I cannot recall reading a post by this man which was not met with a
bitter reply. Something was said about him not liking Jyhad...what's
the deal? Much of what he posts seems reasonable and relevant to me.
He was killed at Crusade: Dave's House which, although a parody, was
probably funny because somebody doesn't like him. Is this true?
Perhaps there's an old rivalry between him and someone else I'm too
new to realize.
I don't want to think that members here are cruel.
Anyone?
"Brian" <firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:80bafd85.02011...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I think the problem comes from Andrew himself. It's a guy who often womes
with stupid idea or strange assertions, only to criticize the game
poinlessly, or to argue about some piece of rule that noe one cares about.
And when, after a short discussion, you prove him he's quite wrong, he
*always* find a way to make the conversation derive from its original point
and misleads you on something new, yet again totaly irrelevant.
He oftens takes example from other Tcg, which are not in anyway applicable
to vtes. That's why he's irritating some players so much.
read some of the threads *from the beginning to the end* to realize what i'm
saying.
Anyway, may we admire him for his resilience and his "my thoughts are
different from others attitude" ? you have to guess.
reyda
"Brian" <firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:80bafd85.02011...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
FYI, the reason that Andrew gets such swift and unmerciful retribution every
time he posts on this group is that he creates huge threads arguing using
meaningless babble. As if this wasn't enough, he was then caught posting
on the shadowfist group how he was going to go "stir up" the VTES newsgroup.
After you have witnessed the huge threads with Andrew being the only one on
his side of the table whilst he dismisses reasons that he is mistaken while
at the same time making assinine assertations.
To tell you the truth, we can't tell if Andrew is genuinely curious about
some facet of game play or just trying to start a flamewar.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
> FYI, the reason that Andrew gets such swift and unmerciful retribution
every
> time he posts on this group is that he creates huge threads arguing using
> meaningless babble. As if this wasn't enough, he was then caught posting
> on the shadowfist group how he was going to go "stir up" the VTES
newsgroup.
> After you have witnessed the huge threads with Andrew being the only one
on
> his side of the table whilst he dismisses reasons that he is mistaken
while
> at the same time making assinine assertations.
>
> To tell you the truth, we can't tell if Andrew is genuinely curious about
> some facet of game play or just trying to start a flamewar.
Is Brian Andrew's alias or something? I agree he posts mostly meaningless
stuff, but *sometimes* he makes useful posts in that he brings up things
others might not want to post but still wonders about or give things a
different perspective (which IMO I can appreciate even if I don't agree with
it). However when that happens I'm afraid people ignore it because of his
bad "track record" of also posting useless stuff, so people assume the
decent posts are just another attempt at starting a flamewar or whatever,
which he has himself to blame I guess.
Roger
Brian wrote:
>>I cannot recall reading a post by this man which was not met with a
bitter reply. Something was said about him not liking Jyhad...what's
the deal?>>
Oh. That was me. Andrew doesn't actually play this game, as far as I can tell
(based on what he has said in this forum). He doesn't actually like anything
about it--he doesn't like the rules, he doesn't like the art, he doesn't like
the objective. He doesn't like the rulebook. He doesn't like the errata. He
doesn't like the tournament rules. He doesn't like the non tournament rules.
Basically, he doesn't like this game. Because he doesn't like it, he doesn't
really play it.
This does not seem to dissuade him, however, from posting here incessantly,
arguing points that he doesn't really believe and pretending to be confused by
things that he actually understands.
That, and at some point in time, he actually said that he was here just to mess
with our minds.
Thus, everyone is mostly just irritated by him.
This being said, I don't actually think he is as much of a loon as he seems
here--in various Shadowfist forums, he comes across as rather well spoken and
interesting.
But then he actually likes and plays Shadowfist.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
http://www.geocities.com/bakija6
"These streets are filled with danger and madness! MADNESS!"
-Zim.
"Brian" <firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:80bafd85.02011...@posting.google.com...
> He was killed at Crusade: Dave's House which, although a parody, was
> probably funny because somebody doesn't like him. Is this true?
>
Yep. He was actually killed during the making of the parody.
Or so I believe, but then I was the one who posted with questions about the
deck contained therein, so maybe I'm wrong, and he's not actually a zombie
posting from beyond the grave.
Sorry, it's late and I'm tired. I should go get some sleep.
