverse their decision to change card backs (so I've been told FTF). Yes, WotC is considering a trade in, but there is nothing definite yet. >We should start a pool - how long until Jyhad tourneys disallow the old card >backs. I've already publically stated that it will take less than one year for the DC to outlaw mixed decks. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

Masato Hayakawa <mas...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote: >Different situation. The NFL, NBA, etc. are organizations whose audience >is the spectators, not the players. The players are professionals who are >paid to play for the spectators' enjoyment, not their own. If WotC paid >me Michael Jordan's salary (hey, I can dream ;-)) to play Magic, they could >make all the rules changes they want. Yes, different - but still valid. Spectators pay big $ to watch pro sports. Card players pay big $ to play card games. Both want exciting games. The governing body in both cases tweak things to continue to provide exciting games. They've decided the game would be more fun/balanced without some cards. So they chose not to print them anymore. WotC thinks that tourny games will be much more interesting to play if there isn't a set of core cards that are in absolutely every deck. The NBA thinks that basketball games will be much more fun to watch if the optimal strategy isn't "get a real big dude in the low post" for every team. However, if you want to, no one's stopping you from playing Type I tournys. Hell, no one's stopping you from playing an all lightning bolt deck if you can find opponents. How is the Type II tourny any different in concept from the "4 card limit and restricted list"?? The problem with the Multiland thing is that now there's a whole new class of cards that are out of print must have money cards. The game would have been better served by adding Blood Moon or similar multiland screwers to 4E at an uncommon rate. Alec [ quoted text not captured ]

Masato Hayakawa <mas...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote: >No offense taken. To be honest, I didn't address the "SFB" portion of the >argument because I didn't really know what "SFB" is. (The original poster >didn't define the acronym.) I assume it is a Star Trek board game? Sorry. "Star Fleet Battles". About the only other board game (outside of things like Chess or Hoyle based cards) where there is a serious tournament following. Things like ASL (Advanced Squad Leader) or D&D are scenario driven rather than rules driven, so don't count. As to your worry about the "Type II" rules becoming the norm for casual play that the "4 card limit" rule is, I seriously doubt it. People want to have fun with their cards. In a group where people have lots of older cards, they'll continue to play with the Type I rules. If such a person plays with a lot of new players, then they'll have to work something out on their own. Personally, I wouldn't consider it too sporting to play a killer OoP deck vs. players who didn't have access to those cards. Your milage may vary. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jake Di Toro (ODU) <j...@hampton.cs.odu.edu> wrote: >Masato Hayakawa <mas...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote: >> >>It is a myth that tournament rules affect only tournaments. While >>tournaments make up only a fraction of the games played, in my experience >>the majority of the games played and decks constructed are done so by >>"tournament" rules. Do people have 4 (or 6, or 10) Mind Twists in their >>denial decks? Why not? It's perfectly legal by the game rules. Why don't >>people play 20 Lightning Bolt, 20 Mountain decks? They almost guarantee a >>kill on turn 4, and can be put together for under $5. The "basic" rules >>(40 cards, no limits) result in totally "broken" decks in environments >>with any reasonable amount of card access. Tournament rules are the de >>facto standard. (If you want to hear me rant more about this, check my >>comments in the 'removal vs restriction' thread in rgtc.misc) > > Yes most magems around here are based on Tourny rules. Type I >Tourny rules. The only time I've seen anyone playing a Type II deck >is when they are trying to tune one up for an upcomming tourney. And >most of those people around here don't mind playing against Type I >decks when they are doing it, since it tends to bring out more >problems and lets them make thier decks better. And since cards that >were removed from 4E aren't banned or restricted from Type one, we'll >still be seing them for a long time.. And new players, without such critical cards as multilands, will have a harder time competing in this environment than ever before. Answer this question honestly: would you recommend to a friend that he/she start playing Magic for the first time today? Mike

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >Unfortunately, it is too late for WotC to reverse their decision to change >card backs (so I've been told FTF). Yes, WotC is considering a trade in, but >there is nothing definite yet. Actually, it's never too late for a decision to be unmade - even after the cards hit the shelves they _could_ always go back, as an extreme example. But of course, the longer they go from now, the bigger the hit will be if they change their minds. On the other hand, if no one buys the cards they're printing (or are almost ready to print) now, they're going to take a financial hit anyway, so it all just depends. Personally, I suspect if they had a change of heart the decision could be reversed but only a WotC accountant and a prophet could confirm that. At this point, it seems academic. Fred

Alec Habig (aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu) wrote: : Masato Hayakawa <mas...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote: : >Different situation. The NFL, NBA, etc. are organizations whose audience : >is the spectators, not the players. The players are professionals who are : >paid to play for the spectators' enjoyment, not their own. If WotC paid : >me Michael Jordan's salary (hey, I can dream ;-)) to play Magic, they could : >make all the rules changes they want. : Yes, different - but still valid. Spectators pay big $ to watch pro sports. : Card players pay big $ to play card games. Both want exciting games. The : governing body in both cases tweak things to continue to provide exciting : games. [stuff deleted] Completely agree, but I see an important difference. The rules changes in the NFL, etc. were made because the fans (folks spending money) wanted them (more touchdowns instead of FGs, whatever). (Or at least the league thought that the fans wanted it.) By that line of reasoning, WotC rules changes should be made because players (folks spending money) want them. But that's generally not the case. Jyhad/V:TES card backs are an excellent example of that. The newsgroup poll was ovewhelmingly against it, but WotC did it anyway. : However, if you want to, no one's stopping you from playing Type I tournys. : Hell, no one's stopping you from playing an all lightning bolt deck if you can : find opponents. How is the Type II tourny any different in concept from the "4 : card limit and restricted list"?? Well, first let me say me say that *I'm not talking about Type II tournaments.* Everyone who responded seems to be under the impression I'm a pro-Type I guy, but I'm not addressing the tournament issue. I started in this thread by writing about the conflict between players' wants and WotC's vision, arguing that players' wants should be the priority. As for the Type I/II thing, I'm pretty neutral (I don't play tournaments all that often). Sorry if anything I wrote seemed to be leading down that (all too well-trodden) road. : The problem with the Multiland thing is that now there's a whole new class of : cards that are out of print must have money cards. The game would have been : better served by adding Blood Moon or similar multiland screwers to 4E at an : uncommon rate. Again, I agree. Multi hosers would be a lot more interesting than just making more money cards. (Changing multis to uncommon also is a possible alternative.) I think our sentiments are shared by numerous other players who want to play multi-color decks. (Not necessarily killer decks, just ones with 3+ colors) But not WotC--they were concerned about their vision of Magic and allied colors or whatever. Guess who won--WotC's vision of what should be over customer demand. *That* is the problem I'm talking about. Masato Hayakawa mas...@uclink.berkeley.edu

