Melee Weapon and Q about Parity Shift

I've been amused to read articles about chainsaws being melee weapons or not. For me the definition of "melee weapon" is perfectly clear: Melee weapon is a weapon that does damage proportional to the strength of the bearer (in real life, not vampires strength). All weapons like knives, swords, clubs, nunchakus, slings, boomerangs, etc. are melee weapons even if they did ranged damage. Weapons that need gunpowder, motors or any source of power other than hand power are not melee weapons. For example, Ivory bow is not a melee weapon because it's strike does not depend on the strength of the bearer but uses the bow to give speed to the arrow. Any comments on this definition? Could someone give a latest ruling on Parity Shift. Does "that blood" refer to the whole pool of the opponent, or just the difference between my pool and hers? ))marko -- Never try to be amusing and order something like a "pint of dishwater". Judging by the state of some of our larger brewers' beers, you just might get it. The Surrey Pub Guide

ma...@beta.hut.fi (Marko Puumalainen) writes: >Could someone give a latest ruling on Parity Shift. >Does "that blood" refer to the whole pool of the opponent, or just the >difference between my pool and hers? Parity Shift is not limited by the difference between your pool and the target's pool. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger.

I just want to put in my two sense worth on this whole card backs fiasco. I am very disappointed in WoTC. Jyhad was the best name because it told what the game was really about. If the marketing had tried they could have made it ovious that the game was about vampires. I feel the change is really bad. I do wander if the change is partly because of Jyhads success versus Magic. WoTC should reallize that they scored big with Magic and that most of the furture products will probobly never do as well. If they expect new products to all do as well as Magic they are in for a supprise. And if when a product doesn't go as good as magic they change it, tehy will have to change a lot of games. Speaking for several people here at Purdue university I can tell you that we will not buy the new cards do to this change. I will bet at some point the two types af card backs will become outlawed at tournements. I am very sorry to see this happen. Sorry for whining so much but I think alot of you agree with me. Duncan McEwen

ma...@beta.hut.fi (Marko Puumalainen) wrote: [explaination of 'melee' weapon elided] > Any comments on this definition? Peace Marko, I don't believe that the problem is whether Chainsaw _is_ a melee weapon, it is whether it _should be_ a melee weapon for balance purposes. Why use a Chainsaw when a Shotgun is better (and more common)? > Could someone give a latest ruling on Parity Shift. > Does "that blood" refer to the whole pool of the opponent, or just the > difference between my pool and hers? The official ruling is X is the number of Meths in play. X may exceed the difference between pools. So, yes, you may oust someone with this card. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

Heres the only solution I favor besides leaving the cards the same. Just pack the starters and boosters under the title V:TES and leave the card backs reading Jyhad!!! This way when new customers see it, they will know that it is about vampires and such, but all of us older customers will not be alienated. Anyone who dislikes the word jihad should not only look it up in the dictionary, but also ignorance. Besides whys someone so holy as thee playing a game about undead creatures, and such?

In article <3o44ha$h...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > >L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote: >>I envision the "Manuever" gained from weapons such as: >>Saturday Night Special (1 pool 1 damage 1 manuever) >>.44 Magnum (2 pool 2 dmg 1 manv) >>Submachine Gun (4 pool 3 dmg 1 manv) >>Assault Rifle (5 pool 4 dmg 1 manv) >> >>As laying down "cover" fire to enable you to move away. > >Actually, the maneuver is not due to covering fire, it's due to being able >to fire at the opposing minion, accurately, from a long distance. > Yes, yes. But I was just trying to make it more realistic. No way can I move faster (get to range easier) whem I carry a .44 than when I don't. (Unless I'm laying down cover fire while I do it). And, since it doesn't harm the mechanics to view it in a more realistic fashion... -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger

In article <3o42t6$h...@ccnet3.ccnet.com> buddy-t <bud...@ccnet.com> wrote: > Heres the only solution I favor besides leaving the cards the same. > > Just pack the starters and boosters under the title V:TES and > leave the card backs reading Jyhad!!! This way when new customers see > it, they will know that it is about vampires and such, but all of us > older customers will not be alienated. Sorry, can't do this... it makes too much sense. I know that we in the local gaming club are only 20 or so Jyhad players, but we've decided not to buy any of the new cards. WOTC has gotten its last $$$ from me.