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 02:17:52 +0100, Reyda wrote:
>I think the problem comes from Andrew himself. It's a guy who often womes
>with stupid idea or strange assertions, only to criticize the game
>poinlessly, or to argue about some piece of rule that noe one cares about.
Recounting everything I've ever said would be otiose. But it's
topical to note that the "table wins" concept was one such idea.
Kudos to the VEKN for taking it seriously and implementing it.
Andrew
> This being said, I don't actually think he is as much of a loon as he seems
> here--in various Shadowfist forums, he comes across as rather well spoken and
> interesting.
>
> But then he actually likes and plays Shadowfist.
I have met Andrew on several occasions and in person, he can be
intelligent and friendly. However, he is very much an "acquired
taste", as he can become very focussed whilst playing any game and
likes things to go his way. When in his "domain", we played VTES by
the letter of the law - by standard VTES rules (i.e. Repeat actions
were OK, and unless you brought the errata with you, cards were played
as written - e.g. a Jyhad backed Fame did what it said on the card).
When in someone elses domain, he will play the VEKN rules without
question, but was happy to argue card text given the oppertunity.
He can be a poor looser - I remember one game where he was playing a
weenie presence deck and couldn't understand why people accross the
table were ganging up on him. After that game he threatened never to
play VTES again. Another time, at the Final Nights prerelease, he
played one game, got upset that he scored no points in the first
round, and left with the cards - the only person I remember doing this
all day.
He is also not afraid to be irritating - I remember one tourney he
tried to hold out for a draw with 10 mins to go. He spent an excessive
amount of time reading his cards, even though he had no ready
vampires, about 6 pool left and there were Anarch Revolts in play. He
still insisted on using all his locations, thinking about his options,
and taking his time to discard cards. This was hugely frustrating for
his predator / prey with 3 minions up and about 10 pool.
He seems to take perverse pleasure in breaking CCGs. His main games of
choice are Shadowfist and Doomtown (he has a Doomtown card made in his
honour - "Andrew Davidson Consulting"). I seem to remember that he
claimed he had managed to break the whole Doomtown game at one stage.
On the other hand, he can be a good sport - at last years Gencon, he,
made an effort to show up to the Clan War in fancy dress. I gave him a
prize for his efforts.
However, the balancing factor is that you take him as you find him. He
is not someone to lie or deceive. In my encounters with him, I have
found him to be honest and approachable, but has an opinion that is
often his own. I am fairly sure he genuinely believes what he posts. I
am also fairly sure he is more than aware that they are likely to
cause disagreement and a flame war! But he still has his rights as an
individual to post them.
It's only shame he can't produce some more constructive thoughts on a
more regular basis.
DH
In message <9e10847c.02011...@posting.google.com>, hamdamcwa
<dave...@hotmail.com> writes:
>When in his "domain", we played VTES by
>the letter of the law - by standard VTES rules (i.e. Repeat actions
>were OK, and unless you brought the errata with you, cards were played
>as written - e.g. a Jyhad backed Fame did what it said on the card).
This is not V:TES standard.
V:TES standard is that the most recent printing of a card is correct.
Whilst this is a perfectly usable house rule (though Jyhad Conditioning,
plus Govern the Unaligned, plus V:TES Command of the Beast, plus V:TES
Foreshadowing Destruction (or similar) is pretty scary), it is not V:TES
standard.
--
James Coupe "Never give in to them," she whispered. "No matter what
PGP 0x5D623D5D EB they do or how important you feel it is to get their accep-
D690ECD7A1FB457CA21 tance. Never kill part of yourself for them. Because other
3D7E668C3695D623D5D people will notice that part is missing before you do."
"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<6CR18.2989$HM2....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
> "Brian" <firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:80bafd85.02011...@posting.google.com...
> > He was killed at Crusade: Dave's House which, although a parody, was
> > probably funny because somebody doesn't like him. Is this true?
> >
> Yep. He was actually killed during the making of the parody.
>
> Or so I believe, but then I was the one who posted with questions about the
> deck contained therein, so maybe I'm wrong, and he's not actually a zombie
> posting from beyond the grave.
>
No Parody, I'm afraid. We had 21 players and thought 4 tables of 5
would be far nicer that having tables of 4. Dave Hammond then decided
that, instead of asking him to leave, it might be fun to stone him to
death.