In article <mobrienD...@netcom.com>, Michael O'Brien <mob...@netcom.com> wrote: >Jake Di Toro (ODU) <j...@hampton.cs.odu.edu> wrote: >>Masato Hayakawa <mas...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote: >>> >>>It is a myth that tournament rules affect only tournaments. While >> >> Yes most magems around here are based on Tourny rules. Type I >>Tourny rules. The only time I've seen anyone playing a Type II deck >>is when they are trying to tune one up for an upcomming tourney. And >>most of those people around here don't mind playing against Type I >>decks when they are doing it, since it tends to bring out more >>problems and lets them make thier decks better. And since cards that >>were removed from 4E aren't banned or restricted from Type one, we'll >>still be seing them for a long time.. > >And new players, without such critical cards as multilands, will have a >harder time competing in this environment than ever before. Multilands are not the Be All End All of existiance. The only time you really need them are in 3+ color decks. We recently had a Type I tourny here and the bulk of the decks were 2 color decks with limited multilands. People flocked to this tourney greatly too, and THE guy to beat, (arround here that is) was at the tourny along with some one who had started 4 days ago. And everyone had a good time and the competion was high, even againt a newbie. >Answer this question honestly: would you recommend to a friend that >he/she start playing Magic for the first time today? Yes I would, and I haven't come across anything in the game ever that has made me thing otherwise. When 4E came out I was disapointed by one thing. "Multis are out.. Oh well, I'll deal." I've been playing since Jan 1994 and would welcome anyone who wanted to start out. [ quoted text not captured ]

It's been a while since I've posted to this group, but I'd thought I would chime in on this one with my opinion. WotC may be changing the backs of *some* of the Jyhad cards, but it doesn't ruin the game or it's collectibility. ONLY the orange vampire cards will be changed to V:TES on the back, the green library cards will retain the Vampire logo. So you see, the change is rathre cosmetic, but it does allow for marletability and retains the majority of fluidity with the previous version. As for Magic and the complaints of being *forced* to forever buy more cards: you have no one but yourself to blame. There is no one sitting by the card stockpiles in the stores with a gun forcing you to buy them. The only force involved is your lack of willpower or a never-ending pocketbook. I own only 105 Magic cards, that's it. That's all I need. As for their marketing and trying to make some money, what would you really do in the same situation? Right, you'd try to make money and keep the company going. We really cannot be angry or fault them for doing this, what else are they suppposed to do. Another reason to applaud the release of Chronicles. It should not only allow access to cards new users don't have, but should also take the sting out of the secondary market. Granted they don't want to kill it completely, because the secondary market does drive sales for the rest of the cards. But hey, we can't be critical of sound business. We can't expect them to cater to our every whim. We should also note that at this point WotC is also vastly understaffed. Employees are working 12-16 hour days already, what more can we expect. Just an opinion... Greg Zuvich Lord Deacon of Vale ju...@gladstone.uoregon.edu On 21 May 1995, Andrew wrote: > Joshua Kronengold (mn...@dorsai.org) wrote: > > > Incidentally, this kind of post is NOT apropriate to > > rec.game-trading-cards.misc. What do players of non-jyhad non-magic > > care about WoTC's latest betrayl? > > In article <drkhoeD8...@netcom.com>, Dr. Mosh <drk...@netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > >This is apparent with the Jyhad CCG. Despite strong sentiments that players > > >DO NOT want the card back changed, WotC has gone ahead and done so. For the > > >sake of "marketability". > > > I'll agree with you on VtES; what they did was entirely unnessary, and > > amounted to abandoing all of their previous players. > > > >This is also apparent with the Duelist Convocation, they don't care about those > > >who started playing the game with their so called "broken cards" such as the > > >spoilers and such. They want Type II to be the standard so they can sell more > > >of their new "balanced" expansion sets. > > > Bull. They do care about those who started with the indisputably > > broken cards like multis, loti, and moxen, which is why type I stil > > exists. However, WoTC wants to produce the best, most intresting game > > they can, and a game in which certain rare cards wil enhance any deck, > > and significantly increase your hance of winning the game, regardless > > of strategy, is not interestingly playable, and is not a good game. If > > you want a dull, non-random, unintresting game, play war with a > > stacked deck, or play magic with a deck consisting of 27 wheels of > > fortune, 29 Black Loti, and 4 feldon's canes. > > -----------> > Jesus get a clue... of COURSE Type II is made for Wot$ to make more > money by forcing the player to constantly buy more cards. If this > WASN'T the case they would put out a Type II "acceptable" list that > had cards from the last few expansions and the last few main editions > as ALWAYS OK... but of course they will never do this as they want to > keep you buying the next expansion etc ad nauseum... > Plus this has nothing to do with Type I... why try to change the subject? > Considering you will have to keep buying sets to compete in Type II.. > maybe you should just buy a Lotus and a couple Moxes to do Type I? > Probably will even work out cheaper this way. > Wot$ has become just another corporation... yanking "offensive" cards > etc... > Do you also violently stick up for MacDonald's and Pepsi?? > > > > > > > >Ultimately, they want to tell YOU how to play the game. They want YOU to > > > Of course they do. That's their job, they created the game, and on > > them is the onus to modify it. > > > > > -- > > Joshua Kronengold -- mn...@dorsai.org > > GCS/MU d? H++ s:- !g !p+ !au a- w+ !v+? C+++>++++ US++>L++++ P+ L++ 3 E++ > > N++ K++ !W M V-- -po+(---) Y+ t+(--) 5++ !j R++ G++++('''') tv-- b+++ D > > B--- e+* u++* h! f+ r++ n--- !x* > >

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950525112...@gladstone.uoregon.edu>, Greg Zuvich <ju...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote: >It's been a while since I've posted to this group, but I'd thought I >would chime in on this one with my opinion. WotC may be changing the >backs of *some* of the Jyhad cards, but it doesn't ruin the game or it's >collectibility. ONLY the orange vampire cards will be changed to V:TES >on the back, the green library cards will retain the Vampire logo. So I'll assume that you don't read the Jyhad group, and you're following this thread in the misc group. Because it is quite official that ALL Jyhad cards will be changed, front and back, to reflect the game's new look. All cards will have the V:tES logo on them (the green biohazard symbol is, I believe, still part of that logo), none will say Jyhad. All of the card fronts will change to reflect different coding schemes, which are supposed to be easier to decipher. While no cards in the set will be changed as far as we know, some will be clarified as to function. The word Jyhad has been totally expunged from the game cards. That is official. This information has been confirmed in posts by Tom Wylie, Charles Keith-Stanley, Ken McGlothlen and Peter Adkinson. | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "There. That should do nicely. After all, we don't want the locals to see grannies clipped to trash bins by their teeth, do we?" -- Mr. Gone

