(Bad) News From WotC Netrep Regarding V: TES Card Backs

(The post below was captured from America Online - WotC is the official Wizards of the Coast representative on America Online) >Subj: Re:Jyhad Card Backs >Date: 95-04-28 00:50:26 EDT >From: WotC > >Backing A New Look >Wizards of the Coast to Alter Card Backs in Vampire Game > >Renton, Wash. (April 26, 1995)-After reviewing customer comments, Wizards of >the Coast, Inc. has decided to change all card backs in the newly named >Vampire: The Eternal Struggle (V: TES) Deckmaster game. When the game- >formerly titled Jyhad- debuts this summer, the cards will have the game's >snake "biohazard" symbol and the new name on a green marble background. The >old card backs featured the word Jyhad on green marble. "Changing the card >backs doesn't affect how the game is played. Although you'll be able to see >the back of the tail card in your opponent's hand and the top vampire in the >crypt, you won't know what the cards are," says Matthew Burke, V: TES Project >Coordinator. "Changing the card backs doesn't make Jyhad cards obsolete." > >The Duelists' Convocation will allow both Jyhad and V: TES cards in >tournament play. Under Convocation rules, players will be able to use any >combination of card backs during tournaments. The creator of the card game, >Richard Garfield, agrees with using the two sets in tournaments. "I think >the Duelists' Convocation rules allowing the use of both card backs goes a >long way toward making the [Jyhad and V: TES] cards compatible," says >Garfield. > >Wizards of the Coast realizes that by allowing both cards in tournaments, >some players will take advantage of the different card backs and use some of >one design to mark their cards. The Duelists' Convocation plans to crack >down on dishonest competitors. "We will instruct Judges to look for this >sort of behavior during tournaments. If the Judge finds a player is cheating >by marking cards, the Judge will interpret this as a declaration of >forfeiture," says Steve Bishop, Director of the Duelists' Convocation. > >Besides changing the card backs, Wizards of the Coast is also adjusting the >game's rules. "We rewrote and reformatted the rules for easier reading," says >Burke. "We also have added new variant rules to increase the pace of the >game for those who want to play quick sessions." The new version of the >rules will appear in instructions that accompany each V: TES starter deck and >also in a new player's guide, Darkness Unveiled. The guide is due out this >September. > >One month prior to that, the game's first expansion set, Dark Sovereigns, >will be released. More than 100 cards will make up this expansion, which >explores the rich myths and folklore of vampires in Europe. The set will >also introduce players to new vampires and new categories of vampires. > >Earlier this year, Wizards of the Coast signed a contract with White Wolf, >Inc. to change Jyhad's name to Vampire: The Eternal Struggle after >recognizing that the game's title wasn't always distinguishable as vampiric. >The card game, in which players are vampires fighting an ancient war, is >based on White Wolf's storytelling game Vampire: The Masquerade. The customer comments that the press release alluded to was based on a post by WotC on AOL a few weeks ago which requested people to send comments to Wizards of the Coast regarding 4 card backs options for the Vampire: The Eternal Struggle - keep all the card backs the same, change only the crypt card backs, change all card backs but pretend to make the two editions playable in tournaments, and change all card backs and don't pretend to make the two editions playable in tournaments. I feel it was a charade put on by Wizards of the Coast since they didn't even bother to put that survey out anywhere else on the net that I know of (Internet, CompuServe, & GeNIE). With regards to tournaments, I think most tournament organizers will not put up with the potential cheating problem and will simply ban decks which mixes the two editions. Jyhad will indeed become obselete regardless of what Wizards of the Coast wants us to believe. Oh well. I guess I should thank Wizards of the Coast since I'll be saving quite a bit of money now that I won't be buying Vampire: The Eternal Struggle (and probably any future Deckmaster games). I've pretty much lost all respect for WotC because of the way they've handled this issue. What really galled me is the way they kept changing their decision (the last previous one was keeping the library card backs the same) and then resorting to a public relation subtefuge to justify what they've apparently wanted to do all along.