The Andrew thats been posting here since is actually Matt Green
working out his frustrations after hearing that Tremere have dominate
and can, therefore, use mind rape.
I wrote Crusade: Daves House and yes; I don't like Andrew. I think he
deliberatly antagonizes people on this news group simply because he
wants to be a big man in the V:TES world as he is in the shadowfist
world. People that are not twats by nature going out of their way to
be twats for some defined end has always been a personal gripe of
mine.
Also, he is not a Tournament player. Why then does he insist on
endlessly whining about tournament related things. Things that will
never include him because...I say again.....he is not a tournament
player.
Basically, I don't like him.
Tony
Literary Thug
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<4Vrq+kIbMCS8Ew$s...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>...
> In message <9e10847c.02011...@posting.google.com>, hamdamcwa
> <dave...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >When in his "domain", we played VTES by
> >the letter of the law - by standard VTES rules (i.e. Repeat actions
> >were OK, and unless you brought the errata with you, cards were played
> >as written - e.g. a Jyhad backed Fame did what it said on the card).
>
> This is not V:TES standard.
>
> V:TES standard is that the most recent printing of a card is correct.
>
>
> Whilst this is a perfectly usable house rule (though Jyhad Conditioning,
> plus Govern the Unaligned, plus V:TES Command of the Beast, plus V:TES
> Foreshadowing Destruction (or similar) is pretty scary), it is not V:TES
> standard.
Errrrm... if only one person has got a copy of that card and no-one
has any copies of the errata handy, it is by default the latest
printing of the card.
To be fair, we did play as you say - if someone had a later version of
the card, we followed that text.
Isn't Command of the Beast a Sabbat (and later) card, not VTES? And I
thought Foreshadowing Destruction was an Ancient Hearts card?
DH
hamdamcwa wrote:
> Errrrm... if only one person has got a copy of that card and no-one
> has any copies of the errata handy, it is by default the latest
> printing of the card.
No. The most recent (latest) printing is not defined by the subset of
cards any particular group has access to. It is defined by being the
most recent official printing of a given card.
The most recent printings, with errata imbedded, are all available online.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
> Is Brian Andrew's alias or something?
Not at all. I never heard of him before I got on this list.
> I agree he posts mostly meaningless
> stuff, but *sometimes* he makes useful posts in that he brings up things
> others might not want to post but still wonders about or give things a
> different perspective (which IMO I can appreciate even if I don't agree with
> it).
Are you suggesting he does this, but I do not? I fear that what I
post, others do not find thought provoking, even though I do.
Isn't the concept of 1RA a useful post that other people might not
want to post (going against a groups traditions is BAD in a social
sense)? Isn't 1RA representative of me wondering whether NRA goes too
far, and possibly giving people a new perspective?
> However when that happens I'm afraid people ignore it because of his
> bad "track record" of also posting useless stuff, so people assume the
> decent posts are just another attempt at starting a flamewar or whatever,
> which he has himself to blame I guess.
Exactly where I hope I'm not going. I don't want a "track record" at
all, especially a bad one, because anytime I post something new, it
has nothing to do with any other post! I especially hope I'm not
viewed as trying to start a flamewar. I am disdainful of personal
attacks and don't want to think I start that kind of thing.
____________
I was aware, when I started this post, that my ideas were not met with
pleasantly. I wondered, "Do bad ideas make me unlikable?" and "Are
only specific members mad at me, or is it the group in general?"; or
possibly "Nobody's mad at me--this is a place for ideas to be shared.
Any sharing will be appreciated." I was worried that I was on
whatever path Mr. Davidson started down, where his best, most
thoughtful stuff is disregarded (most unfairly to the subject at
hand). I still read his posts, when I come to them. I hope readers
will extend me the same courtesy.
--Brian
In message <80bafd85.02011...@posting.google.com>, Brian
<firstco...@aol.com> writes:
>Are you suggesting he does this, but I do not? I fear that what I
>post, others do not find thought provoking, even though I do.
There is a significant difference between posting things - however
misguided or wrong others may think your thoughts are - which are
genuine in their attempt to understand, manipulate or advance facets the
game; and items which are posted for none of these reasons.
I believe that many would regard your posts as going into the former
category. YMMV.
[ quoted text not captured ]