In article <3q531r$m...@agate.berkeley.edu>, Masato Hayakawa <mas...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote: >: The problem with the Multiland thing is that now there's a whole new class of >: cards that are out of print must have money cards. The game would have been >: better served by adding Blood Moon or similar multiland screwers to 4E at an >: uncommon rate. > >Again, I agree. Multi hosers would be a lot more interesting than just >making more money cards. (Changing multis to uncommon also is a possible >alternative.) I think our sentiments are shared by numerous other >players who want to play multi-color decks. (Not necessarily killer >decks, just ones with 3+ colors) But not WotC--they were concerned about >their vision of Magic and allied colors or whatever. Guess >who won--WotC's vision of what should be over customer demand. *That* is the >problem I'm talking about. Hmmm... this is a good point. However, I can think of two factors that might influence WotC to make decisions in spite of customer response: 1) They think there are lots of unresponsive customers that they think they'll lose if they follow the responsive (usually read, on the net at least, as "a little obsessed with the game") customers' output. 2) They -- to put it bluntly --don't trust us (old customers) to know what we like. They think that, if they leave multis in, we'll just keep playing tons of Bolt-countermagic-Disenchant decks, and we'll get bored and leave because the spoilers make the game too easy. They have acknowledged that overpowered building blocks have to exist, and that they don't want to see lots of said blocks in decks. I don't quite understand how they could think this myself, but I want to make clear a point that has been implied in a number of threads -- tourney rules do *partially* determine what goes into decks, but, in fun play, most of what determines deck content is your play group. If I say "I wanna play my spoiler-laden white everything denial deck," then someone will respond "okay, I'll test my equally spoiler-laden vice mine deck against it," or he/she'll say "put that damn thing away before we hurt you." Fun play rapidly evolves once people get bored with mass death. Remember the initial evolution of Magic? I think it was Garfield himself (or maybe Zak Dolan) who said it: the game went from "can I win?" -- which anyone with tons of money and a modicum of experience can do -- to "can I win with this deck, or something like it?" Fun groups will sneer at stupid boring killer decks. Now, playing 16 artifacts in one turn and sacrificing *all* of them, now *that's* cool. Dave G.

In article <mobrienD...@netcom.com> mob...@netcom.com (Michael O'Brien) writes: >Jake Di Toro (ODU) <j...@hampton.cs.odu.edu> wrote: >>Masato Hayakawa <mas...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote: [Stuff about tournament rules and their effect on casual play deleted] >Answer this question honestly: would you recommend to a friend that >he/she start playing Magic for the first time today? Yes. I'd give them a set of commons and some uncommons and rares from the first printing set (A/B/unlimited), a copy of the original rules, and recommend that they *not* buy any more cards, and only play with people who use the original rules, esp. for timing. But that's my own bias -- I play Ars Magica with the 2nd edition rules, too. When a company screws up a game, I'm perfectly happy to stick with the old product rather than start using the new one. -- Tom Doehne doe...@cse.ogi.edu

Charles M. Kozierok <i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> wrote: >} Rules and cards are not changed simply because tournaments start to follow >} certain patterns. >You're contradicting yourself. On this very newsgroup you said >"Any creature that appears as a staple in tournaments makes >itself a candidate for removal." Or something very close. A *candidate* for removal, yes, again because tournaments tend to expose the broken cards. But that does not mean it will automatically be removed. For example, Serra Angels are staple tournament cards, but we haven't removed them, and aren't likely to. There will always be creatures that are the cream of the crop, and will thus be used routinely in tournaments, and that's fine. But we should look at those creatures to find out if they're broken, or merely good/popular. [ quoted text not captured ]

Masato Hayakawa <mas...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote: >To sum up, I guess I'm saying that the players have as much claim to >Magic as WotC/DC. Our individual visions of ways to play the game are >just as legitimate as Richard Garfield's (win-loss records aside ;-)). >The beauty of Magic is that both WotC's vision and our own can be >accomodated by the game--WotC should recognize that, rather than trying >to change the game to suit its own vision. Great. So follow your own vision, and play with all of the cards that you have. Heck, go wild and play with as many copies of those cards as you have. We really don't care. The goal here is to have fun, not to follow a restrictive set of tournament rules each and every time you play the game. We set up the tournament rules for tournaments, not for private play. Yes, I know people habitually build their decks to tournament rules, there's no reason you *have* to do that unless you're playing in a tournament, or testing out a tournament deck. And yes, the tournament rules make for a nice standard deck construction set when you're travelling and playing against new people. But there is no reason a group of people that meet every week or several times a week and play should have to follow the tournament rules, unless every single game is played to test out a tournament deck. If that's not the case, and you're just playing for fun, feel free to adjust the tournament rules to fit your group, or just make up your own deck construction rules. If you're not having fun with the rules you're playing under, play with different rules! The only time we care which cards people use is in sanctioned play. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3qakpf$i...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: } } Charles M. Kozierok <i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> wrote: } >} Rules and cards are not changed simply because tournaments start to follow } >} certain patterns. } >You're contradicting yourself. On this very newsgroup you said } >"Any creature that appears as a staple in tournaments makes } >itself a candidate for removal." Or something very close. } } A *candidate* for removal, yes, again because tournaments tend to expose } the broken cards. But that does not mean it will automatically be removed. Irrelevant. I never claimed that you said they would be "automatically" removed. I disputed your implication that what happens at tournaments impacts on decisions that affect the rest of the playing base. -*- charles

In article <3qalam$i...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: } } Masato Hayakawa <mas...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote: } >To sum up, I guess I'm saying that the players have as much claim to } >Magic as WotC/DC. Our individual visions of ways to play the game are } >just as legitimate as Richard Garfield's (win-loss records aside ;-)). } >The beauty of Magic is that both WotC's vision and our own can be } >accomodated by the game--WotC should recognize that, rather than trying } >to change the game to suit its own vision. } } Great. So follow your own vision, and play with all of the cards that } you have. Heck, go wild and play with as many copies of those cards as you } have. We really don't care. The goal here is to have fun, not to follow } a restrictive set of tournament rules each and every time you play the game. } } We set up the tournament rules for tournaments, not for private play. Yes, } I know people habitually build their decks to tournament rules, there's no } reason you *have* to do that unless you're playing in a tournament, or testing } out a tournament deck. And yes, the tournament rules make for a nice standard } deck construction set when you're travelling and playing against new people. I cannot believe that WotC is acting so dense about this particular issue. It is really very simple: the rules of the game, as laid out in the starter-deck rulebooks, do not work. They lead to degenerate decks and boring games. So people *have to* find an alternative. Of the three choices (start deck rules, arbitrary local rules, and tournament rules), tournament rules are the least problematic. Claiming that you have to remove zillions of good cards from the game because they are "broken" when THE RULES THEMSELVES ARE BROKEN is nonsensical to the extreme. I believe something like "penny wise, pound foolish" comes to mind. Of course this sort of behavior is not inconsistent if you are more concerned with tournament play than that of the rest of the base, something I claim and you deny. -*- charles

In article <3qavgi$h...@life.ai.mit.edu>, Charles M. Kozierok <i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> wrote: } In article <3qakpf$i...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, } Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: } } } } Charles M. Kozierok <i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> wrote: } } >} Rules and cards are not changed simply because tournaments start to follow } } >} certain patterns. } } >You're contradicting yourself. On this very newsgroup you said } } >"Any creature that appears as a staple in tournaments makes } } >itself a candidate for removal." Or something very close. } } } } A *candidate* for removal, yes, again because tournaments tend to expose } } the broken cards. But that does not mean it will automatically be removed. } } Irrelevant. I never claimed that you said they would be "automatically" } removed. I disputed your implication that what happens at tournaments } impacts on decisions that affect the rest of the playing base. ^^^^^^^ That should be "does not impact". -*- charles