dk...@CapAccess.org (David Kent) wrote: > I was just stating the fact that their decisions have not been based > solely on a survey on aol. They have been recieving tons of feedback over > this issue through other channels (ie. the survey in Duelist and non-aol > email). Also, unless I missed them changing their minds while I spent > some time in torpor, they have not changed their position on the subject > since the aol survey. Peace David, Yes, apparently you _were_ in torpor. The previous stance had been that VtES library cards would retain the 'old' backs and VtES crypt cards would get new backs. If what was posted recently is true, WotC has gone to the Bill Gate School for Revisionist History (TM) and will be changing all the card backs [boo!]. > There is no easy way to change the name of the game because of the fact > that the old name is printed on the backs of every card. IMHO, if they > are going to change the name of the game, they should change the backs of > both the library and the crypt cards. It is kinda pathetic to go just > half and half. Please show some respect for those who find the word > 'jyhad' offensive. How about showing respect for those people who find "magic" offensive? I don't see them changing the card backs of Mt$ when they revised the rules? How about showing respect for the people who have purchased significant amounts of Jyhad cards and have put a lot of time and effort into promoting the game [like me]? IMHO, WotC is fucking over the older players. I am going to Marcon this weekend; there is supposed to be some WotC reps there. They had better wear some asbestos undergarments, I am not a happy camper. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

ska...@u.washington.edu (Semprini) writes: >In article <3o1i4e$3...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, >Montri Chew <mon...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>The Duelists' Convocation will allow both Jyhad and V: TES cards in >>>tournament play. Under Convocation rules, players will be able to use any >>>combination of card backs during tournaments. The creator of the card game, >>>Richard Garfield, agrees with using the two sets in tournaments. "I think >>>the Duelists' Convocation rules allowing the use of both card backs goes a >>>long way toward making the [Jyhad and V: TES] cards compatible," says >>>Garfield. So they *are* changing all the card backs, then. [expletives deleted*]. I hope WoTC HQ burns down with all of them inside. Or would that be evil? Yeah, I guess that would be evil. Hmm... [sigh] I guess I'll just have to play some other game, then. Rage sounds fun... maybe on the edge... Anyone wanna buy a bunch of Jyhad cards? -- Aaron Mandelbaum (*really! The expletives started with 'f' and 'a')

On Mon, 1 May 1995, mon...@ix.netcom.com wrote: > In <Pine.3.07.950501...@cap1.capaccess.org> dk...@CapAccess.org > (David Kent) writes: > > > >Bzzzzt... Wrong! Their decision is more than just a few weeks old, and > >was based (at least partially) on feedback they have gotten since they > >released info about possible changes for the next editon of the game. In > >fact, I remember seeing the info here in this newsgroup! Their decision > >has also been influenced on the results of the survey that they included > >in an issue of the Duelist. I know I sent mine in... > >DID YOU? > > Ha! You're the one who's wrong. Wizards of the Coast kept changing > their mind throughout the last few months. There was the infamous > Kathy Ice post regarding the name Jyhad being "too offensive", for > example. The most recent "official" position before this "final" one > was posted by Matt Burke, the Jyhad/V:TES project leader, earlier this > year. He stated that WotC was going to change only the card backs of > the vampire/crypt cards. They were then silent on the issue for quite > a while, until the blurb on AOL. > I ALSO SEND IN THE SURVEY FROM DUELIST #3. So there. I was just stating the fact that their decisions have not been based solely on a survey on aol. They have been recieving tons of feedback over this issue through other channels (ie. the survey in Duelist and non-aol email). Also, unless I missed them changing their minds while I spent some time in torpor, they have not changed their position on the subject since the aol survey. There is no easy way to change the name of the game because of the fact that the old name is printed on the backs of every card. IMHO, if they are going to change the name of the game, they should change the backs of both the library and the crypt cards. It is kinda pathetic to go just half and half. Please show some respect for those who find the word 'jyhad' offensive. _________________________________________________________________________ \\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ David Kent dk...@capaccess.org \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _\____\____\____\____\____\____\____\____\____\____\____\____\____\____\_

Montri Chew <mon...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >The customer comments that the press release alluded to was based on a post >by WotC on AOL a few weeks ago which requested people to send comments to >Wizards of the Coast regarding 4 card backs options for the Vampire: The >Eternal Struggle - keep all the card backs the same, change only the >crypt card backs, change all card backs but pretend to make the two >editions playable in tournaments, and change all card backs and don't >pretend to make the two editions playable in tournaments. I feel it >was a charade put on by Wizards of the Coast since they didn't even >bother to put that survey out anywhere else on the net that I know of >(Internet, CompuServe, & GeNIE). That survey posted to AOL was in no way intended to be an exhaustive survey of what people though about the card back issue. It was posted to AOL because the AOL NetRep had concerns on the issue, so *he* went ahead and polled the people in the forum he was covering. There is nothing wrong with this, but it should not be construed as an attempt to base the decision solely on AOL feedback. The decision was based on feedback from all sorts of sources, both on and off the net. >With regards to tournaments, I think most tournament organizers will >not put up with the potential cheating problem and will simply ban >decks which mixes the two editions. Jyhad will indeed become obselete >regardless of what Wizards of the Coast wants us to believe. The Convocation rules will explicitly allow mixing Jyhad and V:TES card backs. Banning one or the other in a sanctioned tournaments is a good way to put the tournament on the fast track to being thrown out. Obviously unofficial tournaments can do what they want, but hopefully people will realize that it's actually difficult to blatantly mark your deck with mixed card backs. >What really galled me is the way they kept >changing their decision (the last previous one was keeping the library >card backs the same) and then resorting to a public relation subtefuge >to justify what they've apparently wanted to do all along. The decision was in flux precisely because of customer feedback. The "subterfuge" you refer to was not an attempt to assess overall customer input, just one NetRep acting on his own. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