Duncan A McEwen (mce...@tools.ecn.purdue.edu) wrote: : I am very disappointed in WoTC. Jyhad was the best name because it told : what the game was really about. Ask a typical comic/gaming/goth/sf person, who is unfamiliar with the game, what a Jyhad is. You'll either get an answer of Holy War, or an answer of "some kind of extremist Islamic terrorist campaign". Where are the vampires there? : If the marketing had tried they could have : made it ovious that the game was about vampires. Perhaps. But packaging has to do a lot of the selling in the gaming industry. And if the packaging doesn't say anything about vampires, well...and if you have to add in extra text that's even more eye-catching than the title...why not just change the title. : I do wander if the change is partly because of Jyhads success versus : Magic. I can't speak for WotC but I really doubt this. They knew from the outset that they were pitching this game towards a more mature crowd, a more specialized market niche. I doubt that they think of it in those comparative terms, but rather, are just trying to pitch the game as best they can. : Speaking for several people here at Purdue university I can tell : you that we will not buy the new cards do to this change. And why is that? I really don't understand this strong, harsh reaction I keep reading about. If you can't come up with some guidelines among your friends for reasonable ways to mix cards, and trust them to abide by them, I think you need new gaming friends. (Guidelines I'd suggest : Crypt should be all one printing If mixing two printings in library, shouldn't have over 75% of cards of one printing be of a particular type (example of an infraction - mostly Jyhad cards, but all new printing cards are protean cards) ) : I will bet : at some point the two types af card backs will become outlawed at : tournements. I am very sorry to see this happen. I bet mixed decks may become outlawed at tournaments...but how many Jyhad tournaments have you been to or seen? Are they the main reason you play the game? : Sorry for whining so much but I think alot of you agree with me. I think a lot of you are over-reacting. Many people proclaimed gloom and doom when the beta Magic cards turned out to have a different shape corner. Yet ever since I and others have played mixed alpha/post-alpha cards in decks without much problem or concern; I have yet to play against someone I was sure was taking advantage of the card shape difference to cheat. And if I did, I would tell them what I thought of what they were doing, and not play with them any more. Simple as that. Anyway, that change did not bring about the end of Magic as we know it. Now that tournaments are getting to be a big deal, concern about unsportsmanlike players (eg assholes) have prompted most organizers to say mixed alpha/post-alpha decks are not ok. Fine. So eventually, if Jyhad ever gets to the point where there are (m)any tournaments going on, somebody will abuse the card back thing, and people will start restricting mixed decks. Not the end of the world by any means! I'm not in bed with WotC, and I'm not exactly smitten with this name change thing, but I can understand it, and more importantly, I'm trying to think about what it will realistically mean and whether it matters much. I'd advise folks to choke back their knee jerk reactions for a moment and consider the same... -- Jeremy (bea...@netcom.com, bea...@delphi.com)

The idea of cracking down on players who abuse the fact that they are allowed to use both kinds of card backs strikes me as somewhat unworkable. How do you know if someone is taking advantage of the different card backs or not? It seems just about impossible to prove. Suggestion: Why not just allow players to have mixed backs in their decks and make the information conveyed by this a legitimate part of the game? This would circumvent the above problem. I do realize it could create new problems, as the older, hard to obtain card backs might become more valuable than the new ones, but I can't imagine this could possibly get too far out of hand as has happened with magic. William