Please Stop this big ass Thread. We all Know that Wizards $eem really fucked up lately.

i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Charles M. Kozierok) writes: >In article <3qalam$i...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, >Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >} We set up the tournament rules for tournaments, not for private play. Yes, >} I know people habitually build their decks to tournament rules, there's no >} reason you *have* to do that unless you're playing in a tournament, or >} testing out a tournament deck. And yes, the tournament rules make for a >} nice standard deck construction set when you're travelling and playing >} against new people. > >I cannot believe that WotC is acting so dense about this particular >issue. I do think it's interesting that WotC seems to have advanced the argument that the Convocation permits differing card backs in Jyhad/V:tES tournament play as one of the prime reasons that players should be complacent about the card back situation. I suppose a "razor" argument will be advanced to explain why the Convocation's rules are significant in the one situation but not the other. But I do find it personally irritating since IMHO the Convocation's rules really have much more practical weight in defining acceptable Type I Magic deck construction rules than they do in defining whether we should think it's OK to use differing card backs in a collectible trading card game. In all fairness about the Magic issue, though, the Convocation really did not at any time _ask_ to become the "default rules body" for Magic deck construction and their status as such is not entirely within WotC's power. For instance, if a popular "Player's Convocation" (or whatever it would be called) does organize, it might supplant WotC's Convocation regardless of what the latter does. Fred

Charles M. Kozierok <i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> wrote: >I cannot believe that WotC is acting so dense about this particular >issue. It is really very simple: the rules of the game, as laid >out in the starter-deck rulebooks, do not work. They lead to >degenerate decks and boring games. So people *have to* find an >alternative. Of the three choices (start deck rules, arbitrary local >rules, and tournament rules), tournament rules are the least problematic. That is not necessarily true. What is best for tournaments is not necessarily best for private play. Simple example: Shahrazad. This is only banned because it makes matches take forever, which is not necessarily a concern in private play. Tournament play and private play are not synonymous. Most games exist perfectly well with tournament rules that are ignored in private play. The whole point to having *tournament* rules is that they are a construct which is added on to the basic game, not something that is required for the game to be viable. In the ideal trading card game, there should be no reason to have to tell people not to play with their cards, except for certain special cases like ante. When you think about it, even putting a four card limit on all cards is telling people not to play with their fifth, sixth, etc card. Restricting a card is even worse... not only do repetitions of a card become worthless that much quicker, it becomes that much harder to trade away the excess. The deck construction rules for Magic are only necessary in any sense once you get into wild, trading environments where people are buying cards by the boxful, not a couple of boosters at the time. While this is unfortunate, it's not terribly surprising given that no one was expecting people to routinely spend hundreds of dollars buying Magic cards. But the best solution to the situation is not to saddle the game with deck construction rules. The best solution is to balance the card set to the point where deck construction rules are not necessary at all, and leave those rules for tournament environments where people are playing with the older, broken cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

Any particular reason you want to post about Magic on this JYHAD group? And, if you are such a detractor of WotC why bother with the arrogant and condescending style of writing that seems to typify your arguments? You will not really change anyone's mind. Granted you may give many food for thought, but actual change... most likely not. BTW, they wrote the Magic rulebook to be wide open, to leave room for personal "house rules", not to act as a straight-jacket by promulgating the edict of tournament rules to everyone. I believe the rules are fine because they allow for personal modification... much to the confoundment of those people lacking in imagination or too uptight about rules lawyering. As for people stacking decks with the "zillions of good cards" you claim they are throwing away... if they are foolish enough to pay more than a $.25 for any given card, let em. Nothing says I have to play against them. In the end WotC has done a respectable job with Magic and Jyhad. We can criticize all we want, but would our choices differ so very greatly if we were making the command calls and it was us running the company? Didn't think so. Just as an aside... you wouldn't happen to be one of those people pissed off about the release of Chronicles? I also sugges that any further debate on this subject we move to private email and spare the rest of this JYHAD group. Greg Zuvich Lord Deacon of Vale ju...@gladstone.uoregon.edu > I cannot believe that WotC is acting so dense about this particular > issue. It is really very simple: the rules of the game, as laid > out in the starter-deck rulebooks, do not work. They lead to > degenerate decks and boring games. So people *have to* find an > alternative. Of the three choices (start deck rules, arbitrary local > rules, and tournament rules), tournament rules are the least problematic. > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3qdrf6$3...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: } The deck construction rules for Magic are only necessary in any sense once } you get into wild, trading environments where people are buying cards by } the boxful, not a couple of boosters at the time. While this is unfortunate, } it's not terribly surprising given that no one was expecting people to } routinely spend hundreds of dollars buying Magic cards. But given that this "wild, trading environment" is basically *everywhere* doesn't it make sense to acknowledge it? You *know* people trade to get the cards they want and that spending $70 (at least) on cards is no big deal even for kids. Why pretend it isn't happening? } But the best solution } to the situation is not to saddle the game with deck construction rules. } The best solution is to balance the card set to the point where deck } construction rules are not necessary at all, and leave those rules for } tournament environments where people are playing with the older, broken cards. Tom, you continue to miss the point. Without deck construction rules even non-broken cards lead to broken decks. It does *not* take buying cards by the boxful to put together 20 Swamp, 20 Dark Ritual, 20 Drain Life decks. It doesn't! I could put one together for a dollar. It's not even particularly hard to acquire 5 or 10 Mind Twists. -*- charles

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950529135356.110...@gladstone.uoregon.edu>, Greg Zuvich <ju...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote: } Any particular reason you want to post about Magic on this JYHAD group? Sorry, someone crossposted it there and I just noticed it now. I have set followups to exclude it. } And, if you are such a detractor of WotC why bother with the arrogant and } condescending style of writing that seems to typify your arguments? You } will not really change anyone's mind. Granted you may give many food for } thought, but actual change... most likely not. Perhaps that is my goal? } BTW, they wrote the Magic } rulebook to be wide open, to leave room for personal "house rules", not } to act as a straight-jacket by promulgating the edict of tournament rules } to everyone. I believe the rules are fine because they allow for } personal modification... much to the confoundment of those people lacking } in imagination or too uptight about rules lawyering. Is that an insult? Well, it doesn't apply to me. The fact is that 99% of people use the tournament rules in casual play to prevent having to face decks with 10 Braingeysers in them. I guess the human race is lacking in imagination or uptight. } As for people } stacking decks with the "zillions of good cards" you claim they are } throwing away... if they are foolish enough to pay more than a $.25 for } any given card, let em. Nothing says I have to play against them. I do not recall saying anything of the sort. } Just as an aside... you wouldn't happen to be one of those } people pissed off about the release of Chronicles? Not in the slightest... why on earth would you think that? I haven't said thing one about Chronicles. -*- charles