dk...@CapAccess.org (David Kent) writes: >Please show some respect for those who find the word 'jyhad' offensive. I will - when they show some respect for the money I've invested in my collection. I'm sorry - there _is_ a such thing as being too sensitive. In any case, I haven't even heard the case, yet. Not in the news nor Usenet nor anywhere. I strongly question whether there really is anyone anywhere who actually has a legitimate gripe about this. Fred

Semprini <ska...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >Is it just me, or can the same logic that was applied in making decks be >All Alpha or No Alpha in Magic tournaments be applicable here? They say >that it will be allowed... suuuuuuure. Did they really think through the >compatibility issues here? Did they really think they can convince >judges to take the time to check EVERYBODY's DECK??? No, we do not expect judges to check everybody's deck, though they can do so if they want. We expect players to police each other, and to only call the judges over if they seriously suspect systematic marking of the deck. Also, as the press release points out, it's difficult to marking your deck with different card backs without your opponent figuring out what you're doing, and thus neutralizing the advantage. There is no "all alpha or no alpha" rule in the Jyhad tournament rules that are forthcoming. Judges are required to allow people to mix the two types of cards. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Jeremy York <bea...@netcom.com> wrote: >Even if I wasn't intending to cheat, if I know my cards >well and recall that Dancin Dana, Bianca, and Dre in my crypt >were the only ones with card back X, I *definitely* gain info >by seeing the top card in the crypt... And so does everyone else, after a game or two. Also, it seems to me that knowing certain vampire are coming up is only an advantage if there is a wide spread of ages and/or abilities among the vampires in your crypt, which face it, doesn't happen much in tournament decks. That degree of randomness is simply more than your average tournament player is willing to tolerate. >So a different card back means giving the player with the >mixed deck a slight advantage. But, I'll remind you, way back >in late '93 Wizards was thinking about this issue (for Magic), and >Garfield's inclination was to say that this doesn't make that much >difference. He originally wanted to have each expansion set have a >different back design - this way, if you wanted to say "I don't like to >play against decks with Antiquities", you'd know whether your >opponent was complying or not. And for sportsmanlike players, >the knowledge gained this way doesn't mean much. I'd agree with >this up to a point for Jyhad/V:tES, but the Crypt is the main >difference to me. As a better example than what I gave above, if I >have six cards of back X and six of Y in my crypt, and during play >have drawn 4 X and one Y, and note that the top card in the crypt is >an X, then I know that it is one of two Vamps. That's pretty much our take on the issue, yes. But the crypt thing isn't even seen as that big of a deal. >What about cards that have changed in power, applicability, etc, >due to re-wordings? >There are two approaches to this. One is the WotC Magic way, >in which an old card is to be played as written no matter how >broken (unless an official errata has been issued)... >The other approach is the Steve Jackson INWO approach, which is >to play any old cards as if they had the new wording... Remember, the second approach is the one we would prefer to take, but taking it requires a reliable way of informing people as to what the latest card texts *are*. In Magic, it has taken far too long to provide such a way of distributing the information, but it will be coming out in the forseeable future. We probably won't have such a system for Jyhad/V:TES right away, but it should take a lot less time to accomplish it there than it has with Magic. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >Yes, apparently you _were_ in torpor. The previous stance had been that >VtES library cards would retain the 'old' backs and VtES crypt cards would >get new backs. If what was posted recently is true, WotC has gone to the >Bill Gate School for Revisionist History (TM) and will be changing all the >card backs [boo!]. Exactly what history are we revising? Matt's comments about what policy he was planning to set for the card backs? That doesn't strike me as a very definite plan. What had been posted previously was tentative plans for what to do about the card backs. The recent press release is definite plans on what to do about them. What's basically going on here (without pointing fingers) is that people want us to post all sorts of information on what we're going to do before we have a final policy, and then trying to hold us to those tentative plans. You can't have it both ways, folks. We can't be forced into making a final policy just because we choose to post speculative plans to the net; speculating one thing and then ultimately deciding to do another is not revisionist history, it is the evolution of a business plan, with some public insight into what's going on in our heads. >> ...Please show some respect for those who find the word 'jyhad' offensive. >How about showing respect for those people who find "magic" offensive? I >don't see them changing the card backs of Mt$ when they revised the rules? This whole "jyhad is offensive" thread is way out of hand, and is not the primary reason for changing the name of the game, or the card backs. The primary reason is that Jyhad was not reaching the target audience, because the target audience had no idea what the product was. >How about showing respect for the people who have purchased significant >amounts of Jyhad cards and have put a lot of time and effort into promoting >the game [like me]? IMHO, WotC is fucking over the older players... How is expanding the market of players going to harm the older players? It's not like we're turning it into a completely new game, or shutting people out from using Jyhad cards. The change had to happen, for the benefit of the overall game. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.3.07.9505010...@cap1.capaccess.org> dk...@CapAccess.org (David Kent) writes: >Path: nntp-server.caltech.edu!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail >From: dk...@CapAccess.org (David Kent) >Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad >Date: 1 May 1995 07:09:17 -0500 >Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway >Lines: 44 >Sender: nob...@cs.utexas.edu >References: <1995050111...@cap1.CapAccess.org> >NNTP-Posting-Host: news.cs.utexas.edu > >On Mon, 1 May 1995, mon...@ix.netcom.com wrote: > >There is no easy way to change the name of the game because of the fact >that the old name is printed on the backs of every card. IMHO, if they >are going to change the name of the game, they should change the backs of >both the library and the crypt cards. It is kinda pathetic to go just >half and half. Please show some respect for those who find the word >'jyhad' offensive. Please show some respect for those who find the word "Vampire" offensive then (I guarantee you these people exist). Hell, show respect for those people who find the word "word" offensive. YOU CANT PLEASE EVERYONE. The word Jyhad is not being used in a derogatory fashion. If people take it that way, they are finding insult where there is none. Im not saying insults are not possible - but it can be taken too far. The INTENT and CONTEXT are as important as the word itself - and it is quite clear once one looks at the game and the rulebook what the intent is. The word jihad, in the English language, has the meaning "a crusade for a principle or belief" (Webster's). Words are (except for corporate trademarks :) ) able to be used by anyone who wants. This is as silly as banning the word "genocide" because of Hitler, the word "slavery" because of antebellum U.S. culture, etc. "Slavery" has existed all over the word, as has genocide, and yes even jihads. The word is Arabic in origin, but if youre speaking English (which you were) it is legal to apply it to any "crusade for a principle or belief", which is exactly why it was chosen by White Wolf for Vampire: The Masquerade, and why the WotC game was so named. Words are not inherently bad or good. Their USAGE is. Their usage in this context refers to a war waged by vampires among themselves. If any vampires are offended, let them call WotC. Otherwise, I think the idea of the term being used offensively is crap. -- Kevin Carle --- wild...@cco.caltech.edu (Daniel der Wahnsinnige) WWW - http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~wildcrdj *A*bstinence from Animal Products | *H*armlessness with Reverence for Life | An ye harm none, *I*ntegrity of Thought, Word, & Deed | do as ye will. *M*astery over Oneself | *S*ervice to Humanity, Nature, & Creation | PETA *A*dvancement of Understanding & Truth | American Vegan Society