Duncan A McEwen <mce...@tools.ecn.purdue.edu> wrote: >I just want to put in my two sense worth on this whole card backs fiasco. >I am very disappointed in WoTC. Jyhad was the best name because it told >what the game was really about. If the marketing had tried they could have >made it ovious that the game was about vampires. I feel the change is really >bad. Jyhad may have represented what the game was about really well... but only if you knew what the word "jyhad" was supposed to refer to. "Vampire: the Eternal Struggle" conveys the message just as well to a gamer, and lets a non-gamer know just what the heck is going on. > I do wander if the change is partly because of Jyhads success versus >Magic. WoTC should reallize that they scored big with Magic and that most >of the furture products will probobly never do as well. If they expect new >products to all do as well as Magic they are in for a supprise. And if >when a product doesn't go as good as magic they change it, tehy will have >to change a lot of games. We are not expecting anything to do as well as Magic. But Jyhad was not doing as well as we expected it to in the target audiences, and it was determined that this was at least partially due to the fact that the target audiences didn't know what it was, so never tried it. > Speaking for several people here at Purdue university I can tell >you that we will not buy the new cards do to this change. I will bet >at some point the two types af card backs will become outlawed at >tournements. I am very sorry to see this happen. The Convocation has no plans to outlaw decks with mixed card backs. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote: >I envision the "Manuever" gained from weapons such as: >Saturday Night Special (1 pool 1 damage 1 manuever) >.44 Magnum (2 pool 2 dmg 1 manv) >Submachine Gun (4 pool 3 dmg 1 manv) >Assault Rifle (5 pool 4 dmg 1 manv) > >As laying down "cover" fire to enable you to move away. Actually, the maneuver is not due to covering fire, it's due to being able to fire at the opposing minion, accurately, from a long distance. >The Deer Rifle represents more of a sniper-style attack, to me... Exactly, and the mechanics work fine if you view the maneuvers as sniping from long range. >Bows and Shotguns are not suited to this purpose. (Being basically not >rapid-fire weapons) They basically don't have the range that guns do. They have some range, which is why they're ranged strikes :) they're just not considered to have enough range to be worth a maneuver. This is also why Flamethrower has no maneuver. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3o44up$i...@crl.crl.com>, L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote: >In article <3o44ha$h...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, >Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >>Actually, the maneuver is not due to covering fire, it's due to being able >>to fire at the opposing minion, accurately, from a long distance. >Yes, yes. But I was just trying to make it more realistic. >No way can I move faster (get to range easier) whem I carry >a .44 than when I don't. (Unless I'm laying down cover fire while >I do it). don't think of it as moving out to range; think of it as beginning the entire combat at range (Rake waits patiently at the corner. He sees Courtland Leighton! He opens up with the .44 before Courtland can get into fist range). >And, since it doesn't harm the mechanics to view it in a more >realistic fashion... tom's rationale *is* more realistic. heckler to me, anyway. why lay down cover fire when you can open up from range? -- is this blood on my hands all for you? candlebox

In article <3o4pjt$q...@lvl-sun673.usc.edu>, gomi no sensei <pech...@lvl-sun673.usc.edu> wrote: >In article <3o44up$i...@crl.crl.com>, L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote: >>In article <3o44ha$h...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, >>Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > >>>Actually, the maneuver is not due to covering fire, it's due to being able >>>to fire at the opposing minion, accurately, from a long distance. > >don't think of it as moving out to range; think of it as beginning the >entire combat at range (Rake waits patiently at the corner. He sees >Courtland Leighton! He opens up with the .44 before Courtland can get >into fist range). > >>And, since it doesn't harm the mechanics to view it in a more >>realistic fashion... > >tom's rationale *is* more realistic. So: Angus blocks Igo. If Igo has a .44 Igo chooses to be blocked at long? If Igo carries nothing he can't choose to be blocked at long, just to avoid damage? I can't open with a wave before Angus gets into range - nullifying the combat unless Angus presses? [ quoted text not captured ]

On 1 May 1995, L. Scott Johnson wrote: -My previous bit snipped- -snip some stats- > > As laying down "cover" fire to enable you to move away. > > Bows and Shotguns are not suited to this purpose. (Being basically not > rapid-fire weapons) > > 'Course with this logic, Submachine Guns and Assault rifles should allow > more maneuvers than the two handguns, but that would compicate (and unbalance) > things. > > The Deer Rifle represents more of a sniper-style attack, to me. This also > breaks down (yielding to game mechanics) after the first round (how does > one quickly get to the rooftop to continue this fight?), but it's a > nice concept. > -- > ----- > L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) > Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger > You're definitely right on the Assault Rifle and SMG's, using your argument of cover fire. But a pump Shotgun (or the semi-auto if you can afford it) are just as fast at spitting out death as the other weapons. And as to the bow, the speed issue (knocking the arrow, etc.) has been argued in our group as well. An archer can easily fire three arrows (accurately) in a second, which may not be as fast as a gun (5 rounds accurately in 1 second), but would surly earn it 1 maneuver along with the Sat. Spec. Of course, this will not happen because most people feel that you trade the maneuver for the agg. damage. (Which at one measly point is pretty useless. Except for that Vulnerability in my hand!) As I said before, the bow could also qualify as a melee weapon, and then one point of agg, plus two more from Undead Str, would make it worthwhile. Well ciao for now! Remy leb...@u.washington.edu | It's not my fault! Gambit at the U.W. | Laugh it up fuzzball! | - Han Solo "I don't want the world, I just want your half." "Life is like a riddle, and I'm really stumped."