Greg Zuvich <ju...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote: >Any particular reason you want to post about Magic on this JYHAD group? Actually, the topics of this thread arguably extend to all trading card games: Magic, Jyhad, INWO, Rage, etc. Every game needs to consider how much card rarity should balance things, how rigid the default deck construction rules should be, and so on. The topic of whether per-card limits are necessary at all are very relevant to Jyhad, for example, where we specifically tried to avoid needing such restrictions. [ quoted text not captured ]

Charles M. Kozierok <i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> wrote: >} The deck construction rules for Magic are only necessary in any sense once >} you get into wild, trading environments where people are buying cards by >} the boxful, not a couple of boosters at the time. While this is unfortunate, >} it's not terribly surprising given that no one was expecting people to >} routinely spend hundreds of dollars buying Magic cards. >But given that this "wild, trading environment" is basically *everywhere* >doesn't it make sense to acknowledge it? You *know* people trade to get >the cards they want and that spending $70 (at least) on cards is no big >deal even for kids. Why pretend it isn't happening? We're not denying that it's happening. The point is that it has become the norm, and the question becomes how best to account for what actually happens with trading card cards, namely the wild environment. Our opinion is that it is better to balance the card set than to burden the game with deck construction rules. >Tom, you continue to miss the point. Without deck construction rules >even non-broken cards lead to broken decks. It does *not* take buying >cards by the boxful to put together 20 Swamp, 20 Dark Ritual, 20 Drain Life >decks. It doesn't! I could put one together for a dollar. It's not >even particularly hard to acquire 5 or 10 Mind Twists. And my point is that while a Drain Life deck might be dull, it's probably not going to win a disproportionate amount of the time, so is not broken from a game balance point of view. Deck construction rules should not be *necessary* for a game to be balanced; whether people tack them on to keep decks more interesting is another matter entirely. [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >Yes, but I thought you said that you didn't quite succeed (at eliminating >the need for card limits) with Ice Ages. If you can't do it with Ice >Ages, will you ever be able to, and when will you do it? We can't predict success. We will keep trying to eliminate the need for card limits... maybe it will happen with the next standalone expansion (assuming there is one), and maybe we won't. >In the meantime, I see no need to blanket ban all out-of-print cards >(by pushing only Type II tournaments). We are not pushing *only* Type II tournaments. People will continue to be able to sanction, and play in, Type I tournaments if we want. We are simply shifting the focus of the Convocation, since the percentage of members who have the cards to compete effectively in Type I is dwindling. >Banning out-of-print spoilers would be a good idea, but >most OOPs cards are no more problematic than the average 4E card. True (after all, a lot of them got promoted into Fourth Edition), but in many ways it's cleaner to restrict the card set to recent printings, than to have a restricted list with 60+ entries. [ quoted text not captured ]

Some time ago aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) happily mumbled: >Tournament play and private play are not synonymous. Most games exist >perfectly well with tournament rules that are ignored in private play. >The whole point to having *tournament* rules is that they are a construct >which is added on to the basic game, not something that is required for >the game to be viable. But they are. Honestly, while I wouldn't play one (and I wouldn't play someone twice who had one), a 20-lightning bolt, 20-mountain deck is a KILLER deck. The game is *NOT VIABLE* if decks like this are legal. What, you think everybody who builds their decks to Type I or Type II standards is testing out a tournament deck? No, they're being good folks, and not building degenerate decks! WITHOUT DECK CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES, MAGIC IS NOT A VIABLE GAME. The broken cards in a no-guideline-game are on the COMMON sheet! Nobody'd bother with Forks, Balances, Shaharazads, Time Elementals, etc... They'd be useless. It'd be a matter of who could go first, basically. Deck construction guidelines are an absolute necessity for the survival of the game. Once upon a time, WotC recognized this. I think they may have forgotten. Go ahead, run a no-limits 4E *ONLY* game. Then go back and decide carefully what sort of limits you want to continue to impose. Maybe you'll understand why people will go, "You're not playing a tournament legal deck? I won't play you." Because once it's known that it's not tournament legal, it opens up the host of degeneracies that are available. *THAT* is why WotC *MUST* give some deck construction guidelines, other than 40 cards minimum, period. I understand that it's not something that WotC thinks should be necessary, but even without the horribly broken 3 for 1 cards (that's Lightning Bolt, Healing Salve, Dark Ritual, Giant Growth, Ancestral Recall) the decks can STILL be far too powerful without limits. That means that some limits will HAVE be used. The problem then becomes what deck construction rules to use. Well, there is one set, and ONLY one set of rules which are known to every player of the game. (Barring the set in the IBR, which is effectively no rules...) That set is the tournament rules. Frankly, I think that a deck of just 32 llanawar elves and 9 basic forests is even scarier than the lightning bolt deck... *grin* The basic idea here is that the deck construction rules in the Itty-Bitty (not so itty-bitty anymore) rulebook are *BROKEN*. The cards that make it so, are not on the rare sheet, either. They're on the common sheet. For $3, I could build a terrifyingly successful, but annoying deck. >In the ideal trading card game, there should be no reason to have to tell >people not to play with their cards, except for certain special cases like >ante. When you think about it, even putting a four card limit on all cards >is telling people not to play with their fifth, sixth, etc card. Restricting >a card is even worse... not only do repetitions of a card become worthless >that much quicker, it becomes that much harder to trade away the excess. Well, it encourages them to play with more than one deck, if you limit it to four and they have more than four. Four's a good number though, and I think it's been too long since you've been bored to tears by a LB/Mountain deck. If you saw one again today, you'd remember, I think, why deck construction rules exist. >The deck construction rules for Magic are only necessary in any sense once >you get into wild, trading environments where people are buying cards by >the boxful, not a couple of boosters at the time. While this is unfortunate, >it's not terribly surprising given that no one was expecting people to >routinely spend hundreds of dollars buying Magic cards. But the best solution >to the situation is not to saddle the game with deck construction rules. >The best solution is to balance the card set to the point where deck >construction rules are not necessary at all, and leave those rules for >tournament environments where people are playing with the older, broken cards. Tom, once and for all, it's not the restricted list or the banned list that I (and many others) care about. It's deck construction rules that are friendly to everyone, available to everyone, and supported by WotC. That's all I'm looking for. Frankly, being familiar as I am with the politics of fandom, I don't believe in the long run of a Players Convocation. You've got folks paid to do that. The players won't, they don't have time, or money, to do that. All we need is an article in the Duelist, outlining a few individually named 'styles' of deck construction. A restricted list that includes the banned-for-tournament-play cards, for example. Maybe some good suggestions for setting up bubble-leagues in the area. (We've got a few really GOOD bubble leagues in this area, which folks are excited about...) That sort of thing would revolutionize interest in ante games, in fun-play, basically making the tournament types NOT THE ONLY TYPE THAT EVERYBODY RECOGNIZES. Anything like that. I agree, I can come up with rules to play by, local rules, I can meet damned near any construction guideline challenge. *BUT* I need to be able to express to someone else in simple terms what guidelines my deck is constructed under. And the only way to do that in a *REAL* way, so that I can go to Scotland and they'll understand, so I can go to New York, and they'll understand, etc., is to have WotC present and support it. Not as a tournament type necessarily, but as a supported guideline nonetheless. The IBR's guidelines are broken, even in 4E only environments. I believe you know that. I believe you'll (as WotC) fix it... I'd just like to have some idea as to when, and maybe a LITTLE input on how. -- Morgan Schweers -- Morgan Schweers | New Chrome Grass! Finger m...@netcom.com for my PGP key | Live fast, die \ B1 S4 a b g j++! k l? p r- s t+ u v- w+ x y- z, approx.__/ old, and leave a smouldering pile of metal as a corpse... It's never enough, until your heart stops beating, the deeper you get, the sweeter the pain...