ska...@u.washington.edu (Semprini) wrote: > Disappointedly, > Bill 'What were the REAL results from that poll????' Gilliland Peace Thomas, Can you verify that the VtES card backs will be completely different [boo!] and can you post the results of the AoL poll? Thanks for your help and I'm sure I echo the majority of the netizens when I say this (changing the card backs) is a Bad Thing (TM). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3o2qsr$s...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >Path: magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!hermes.louisville.edu!news >From: "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> >Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad >Subject: Re: (Bad) News From WotC Netrep Regarding V: TES Card Backs >Date: 1 May 1995 14:23:23 GMT >Organization: University of Louisville, Louisville KY USA >Lines: 38 >Message-ID: <3o2qsr$s...@hermes.louisville.edu> >References: <1995050111...@cap1.CapAccess.org> <Pine.3.07.9505010...@cap1.capaccess.org> >NNTP-Posting-Host: jsloan.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu >dk...@CapAccess.org (David Kent) wrote: >> I was just stating the fact that their decisions have not been based >> solely on a survey on aol. They have been recieving tons of feedback over >> this issue through other channels (ie. the survey in Duelist and non-aol >> email). Also, unless I missed them changing their minds while I spent >> some time in torpor, they have not changed their position on the subject >> since the aol survey. >Peace David, >Yes, apparently you _were_ in torpor. The previous stance had been that >VtES library cards would retain the 'old' backs and VtES crypt cards would >get new backs. If what was posted recently is true, WotC has gone to the >Bill Gate School for Revisionist History (TM) and will be changing all the >card backs [boo!]. >> There is no easy way to change the name of the game because of the fact >> that the old name is printed on the backs of every card. IMHO, if they >> are going to change the name of the game, they should change the backs of >> both the library and the crypt cards. It is kinda pathetic to go just >> half and half. Please show some respect for those who find the word >> 'jyhad' offensive. >How about showing respect for those people who find "magic" offensive? I >don't see them changing the card backs of Mt$ when they revised the rules? >How about showing respect for the people who have purchased significant >amounts of Jyhad cards and have put a lot of time and effort into promoting >the game [like me]? IMHO, WotC is fucking over the older players. I am >going to Marcon this weekend; there is supposed to be some WotC reps there. >They had better wear some asbestos undergarments, I am not a happy camper. > Nil carborundum illigitimi, > James R. McClure Jr. > The OS/2 Apostle I'm tried of these little brats who don't know what the hell they are doing and only play with ***** and Cards all day. Other fine example! WTOC surveys are wrong, who have they been questioning. I know one group of people who they didn't ask was the retailers. Who would know better then the group of people who sell, buy and play these cards all day and all night long.. So get in line James, I'll be at Marcon this weekend too. Since I have to deal with it, here's One simple solution to the changing of the card backs. Rule ONE: Any player can have any combination of cards backs of JYHAD or VTES. New VTES players can buy just as many VTES cards as I have JYHAD and put one or two JYHAD cards in there deck. Its war between Vampires anything goes.. Chong Chin co-owner The Soldiery Inc, Columbus, Ohio