In article <Pine.A32.3.91i.95050...@homer10.u.washington.edu>, James Bowes <leb...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >On 1 May 1995, L. Scott Johnson wrote: >-My previous bit snipped- > > -snip some stats- >> >> As laying down "cover" fire to enable you to move away. >> >> Bows and Shotguns are not suited to this purpose. (Being basically not >> rapid-fire weapons) >> >> 'Course with this logic, Submachine Guns and Assault rifles should allow >> more maneuvers than the two handguns, but that would compicate (and unbalance) >> things. >> > You're definitely right on the Assault Rifle and SMG's, using your >argument of cover fire. But a pump Shotgun (or the semi-auto if you can >afford it) are just as fast at spitting out death as the other weapons. If Jyhad's Shotgun was a pump or an automatic, then it wouldn't be restricted to once per combat. The shotgun they're mimicking is a single-shot (even through the picture is a double-barrel). >And as to the bow, the speed issue (knocking the arrow, etc.) has been >argued in our group as well. An archer can easily fire three arrows >(accurately) in a second, which may not be as fast as a gun >(5 rounds accurately in 1 second), but would surly earn it 1 maneuver >along with the Sat. Spec. Well, you can walk around with a loaded Saturday Night Special more easily than you could walk around with a loaded Bow. (Or a Wolf Companion, I suppose :-). You may have something on that Bow thing - except for the possibility that it doesn't come with a quiver, which slows down your RoF. (And game balance doesn't like the free agg over a Sat Night Spec.) > Of course, this will not happen because most people feel that you trade >the maneuver for the agg. damage. (Which at one measly point is pretty >useless. Except for that Vulnerability in my hand!) As I said before, the >bow could also qualify as a melee weapon, and then one point of agg, plus >two more from Undead Str, would make it worthwhile. Maybe it wasn't built to such inhuman strength considerations, and would snap if pulled that hard. (I dunno). [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote: >Yes, yes. But I was just trying to make it more realistic. >No way can I move faster (get to range easier) whem I carry >a .44 than when I don't. (Unless I'm laying down cover fire while >I do it). Try to view the gun not as using it to run away from the combat, but to fire at the opposing minion before the combat gets to close range in the first place. Using a gun in the second round of the combat rather than the first doesn't involve using the gun to run away, either; assume the vampires get separated a bit in the course of pressing but then normally close to hand-to-hand, and in this case you again have one vampire sniping at the other before the combat comes back to close range. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <beanishD...@netcom.com> bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) writes: >Now that tournaments are getting to be a big deal, concern about >unsportsmanlike players (eg assholes) have prompted most organizers >to say mixed alpha/post-alpha decks are not ok. So you talk about sportsmanship. As far as I know, im most sports they have explicit rules to punish unsportsmanly behaviour. For example, in the last World Cup Soccer, they were much more stricter on fouls. It's always MNSHO that a game (i.e. the game designers) has the responsibility to prohibit/discourage "unsportsmanly" behavior, by prohibiting them in the rules, invoking penalties, or structuring the game so that such behaviour leads to the player losing. V:tES balantly violates this basic game design consideration by changing the card backs, so that players can gain an advantage in an "unsportsmanly" manner (marked cards). And this is IMNSHO a completely unnecessary move. -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >The Deer Rifle represents more of a sniper-style attack, to me. This also >breaks down (yielding to game mechanics) after the first round (how does >one quickly get to the rooftop to continue this fight?), but it's a >nice concept. I think the idea is that it takes the other vampire two turns to close range, since you start VERY far away. The free maneuver is intended to simulate starting the fight from a distance, not moving away. Since shotguns, flamethrowers, and bows (used by unskilled people) are not long-range weapons, they don't get a maneuver. It doesn't really make sense, based on how combat works, but from looking at the weapons it looks like that's how they decided which got them. -- Aaron Mandelbaum

lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >James Bowes <leb...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >If Jyhad's Shotgun was a pump or an automatic, then it wouldn't be >restricted to once per combat. The shotgun they're mimicking >is a single-shot (even through the picture is a double-barrel). Yeah, but you fire both at the same time, unless you want to deal 1 1/2 pts... :) >>And as to the bow, the speed issue (knocking the arrow, etc.) has been >>argued in our group as well. An archer can easily fire three arrows >>(accurately) in a second, Yeah, but who's an archer? You're giving this thing to street gangs and the like. :) A novice archer can fire one arrow in five seconds, if that. >>which may not be as fast as a gun >>(5 rounds accurately in 1 second), but would surly earn it 1 maneuver >>along with the Sat. Spec. If that was the criteria (on?). But then explain flamethrower... how much higher of an ROF can you get than 'continuous'? [shrug] Whatever. >Well, you can walk around with a loaded Saturday Night Special >more easily than you could walk around with a loaded Bow. >(Or a Wolf Companion, I suppose :-). A loaded wolf companion? :) >You may have something on that Bow thing - except for the possibility >that it doesn't come with a quiver, which slows down your RoF. No, it's one arrow. You have to go pull it out every time. >(And game balance doesn't like the free agg over a Sat Night Spec.) I don't see how game balance likes it as it is... any poly deck with stealth just goes and eats all the torpored vamps [shudder] -- Aaron Mandelbaum (or maybe the game's I've been playing are too small)

>bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) writes: >Duncan A McEwen (mce...@tools.ecn.purdue.edu) wrote: >: I am very disappointed in WoTC. Jyhad was the best name because it told >: what the game was really about. >Ask a typical comic/gaming/goth/sf person, who is unfamiliar with the >game, what a Jyhad is. You'll either get an answer of Holy War, or >an answer of "some kind of extremist Islamic terrorist campaign". >Where are the vampires there? Irrelevant. People get into CCGs because other people get them into it. They are social games, at the core. Infuriating the existing base will cost Vampire lots of sales. I predict WotC is about to have an object lesson in the marketing of CCGs. In any case, they could change the name on the box without changing the card backs. >:I do wander if the change is partly because of Jyhads success versus >: Magic. >I can't speak for WotC but I really doubt this. They knew from the >outset that they were pitching this game towards a more mature >crowd, a more specialized market niche. I doubt that they think >of it in those comparative terms, but rather, are just trying to >pitch the game as best they can. Yes. Although they won't admit it, as they don't want to admit they want to reduce or wipe out the value of existing players collections to sell a few more cards. Personally I think the fundamental reason is the continuing supply of Jyhad on the market. They can't sell new cards with all those old ones available (at a discount, natch). So they come up with a tactic to obsolete the old cards. INWO, anybody? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

bud...@ccnet.com (buddy-t) writes: > Heres the only solution I favor besides leaving the cards the same. > Just pack the starters and boosters under the title V:TES and >leave the card backs reading Jyhad!!! This way when new customers see >it, they will know that it is about vampires and such, but all of us >older customers will not be alienated. Clear, simple, obvious, fair. BUT it doesn't obsolete all the old cards sitting on game store shelves, so WotC won't sell nearly as many of the new cards (save expansions). Sorry, players, you're standing in the way of $$$. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > The Convocation has no plans to outlaw decks with mixed card backs. Peace Tom, When the DC started, did they have plans to outlaw Alpha cards? [ quoted text not captured ]

>Jyhad may have represented what the game was about really well... but only >if you knew what the word "jyhad" was supposed to refer to. "Vampire: the >Eternal Struggle" conveys the message just as well to a gamer, and lets >a non-gamer know just what the heck is going on. This seems to be an excellent argument to change the _title_ of the game, and thus the packaging also. Why, then, do you need to change the card backs also? If they've already bought the game, then they know what it's about; if someone is just seeing the game being played, they'll also easily see that its about vampires, and not about Islamic wars. >We are not expecting anything to do as well as Magic. But Jyhad was not >doing as well as we expected it to in the target audiences, and it was >determined that this was at least partially due to the fact that the >target audiences didn't know what it was, so never tried it. Let me see if I've got this straight; you didn't sell the game to all of the people you thought would buy it, so in an attempt to get them to buy it, you decide to alienate all the people who have already bought it. Doesn't seem like good business sense to me. >The Convocation has no plans to outlaw decks with mixed card backs. Yes, and I'm sure you had no plans to outlaw Magic decks with Alpha cards in them when Beta first came out. But you eventually did. How do I know that you won't eventually decide that Jyhad has to go? I have always championed WOTC to my friends who claim that it is an insensitive company. I have stated that WOTC is not intentionally trying to hurt its customers-- rather, it just doesn't think things through. I think that this is a prime example of WOTC's short-sightedness. I urge you to listen to the all of the voices on the newsgroup that are urging you to keep the card backs the same. EZ

bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) wrote: > > Duncan A McEwen (mce...@tools.ecn.purdue.edu) wrote: > : I am very disappointed in WoTC. Jyhad was the best name because it told > : what the game was really about. > > Ask a typical comic/gaming/goth/sf person, who is unfamiliar with the > game, what a Jyhad is. You'll either get an answer of Holy War, or > an answer of "some kind of extremist Islamic terrorist campaign". > Where are the vampires there? > > : If the marketing had tried they could have > : made it ovious that the game was about vampires. > > Perhaps. But packaging has to do a lot of the selling in the > gaming industry. And if the packaging doesn't say anything about > vampires, well...and if you have to add in extra text that's even > more eye-catching than the title...why not just change the title. Peace Jeremy, If packaging is the problem, then they should change the packageing (boxes, packs, display stands) and leave the card backs alone. There is NO need to change the card backs if it is all about marketting (which Tom has said it is), so either a) it ISN'T all about marketting or b) WotC is trying to force the established customers to buy more cars or c) WotC is stupid. Take your pick. > : Speaking for several people here at Purdue university I can tell > : you that we will not buy the new cards do to this change. > > And why is that? I really don't understand this strong, harsh reaction > I keep reading about. If you can't come up with some guidelines among > your friends for reasonable ways to mix cards, and trust them to > abide by them, I think you need new gaming friends. Given history as it relates to CCGs in general, I predict that the old cards will become outlawed (due to problems with mixed decks) just like Alphas were. "Friendly play" often mirrors "tourney play" (you fight the way you train), so people will start following the tourney rules (just like they do in Mt$ [when was the last time you saw a Magic deck that wasn't tourney legal?]) and this will obsolese the Jyhad backed cards. I'm sure (from reading other people's posts) that /many/ players feel this will happen too. That is why the majority of players are up in arms over the card back change. The know what the inevitable result will be and they don't like it. It has nothing to do with trusting your friends. It has to do with tourney rules becoming the standard (which they do) and what effect that will have on all the older cards. > (Guidelines I'd suggest : > Crypt should be all one printing > If mixing two printings in library, shouldn't have over > 75% of cards of one printing be of a particular > type (example of an infraction - mostly Jyhad cards, > but all new printing cards are protean cards) > ) This is Jyhad, we don't need no steenkeeng card limits. > : I will bet > : at some point the two types af card backs will become outlawed at > : tournements. I am very sorry to see this happen. > > I bet mixed decks may become outlawed at tournaments...but how > many Jyhad tournaments have you been to or seen? Are they the > main reason you play the game? See above for why you have just supported my argument. > : Sorry for whining so much but I think alot of you agree with me. > > I think a lot of you are over-reacting. Many people proclaimed > gloom and doom when the beta Magic cards turned out to have a > different shape corner. Yet ever since I and others have played > mixed alpha/post-alpha cards in decks without much problem or > concern; I have yet to play against someone I was sure was > taking advantage of the card shape difference to cheat. And if > I did, I would tell them what I thought of what they were doing, > and not play with them any more. Simple as that. Anyway, that > change did not bring about the end of Magic as we know it. The Alpha run of Magic was much smaller than the run of Jyhad. The player base was much smaller. It is a different scenario. > Now that tournaments are getting to be a big deal, concern about > unsportsmanlike players (eg assholes) have prompted most organizers > to say mixed alpha/post-alpha decks are not ok. Fine. So eventually, > if Jyhad ever gets to the point where there are (m)any tournaments > going on, somebody will abuse the card back thing, and people will > start restricting mixed decks. Not the end of the world by any > means! Yes, it will be for the older cards (see above). > I'm not in bed with WotC, and I'm not exactly smitten with > this name change thing, but I can understand it, and more importantly, > I'm trying to think about what it will realistically mean and > whether it matters much. I'd advise folks to choke back their > knee jerk reactions for a moment and consider the same... I don't "knee jerk", Jeremy. Ask others. They'll tell you. This is a Bad Thing (TM) and it may force me out of CCGs permanently. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3o781j$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >Irrelevant. People get into CCGs because other people get them into it. >They are social games, at the core. Infuriating the existing base will >cost Vampire lots of sales. I predict WotC is about to have an object >lesson in the marketing of CCGs. > >In any case, they could change the name on the box without changing the >card backs. The card game market is much more competitive. Vampire will be a tremendous flop: retailers already have a bunch of Jyhad that they can't move, so they're not going to buy more of the same. And *I* am not going to buy any. The change is too blatantly a marketing/obsolescence ploy. >INWO, anybody? Or if you prefer something more subtle and funny, On the Edge. -- Tom Doehne doe...@cse.ogi.edu

: I'll send them to you if you'll send me equivalent V:TES cards. : They're all OOP! You're getting such a deal! : Aaron Mandelbaum Alas, I don't have any V:TES . . . another trade goes by the wayside . . .