In article <3qg0rd$i...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: } } Charles M. Kozierok <i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> wrote: } >} The deck construction rules for Magic are only necessary in any sense once } >} you get into wild, trading environments where people are buying cards by } >} the boxful, not a couple of boosters at the time. While this is unfortunate, } >} it's not terribly surprising given that no one was expecting people to } >} routinely spend hundreds of dollars buying Magic cards. } >But given that this "wild, trading environment" is basically *everywhere* } >doesn't it make sense to acknowledge it? You *know* people trade to get } >the cards they want and that spending $70 (at least) on cards is no big } >deal even for kids. Why pretend it isn't happening? } } We're not denying that it's happening. The point is that it has become } the norm, and the question becomes how best to account for what actually } happens with trading card cards, namely the wild environment. Our opinion } is that it is better to balance the card set than to burden the game } with deck construction rules. Two points: 1. "Balancing the card set" ignores the installed base of thousands of players, who are not going to bonfire their cards and play with 4E. Period. And it is this sort of comment that leads to accusations like "WotC only cares about what happens in tournaments." 2. There is no way to balance the card set without taking out every card that is good. } >Tom, you continue to miss the point. Without deck construction rules } >even non-broken cards lead to broken decks. It does *not* take buying } >cards by the boxful to put together 20 Swamp, 20 Dark Ritual, 20 Drain Life } >decks. It doesn't! I could put one together for a dollar. It's not } >even particularly hard to acquire 5 or 10 Mind Twists. } } And my point is that while a Drain Life deck might be dull, it's probably } not going to win a disproportionate amount of the time, so is not broken } from a game balance point of view. There are oodles of degenerate deck designs using even 4E that whack other balanced decks a disproportionate amount of time. I think 10 Mishra's, 10 Plains, 10 Balances and 10 Racks might do pretty well. There are oodles of other examples. Picking one example and saying it doesn't seem that good just avoids the point. } Deck construction rules should not } be *necessary* for a game to be balanced; whether people tack them on to } keep decks more interesting is another matter entirely. Well, I think WotC should stop insisting that the construction rules "*shouldn't* be necessary" while the rest of the world sees so obviously that they *are*. cheers, -*- charles

Sigh... Charles M. Kozierok <i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> wrote: >} } >} Rules and cards are not changed simply because tournaments start to ^^^^^^ >} } >} follow certain patterns. >} Irrelevant. I never claimed that you said they would be "automatically" >} removed. I disputed your implication that what happens at tournaments >} [does not impact] on decisions that affect the rest of the playing base. If you look carefully, I never claimed that what happens in tournaments doesn't impact the overall design of the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) >The best solution is to balance the card set to the point where deck >construction rules are not necessary at all, and leave those rules for >tournament environments where people are playing with the older, broken cards. Yes, but I thought you said that you didn't quite succeed (at eliminating the need for card limits) with Ice Ages. If you can't do it with Ice Ages, will you ever be able to, and when will you do it? In the meantime, I see no need to blanket ban all out-of-print cards (by pushing only Type II tournaments). Banning out-of-print spoilers would be a good idea, but most OOPs cards are no more problematic than the average 4E card. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: The deck construction rules for Magic are only necessary in any sense once you get into wild, trading environments The word is not ``wild''; it is ``ordinary''. Trying to label the usual case with a word to which you then lend perjorative overtones does not help your case one whit. where people are buying cards by the boxful, not a couple of boosters at the time. Bugger me, Tom, this must be the daftest thing I've ever seen you write. I've never bought cards by the boxful; my finances (and my SO!) don't permit. I've been playing for all of eight months. I haven't even traded very much, although I *have* brought multiple singles, partly to boost my sons collection. The 4-card limit stops me from building degenerate Plague Rat or Lightning Bolt or ... decks. While this is unfortunate, it's not terribly surprising given that no one was expecting people to routinely spend hundreds of dollars buying Magic cards. Not at first, no. But six months ago it must have been blazingly obvious. But the best solution to the situation is not to saddle the game with deck construction rules. Call this ``solution A''. The best solution is to balance the card set to the point where deck construction rules are not necessary at all, Call this ``solution B''. Why is Solution B ``better''? What are your criteria? Do you know if solution B is even *possible* without just rendering the game a more colourful version of Canasta? and leave those rules for tournament environments where people are playing with the older, broken cards. Bad card. Wicked card. Broken card. Go away, bad card, or Daddy will eat you up and stuff you down the hopper. -- Regards, | ``"I can't suit myself," said Weinbaum, a little petulantly. Kers. | "I work for the Government".'' - Blish, "The Quincunx of Time".

ke...@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) writes: >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: > But the best solution > to the situation is not to saddle the game with deck construction rules. >Call this ``solution A''. > The best solution is to balance the card set to the point where deck > construction rules are not necessary at all, >Call this ``solution B''. >Why is Solution B ``better''? What are your criteria? Do you know if >solution B is even *possible* without just rendering the game a more >colourful version of Canasta? It's definitely possible. Jyhad and INWO are very close - close enough that in a wild situation the game remains playable with absolutely no limits at all. I'm told OtE is the same way. The contrast between the natural feel of deckbuilding and play in no-limit environments and the tedious and repetitive results of card limits is very jarring. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Chris Dollin <ke...@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: > But the best solution > to the situation is not to saddle the game with deck construction rules. > >Call this ``solution A''. > > The best solution is to balance the card set to the point where deck > construction rules are not necessary at all, > >Call this ``solution B''. > >Why is Solution B ``better''? What are your criteria? Do you know if >solution B is even *possible* without just rendering the game a more >colourful version of Canasta? Solution "B" works well for Jyhad. It's better than solution "A" because it allows you to build creative theme decks, or explore extreme stratgies, without breaking the game. Alec -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://astrowww.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