Beth Walz <ew...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote: >WTOC surveys are wrong, who have they been questioning. I know one >group of people who they didn't ask was the retailers. Who would know better >then the group of people who sell, buy and play these cards all day and all >night long.. Well, overall the retailers were concerned about the potential change to the card backs, but weren't hopping mad like many of the people posting here to the net. And while the policy was announced too recently for us to have concrete feedback, preorders of V:TES have not dropped in the slightest since the press release was sent out. >Rule ONE: Any player can have any combination of cards backs of JYHAD or >VTES. This is, in fact, what the tournament rules will say when they are released. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <adm4.1753...@po.cwru.edu>, ad...@po.cwru.edu (Aaron Mandelbaum) writes: :> ska...@u.washington.edu (Semprini) writes: :> So they *are* changing all the card backs, then. [expletives deleted*]. :> I hope WoTC HQ burns down with all of them inside. Or would that be evil? Assuming this rumor to be true, I'd just have to write in this once to express my extreme disappointment in WotC. If this really happens, then I suppose I won't be playing Vampire. Maybe I can still get together with some of my friends who have ALSO invested heavily in Jyhad. :> Yeah, I guess that would be evil. Hmm... :> :> [sigh] I guess I'll just have to play some other game, then. :> Rage sounds fun... maybe on the edge... By the way, Illuminati is really fun! And SJ games doesn't hesistate to correct and streamline rules that resulted in unbalanced play in previous editions. You should check out the differences between the Limited and Unlimited set cards. The new manual even lists the updated rules for each and every change in the old cards. :> Anyone wanna buy a bunch of Jyhad cards? Jyhad is still a fun game, even without the hope for any usable expansions. So I suppose I'll still play it on it's own.

In article <3o3r5s$b...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >There is no "all alpha or no alpha" rule in the Jyhad tournament rules >that are forthcoming. Judges are required to allow people to mix the >two types of cards. Hmm. Only problem I see is, this applied ONLY to Duelist Convocation tournaments. A lot of people I know are saying they dont like the idea of mixed decks, which will rule out some friendly play. And there's also, believe it or not, many non-DC sanctioned tournaments. While you can keep it from being a problem in official tournaments, official tournaments are NOT most of the Jyhad games being played. And its these other games where this is gonna cause arguments, fights, etc. (accusations of marking, cheating, of "the DC says this" and "but that doesnt make sense" - we get enough of this with the game rules themselves without having the card back thing). It seems to me that it is too late for us to do anything about this - if this iws wrong, let me know. The potential problems with this situation makes me not want to invest further in the game... (saying nothing about other WotC products, though it does lower my opinion of them overall)... why buy Jyhad packs now when I might not be able to use them? And why buy more VteS backs than I should have to, just to get copies of cards I already have with the new backs? >Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