You guys are full of it. Obviously, it is not in WOTC's interest to wipe out the value of existing players' collections. On the contrary, they want those values to go up, as it will increase interest in the game . . . just look at what happened with magic! William

jock...@news-server.engin.umich.edu (William Jockusch) writes: >p.s., if anybody thinks their old jyhad cards are worthless now, please >send them to me: >William Jockusch >1505 Jones Dr #32 >Ann Arbor, MI 48105 >I'm such a nice guy, I'll even pay postage! I'll send them to you if you'll send me equivalent V:TES cards. They're all OOP! You're getting such a deal! (if nothing else, I could get thau blood rage for my Tremere :) -- Aaron Mandelbaum

jock...@news-server.engin.umich.edu (William Jockusch) writes: [ quoted text not captured ] ??? What could you be talking about? (total mystification!) The only similar example in Magic are Alpha cards that are so rare that for almost all practical purposes, the only place you find one is in a collector's card binder. It certainly never caused their value to go up. Actually, I believe it hurt their value to be different. Fred

William Jockusch (jock...@news-server.engin.umich.edu) wrote: : You guys are full of it. Thanks for the ad hominem! Insulting people is a great way to get them to consider your point of view. : Obviously, it is not in WOTC's interest to : wipe out the value of existing players' collections. On the contrary, : they want those values to go up, as it will increase interest in the : game . . . just look at what happened with magic! 1) WoTC does not profit from my cards going up in value. They've made their money from the distributors and retailers already. 2) Jyhad does not have the wide appeal of Magic. Even WoTC admits that it was never expected to. 3) There are 180 million Jyhad cards out there from the first run. They will never be rare. 4) If enough players quit in disgust, interest in the game will hardly increase. 5) If mixed decks are eventually disallowed in tournament play, no one will want the old cards. 6) No, I won't send you my cards for free. If you think that the value is going to skyrocket, I will gladly sell you my entire collection at current price guide prices. Cheers, Brand -- br...@iglou.com "Shake a person up enough and what they thought was a --------------- personality starts to separate. We can be *anything*." - Grant Morrison

What I am talking about is, one of the many things that helped magic along is that some of the card values went way up. This got people talking about the game even more than they were anyhow (and even put it into NewsWeek). Surely this must have increased sales. If you *don't* think the values of alphas have gone up, you must not have taken a look in rec.games.trading-cards.magic.marketplace lately. WJ >You guys are full of it. Obviously, it is not in WOTC's interest to WJ >wipe out the value of existing players' collections. On the contrary, WJ >they want those values to go up, as it will increase interest in the WJ >game . . . just look at what happened with magic! FS ??? FS What could you be talking about? (total mystification!) The only similar FS example in Magic are Alpha cards that are so rare that for almost all FS practical purposes, the only place you find one is in a collector's card FS binder. It certainly never caused their value to go up. Actually, I believe FS it hurt their value to be different. FS Fred

jock...@news-server.engin.umich.edu (William Jockusch) writes: >What I am talking about is, one of the many things that helped magic >along is that some of the card values went way up. This got people >talking about the game even more than they were anyhow (and even >put it into NewsWeek). Surely this must have increased sales. > >If you *don't* think the values of alphas have gone up, you must not >have taken a look in rec.games.trading-cards.magic.marketplace lately. Hello?!? Earth to Mr. Jockusch?!?! The values of Alphas went up because they're extremely, really, incredibly, HU-U-U-G-E-L-Y _RARE_ cards. There are 1/4 as many Alphas in print as even Betas. _NOT_ because Alphas look different than the other cards, as you are suggesting. If Alphas were undetectable from the back (but distinguishable from betas on their faces), they would be worth even more. So please explain to us again how changing the card backs improves the value of the existing J-backed cards. THEN we can argue about whether that helps or hurts the game. Fred