Charles M. Kozierok (i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu) wrote: : In article <3qj12l$l...@martha.utk.edu>, : David DeLaney <d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu> wrote: : } i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Charles M. Kozierok) writes: : } >Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: : } >} The deck construction rules for Magic are only necessary in any sense once : } >} you get into wild, trading environments where people are buying cards by : } >} the boxful, not a couple of boosters at the time. While this is unfortunate, : } >} it's not terribly surprising given that no one was expecting people to : } >} routinely spend hundreds of dollars buying Magic cards. : } > : } >But given that this "wild, trading environment" is basically *everywhere* : } >doesn't it make sense to acknowledge it? You *know* people trade to get : } >the cards they want and that spending $70 (at least) on cards is no big : } >deal even for kids. Why pretend it isn't happening? : } : } Becasue, as far as I can tell, they're desperately trying to adhere to one : } R. Garfield's "original vision" of Magic as something that can only be played : } in a closed environment with a limited number of cards and with access to : } other cards coming basically only by trading cards you own or by ante games. : "I tap 2 plains and Summon Ostrich" : } *I* don't know why they're Ignoring Reality either... : We're both wasting our breath. Tom is just going to repeat the : party line forever. The really salient points get ignored. : Detractors draw the ire of other readers of the group, most of : whom are sheep who will support whatever WotC does anyway. So what's the problem ... they'll look for a sheperd anyway ... But (in this case) I agree with Tom wholehearted. Deck construction rules are not NECCESARY ... they destroy creative thinking in deck construction. Making the best out of it cannot be imposed by rules. Playing another R/G Kird Ape/Llanowar/Lightning Bolt etc. deck is just as boring as a 20land/20 Black Vise/20 Howling Mine deck When I play an odd game with a couple of friends, I really don't mind seeing one Fork too much, especially when used it in a new or amusing way. Prohibiting this by rules is distracting for new players, as well as boring to old ones. It is easier to add rules when neccesary (eg for tournament play) than to remove them if you don't like them (ever heard of anyone banning the Trample rules because he doesn't like them ?) : -*- : charles, getting his CoP:Red ready.... -Jeroen van Esch , casting tranquility ....

i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Charles M. Kozierok) writes: >Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >} The deck construction rules for Magic are only necessary in any sense once >} you get into wild, trading environments where people are buying cards by >} the boxful, not a couple of boosters at the time. While this is unfortunate, >} it's not terribly surprising given that no one was expecting people to >} routinely spend hundreds of dollars buying Magic cards. > >But given that this "wild, trading environment" is basically *everywhere* >doesn't it make sense to acknowledge it? You *know* people trade to get >the cards they want and that spending $70 (at least) on cards is no big >deal even for kids. Why pretend it isn't happening? Becasue, as far as I can tell, they're desperately trying to adhere to one R. Garfield's "original vision" of Magic as something that can only be played in a closed environment with a limited number of cards and with access to other cards coming basically only by trading cards you own or by ante games. *I* don't know why they're Ignoring Reality either... Dave -- \/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. Disclaimer: IMHO; VRbeableURLAP http://enigma.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

In article <3qj12l$l...@martha.utk.edu>, David DeLaney <d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu> wrote: } i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Charles M. Kozierok) writes: } >Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: } >} The deck construction rules for Magic are only necessary in any sense once } >} you get into wild, trading environments where people are buying cards by } >} the boxful, not a couple of boosters at the time. While this is unfortunate, } >} it's not terribly surprising given that no one was expecting people to } >} routinely spend hundreds of dollars buying Magic cards. } > } >But given that this "wild, trading environment" is basically *everywhere* } >doesn't it make sense to acknowledge it? You *know* people trade to get } >the cards they want and that spending $70 (at least) on cards is no big } >deal even for kids. Why pretend it isn't happening? } } Becasue, as far as I can tell, they're desperately trying to adhere to one } R. Garfield's "original vision" of Magic as something that can only be played } in a closed environment with a limited number of cards and with access to } other cards coming basically only by trading cards you own or by ante games. "I tap 2 plains and Summon Ostrich" } *I* don't know why they're Ignoring Reality either... We're both wasting our breath. Tom is just going to repeat the party line forever. The really salient points get ignored. Detractors draw the ire of other readers of the group, most of whom are sheep who will support whatever WotC does anyway. -*- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <D9HKIG....@cs.vu.nl>, Esch van J <jve...@cs.vu.nl> wrote: >It is easier to add rules when neccesary (eg for >tournament play) than to remove them if you don't like them (ever heard >of anyone banning the Trample rules because he doesn't like them ?) At least once a month someone starts a thread about playing in an environment where the players do not allow direct damage effects, ie. fireball cannot target a player. So while I haven't heard about people complaining about trample, per se... Joe

In article <3qg0rd$i...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie says... > >We're not denying that it's happening. The point is that it has become >the norm, and the question becomes how best to account for what actually >happens with trading card cards, namely the wild environment. Our opinion >is that it is better to balance the card set than to burden the game >with deck construction rules. > Strenuously disagree. Indeed, I'd like to see WoTC go the *other* way -- include, on each card, a "quantity allowed" number. Thus, you might be allowed 6 Mon's Goblin Raiders, 3 Dark Rituals, and 1 Timetwister. Currently, the system is 4, 1, or none, which limits variety. It also forces WoTC to reissue some cards under different names (Drudge Skeletons, Walking Dead), to allow them to be used properly in a deck. What you are doing currently is blandifying Magic down to nothing. Remember, the only thing in the middle of the road is a yellow streak and some dead possums. -- Evolution Doesn't Take Prisoners:Lizard There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.:PJ O'Rourke

aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: Chris Dollin <ke...@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: > But the best solution > to the situation is not to saddle the game with deck construction rules. > >Call this ``solution A''. > > The best solution is to balance the card set to the point where deck > construction rules are not necessary at all, > >Call this ``solution B''. > >Why is Solution B ``better''? What are your criteria? Do you know if >solution B is even *possible* without just rendering the game a more >colourful version of Canasta? Solution "B" works well for Jyhad. It's better than solution "A" because it allows you to build creative theme decks, or explore extreme stratgies, without breaking the game. Touche. We have an example, Jyhad. What I meant was whether it was possible to have a type B solution for Magic; would a type B Magic be too similar to Jyhad to preserve the feel? That Jyhad exists and (I presume) works reasonably well, which I should have remembered myself, gives me more confidence that WotC know what they're doing. Now I just have to wonder why they don't make that point themselves ... [ quoted text not captured ]

ke...@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) writes >aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: >> Chris Dollin <ke...@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: >>>aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >>>> But the best solution >>>> to the situation is not to saddle the game with deck construction rules. >>>Call this ``solution A''. >>>> The best solution is to balance the card set to the point where deck >>>> construction rules are not necessary at all, >>>Call this ``solution B''. >>>Why is Solution B ``better''? What are your criteria? Do you know if >>>solution B is even *possible* without just rendering the game a more >>>colourful version of Canasta? >>Solution "B" works well for Jyhad. >>It's better than solution "A" because it allows you to build creative theme >>decks, or explore extreme stratgies, without breaking the game. >Touche. We have an example, Jyhad. What I meant was whether it was >possible to have a type B solution for Magic; would a type B Magic be >too similar to Jyhad to preserve the feel? There are certainly ways to balance a game without card limits without making a Jyhad knockoff. INWO (revised), for example. Magic, however, may not be able to do this without drastically overhauling the rules. The apparent failure to avoid all card limits with Ice Ages does raise the question of whether an unlimited Magic is possible, or at any rate practical. The alternative, however, is rather brutal. If Magic needs card limits, the proliferation of new cards is almost guaranteed to eventually break the game regardless of card limits. Over time, you will see cards with a similar effect to Lightning Bolt (like Chain Lightning). When there are 10 of them, Bolt decks will work fine under 4-card. If Wizards wants a long-term success in Magic, they must escape the Millstone of card limits. The type II rules, incidentally, are one way to fix the proliferation problem - ban ALL old cards and semi-broken cards ban be managed with limits again. Of course, that tees off customers as the cards have built-in obsolesence. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