In <3o3rvo$c...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: > > >James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >>Yes, apparently you _were_ in torpor. The previous stance had been that >>VtES library cards would retain the 'old' backs and VtES crypt cards would >>get new backs. If what was posted recently is true, WotC has gone to the >>Bill Gate School for Revisionist History (TM) and will be changing all the >>card backs [boo!]. > >Exactly what history are we revising? Matt's comments about what policy >he was planning to set for the card backs? That doesn't strike me as >a very definite plan. What had been posted previously was tentative plans >for what to do about the card backs. The recent press release is definite >plans on what to do about them. What's basically going on here (without >pointing fingers) is that people want us to post all sorts of information >on what we're going to do before we have a final policy, and then trying >to hold us to those tentative plans. You can't have it both ways, folks. >We can't be forced into making a final policy just because we choose to >post speculative plans to the net; speculating one thing and then ultimately >deciding to do another is not revisionist history, it is the evolution of >a business plan, with some public insight into what's going on in our heads. > A few months ago after Matt announced on the Jyhad mailing list that the card backs would change I flamed him by e-mail and then ended up corresponding with him for a little while. He eventually did issue a news release (which unfortunately I didn't save) that Wizard$ of the Coa$t had made the decision to keep the library card backs the same. It did read like a final policy. I was pretty happy with that decision. Too bad he had to go back on his words. >>> ...Please show some respect for those who find the word 'jyhad' offensive. >>How about showing respect for those people who find "magic" offensive? I >>don't see them changing the card backs of Mt$ when they revised the rules? > >This whole "jyhad is offensive" thread is way out of hand, and is not the >primary reason for changing the name of the game, or the card backs. >The primary reason is that Jyhad was not reaching the target audience, because >the target audience had no idea what the product was. > >>How about showing respect for the people who have purchased significant >>amounts of Jyhad cards and have put a lot of time and effort into promoting >>the game [like me]? IMHO, WotC is fucking over the older players... > >How is expanding the market of players going to harm the older players? >It's not like we're turning it into a completely new game, or shutting people >out from using Jyhad cards. The change had to happen, for the benefit of >the overall game. IMHO, Wizard$ of the Coa$t for all practical purpose is turning it into a completely new game. They are also only *explicitly* not shutting people out from using Jyhad cards. Anyway, even though it is probably a futile gesture, I won't buy any V:TES products nor any future Deckmaster games (if Wizard$ of the Coa$t can screw one up, it can screw up the others.) I'm stuck with pre-orders for 4th Edition M:tG, Ice Age, and Chronicles so I can't say honestly that I won't buy any more Magic: the Gathering (yet). I will also let everyone interested in CCGs know how I feel about V:TES and Wizard$ of the Coa$t. Oh well, at least I'll be saving a lot of money...

bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) wrote: > > IMHO, people are over-reacting. Peace Jeremy, IMNSHO, WotC is fucking the older players. > I can understand WotC wanting to change the name of the game > (as I understand it, it was done for these two reasons - first, > some people weren't recognizing it as a game about Vampires > (from the name alone); second, some people were assuming it > was a game about terrorism. Regardless of the dictionary definition > of Jihad, the modern popular connotation is with Islamic terrorist > groups; and the concept of a game about terrorism was offensive to > many). I don't blame WotC for wanting their product to be more > immediately recognizable, and for trying to dodge some undeserved > ire from offended people - they probably already deal with plenty > of that kind of BS from people who do know a little about their > products. I can accept the first reason, the second reason is BS, pure and simple. If WotC were worried about offending people's sensabilities (what kind of politically correct hell are we spiralling into?) then they'd change the name of Magic to something else, to avoid offending certain Christian groups. It is a marketting move, pure and simple. Thomas Wylie has said so (and I'm proud that he did). > Given that I accept that changing the name of the game is ok, what > do you do about the card backs? Hmm...well, having a game that's > called one thing but says something else on the actual product > sounds pretty bizarre and confusing to me. Having the green back > cards say "Jyhad" and the Vamp cards say "Vampire : tES" is the > worst of both worlds. It's confusing and bizarre, with the green backs; > and there's much more chance for recognizing a vamp card that's > "marked" because of card back, since there are so few cards in the > crypt. Even if I wasn't intending to cheat, if I know my cards > well and recall that Dancin Dana, Bianca, and Dre in my crypt > were the only ones with card back X, I *definitely* gain info > by seeing the top card in the crypt... Gee, Jeremy, you've just given one of the big reasons that the older cards will eventually NOT be allowed in tourneys. Players can (and will) "cheat." I'm not saying that they'll go through elaborate deck construction to put just so many of this card back vs. that in, but seeing that the back of the next card in your library/crypt is one back or the other WILL influence how you play. It gives you an advantage you wouldn't normally have. Players will take advantage of that (subconsiously if all else). Changing the card backs is a Bad Thing (TM) and WotC is going to lose a lot of their older players. VtES will do worse than Jyhad, since it won't have an established base to build on, but will have a large group of disgruntled ex-players convincing people that they shouldn't buy VtES cards. Once you've stabbed your customer base in the back, what's to stop you from doing it again (see Microsoft). > So a different card back means giving the player with the > mixed deck a slight advantage. But, I'll remind you, way back > in late '93 Wizards was thinking about this issue (for Magic), and > Garfield's inclination was to say that this doesn't make that much > difference. He originally wanted to have each expansion set have a > different back design - this way, if you wanted to say "I don't like to [more justification of why not to change card backs elided] Yes, and it was decided that different card backs were a Bad Thing (TM). > Here's what I would predict/advise regarding the card back change : > *Tournaments will effectively be "most or all one edition" > decks to avoid cheating; not such a big deal to me but > it does restrict expansion usage by people with old cards. > How many of you have played in a tournament anyway? It _is_ a big deal for those of us who have bought a lot of cards (because we relly liked the game). Just as the "4 card limit" became the defacto standard, "all one edition" will also, further discriminating against the established players (further alienating them). > *Across the board, regardless of whatever else you do, > crypts should be all one edition unless you play with a > large crypt (why you'd want to I have no idea). You are right and if they'd leave the card backs alone, this wouldn't be a problem. > *For more cut-throat play, there'll be a temptation to > abuse the change. But the thing to do is to establish > ground-rules at the outset, whatever you're comfortable > with (I'd say having crypt all one back, and library > a mixture is fine, as long as there's no patterns in > the library - all political cards are back X, for example). > Anyone who wouldn't agree to or abide by such ground > rules is someone I wouldn't be interested in playing > with anyway... Are you going to stop and check all your opponents' decks? > What about cards that have changed in power, applicability, etc, > due to re-wordings? I agree, this is important too. WotC will hopefully say that all the old cards play like the new cards, to avoid giving the established players (like me) an unfair advantage over new players. But they probably won't listen to this, since they haven't listened to the players on card backs [I don't believe the majority of players said, "Yes, we want new card backs."] > Anyway, to me, this latter issue is *far* *far* more important > than what the card backs in a new edition look like. I disagree, obviously. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

All new card backs huh. Well I will tell ya all what I think of that, I THINK IT IS REAL POOPY. Also I find gross stupidity offensive, I mean really who thought the word jyhad was offensive. I think it was all a big crock of poop, WotC figured that the american distain toward middle- eastiners would hurt their profit margin. So with out a care to those who love the game, they change the backs. I really could not believe that they would try to heal the wound by saying, "both backs would be usable in a Tournament deck." I mean REALLY folks do you buy that bull. I wish that white wolf would do something about it, that is if they can due to the contract. Well after all my gripping I do have to say, the selfish part of me thinks it is cool. With the backs changed that renders the old cards almost worthless, and therefore I can manage to get my hands on piles of them for very cheap. Well I think that the whole thing is pretty crappy though, I had such high hopes for this game, to bad the almighty dollar beat into the dirt. Though on a good note, you do not see jyhad being banned from almost every public shool in the country like the game magic. - The Smiling Bandit