David DeLaney <d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu> wrote: >Becasue, as far as I can tell, they're desperately trying to adhere to one >R. Garfield's "original vision" of Magic as something that can only be played >in a closed environment with a limited number of cards and with access to >other cards coming basically only by trading cards you own or by ante games. >*I* don't know why they're Ignoring Reality either... Argh. No, we are *not* focusing all of our efforts on such environments. But we are taking sealed environments into account as well as wild environments, which some people don't think we should do. What people need to recognize is that there are several ways to play the game: wide open, wild environment but recent cards only, sealed environments, etc. Game design has to take all of these environments into account, not just one or two. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : Rules and cards are not changed simply because tournaments start to follow : certain patterns. But tournaments do tend to expose any problems in the : rules and in the cards, since tournament decks are going to be looking to : exploit as many things as possible. In Magic, tournament decks often use : direct damage, but we are not going to be removing direct damage from the game. Of course, Goblin Grenades were a Biiiig mistake. They've replaced lightning bolts as the "Cheap spell of Choice" for direct damage! They bypass the "4 toughness...safe" zone, and can down a Shivan Dragon! Ouch! R.A.H. Elf of the redwoods, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country. California, the Land of Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes! (And I'm one of the Nutty Flakes!) I moved here from Alaska, too. Does that make me a Frosted Flake?

mob...@netcom.com (Michael O'Brien) writes: > >With Goblin Grenade, you can use two cards to do 5 damage. What's so >terrible about this? Lightning Bolts can do 6 damage with two cards. Multiplicity. <Aside: I *love* that word!> 4 bolts, 4 grenades, 4 chains... more single-mana options to do a sizable packet of damage. I doubt anyone would recommend *replacing* bolts with grenades, but in addition they are quite useful. And now, I guess, we could add some IA versions :-) David. -- | David J. Low dl...@physics.adelaide.edu.au Oooo. | | ( ) | | WWW: http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dlow/dlow.html ) / | | "I'd rather be lost in the Darkness than blinded by the Light" (_/ |

In article <3r2lfi$3...@boom.sonic.net>, Robert Hubby <rah...@sonic.net> wrote: >Of course, Goblin Grenades were a Biiiig mistake. They've replaced lightning >bolts as the "Cheap spell of Choice" for direct damage! They bypass the "4 >toughness...safe" zone, and can down a Shivan Dragon! Ouch! With Goblin Grenade, you can use two cards to do 5 damage. What's so terrible about this? Lightning Bolts can do 6 damage with two cards. Mike

My spies caught Michael O'Brien typing: [ quoted text not captured ] In addition you need both cards to be useful; while a single Lightning Bolt is still useful on it's own. (Ok...some Goblins might be useful w/o the grenade, but the grenade is useless w/o the Goblin) -- +------------------------+----------------------------+ | Mike Marcelais | m...@alphatronix.com | | Moonstone Dragon | Magic: The Gathering Judge | | -==(UDIC)==- | Author of ChrHack 2.3 | +-----------------------------------------------------+

On Wed, 7 Jun 1995, Michael O'Brien wrote: > With Goblin Grenade, you can use two cards to do 5 damage. What's so > terrible about this? Lightning Bolts can do 6 damage with two cards. > > Mike Hi Mike, I think you guys are on the wrong newsgroup.... Algustas *****Perfectionism, no less than isolationism or imperialism or power politics, may obstruct the paths to international peace.***** Franklin D. Roosevelt

On 7 Jun 1995, David J Low wrote: > Multiplicity. <Aside: I *love* that word!> > > 4 bolts, 4 grenades, 4 chains... more single-mana options to do a > sizable packet of damage. I doubt anyone would recommend *replacing* > bolts with grenades, but in addition they are quite useful. > > And now, I guess, we could add some IA versions :-) > > David. > > -- > | David J. Low dl...@physics.adelaide.edu.au Oooo. | > | ( ) | > | WWW: http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dlow/dlow.html ) / | > | "I'd rather be lost in the Darkness than blinded by the Light" (_/ | Hi David, I really think you guys are on the wrong newsgroup.... Algustas *****Remeber, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.***** John Adams

On 7 Jun 1995, Mike Marcelais wrote: > In addition you need both cards to be useful; while a single Lightning Bolt > is still useful on it's own. > > (Ok...some Goblins might be useful w/o the grenade, but the grenade is > useless w/o the Goblin) > > -- > > +------------------------+----------------------------+ > | Mike Marcelais | m...@alphatronix.com | > | Moonstone Dragon | Magic: The Gathering Judge | > | -==(UDIC)==- | Author of ChrHack 2.3 | > +-----------------------------------------------------+ Hi Mike, I bitch at thee again. You are on the wrong newsgroup.... Algustas *****"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first-verdict afterwards."***** Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland.

Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote: > > >Hi Mike, > I bitch at thee again. You are on the wrong newsgroup.... > Algustas >*****"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first-verdict afterwards."***** >Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland. > Hi Algustas, You stupid motherfucker. You are on the wrong newsgroup...Now shut the hell up. jared

Marshall Smith <wndr...@iadfw.net> >Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote: > > >>Hi Mike, >> I bitch at thee again. You are on the wrong newsgroup.... >Hi Algustas, > You stupid motherfucker. You are on the wrong >newsgroup...Now shut the hell up. >jared Algustas is correct. This thread is getting cross-posted. It was originally of general interest, but has become Magic-specific. The profanity is very jarring on the normally very well-behaved Jyhad group (probably elsewhere, too). Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

On 8 Jun 1995, Marshall Smith wrote: > Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote: > > > > > >Hi Mike, > > I bitch at thee again. You are on the wrong newsgroup.... > > Algustas > >*****"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first-verdict afterwards."***** > >Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland. > > > > Hi Algustas, > You stupid motherfucker. You are on the wrong > newsgroup...Now shut the hell up. > > jared > > > Hi jared, My I.Q. and family relations aren't really the question here. I know what newsgroups I'm on, but thanks for telling me. Algustas *****"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble,..."the law is a ass-a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience-by experience." Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist

In article curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: >Algustas is correct. This thread is getting cross-posted. It was >originally of general interest, but has become Magic-specific. He may be right, but to CROSSPOST it to all the groups instead of a nice little reminder in e-mail is just as bad as the original crap. Add to the fact that he did that little message three times is a horrible waste of bandwidth. note the followup-to. --Red --- reda...@cris.com, Brent, Son of Fiona (Amber), Robin Redgrove (SCA) M:TG Addict, Hail Eris, All Hail Discordia, Fanimaniac, Ferret-o-phile Witch, Raven, "Clinging to his paganism like lichen to a stone." Goth --- My mom says I shouldn't ask girls out on dates anymore...she says I should instead invite them on a picturesque tour of the countoured mental interiour and labrynthine dungeons of my mind. -- The Quigmans