In article <3o3rvo$c...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >he was planning to set for the card backs? That doesn't strike me as >a very definite plan. What had been posted previously was tentative plans >for what to do about the card backs. The recent press release is definite >plans on what to do about them. What's basically going on here (without The very first time he said it, it was presented as tentative (although a typo in his message made that very unclear until it was sorted out later). However, the second time, it did not have any implication that it was still tentative. I will not have you blame *me* for misinterpreting a message that *you* sent, and *you* sent the message to us that the backs was not going to change on the library cards. I'm sorry if you or Matt didn't write a message that said that it was tentative, but don't blame me for what I interpreted it as saying. You have been on the group, you must have seen several of us saying to those who asked that the policy was change the lib. backs only. Several of us have answered that question many times. If you knew that this wasn't the case, you could have corrected us, privately or publicly. Until this statement was released, I saw no word from you discouraging the policy that we all thought was to be the policy. That certainly comes close to revisionist history. >to hold us to those tentative plans. You can't have it both ways, folks. >We can't be forced into making a final policy just because we choose to >post speculative plans to the net; speculating one thing and then ultimately >deciding to do another is not revisionist history, it is the evolution of >a business plan, with some public insight into what's going on in our heads. So tell us that. Don't indicate that this is the way it will happen until you are sure that this *is* the way it will happen. Correct us when we spread incorrect information. You're the netrep, that's what you're here for: to keep us correctly informed. Put a big banner across the top of the message saying "TENTATIVE". Don't give us the false impression that you have decided something, and if we get that impression, don't let us keep spreading it. We may not as a group like the new policy, but we're still the core of your market, and we'll spread whatever you tell us is happening. | 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 ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: > >Yes, apparently you _were_ in torpor. The previous stance had been that > >VtES library cards would retain the 'old' backs and VtES crypt cards would > >get new backs. If what was posted recently is true, WotC has gone to the > >Bill Gates' School for Revisionist History (TM) and will be changing all the > >card backs [boo!]. > > Exactly what history are we revising? Matt's comments about what policy > he was planning to set for the card backs? That doesn't strike me as > a very definite plan. What had been posted previously was tentative plans > for what to do about the card backs. The recent press release is definite > plans on what to do about them. What's basically going on here (without > pointing fingers) is that people want us to post all sorts of information > on what we're going to do before we have a final policy, and then trying > to hold us to those tentative plans. You can't have it both ways, folks. > We can't be forced into making a final policy just because we choose to > post speculative plans to the net; speculating one thing and then ultimately > deciding to do another is not revisionist history, it is the evolution of > a business plan, with some public insight into what's going on in our heads. Peace Tom, The previous posts about card backs sure looked pretty final. If they weren't final, why wasn't this made obvious. [many people, including myself, quoted Matt as gospel and were never corrected] As far as policy is concerned, I'd rather you not post 'tentative' plans, then. Only tell us what you _are_ going to do. > >> ...Please show some respect for those who find the word 'jyhad' offensive. > >How about showing respect for those people who find "magic" offensive? I > >don't see them changing the card backs of Mt$ when they revised the rules? > > This whole "jyhad is offensive" thread is way out of hand, and is not the > primary reason for changing the name of the game, or the card backs. > The primary reason is that Jyhad was not reaching the target audience, because > the target audience had no idea what the product was. I can accept that, Tom, unfortunately the "jyhad is offensive" idea is so ubiquitous that too many people believe that it is a primary reason behind the change. I read your post about it being marketting, I can accept that. I'd rather have honesty, given the chance. > >How about showing respect for the people who have purchased significant > >amounts of Jyhad cards and have put a lot of time and effort into promoting > >the game [like me]? IMHO, WotC is fucking over the older players... > > How is expanding the market of players going to harm the older players? > It's not like we're turning it into a completely new game, or shutting people > out from using Jyhad cards. The change had to happen, for the benefit of > the overall game. Let's say that I am (extremely) sceptical about this method of 'expanding the market.' I feel that you will lose more players than you gain by changing card backs. This has to do with people feeling betrayed and the eventual phasing out of the older cards and the players with large investments. I don't believe that the two card backs will be able to coexist peacefully (all good intentions aside). This means that one card back must win out, I'll wager that WotC will push for the success of the new backs. I've already seen half a dozen posts by players who won't buy any more cards because of this change. I just don't see how this can be financially prudent for WotC. I have a suggestion, though. You, WotC, need to change the game's name to improve market penetration, right? Well, then, just change the game's name. Change the packaging (boxes, packs, display stands). BUT, don't change the card backs. You don't need to. New players aren't going to look at the card backs before they buy cards. All they see are the boxes/packs' labels. This way you don't have the inevitable problems that _will_ occur with different backs, you don't alienate the established players, and you gain penetra- tion into new markets. It's a win-win scenario. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle Still trying to make Jyhad the best game it can be! <insert disclaimer here>

dk...@CapAccess.org (David Kent) writes: >There is no easy way to change the name of the game because of the fact >that the old name is printed on the backs of every card. IMHO, if they >are going to change the name of the game, they should change the backs of >both the library and the crypt cards. It is kinda pathetic to go just >half and half. Pathetic??? Pathetic?!?! Why is it pathetic to try and adapt the old with the new instead of saying in so many words "We want you to buy the new stuff so your old stuff is obsolete". And don't say it won't be obsolete because it will. No tournament will allow the old cards with the new. It is just too easy to try and stack the deck or even if you don't try to stack it on purpose it still will give a person a big advantage if they have old and new cards together, as they will have somewhat of an idea of what card might be coming up (unless they go 50-50 in their deck construction). Please show some respect for those who find the word >'jyhad' offensive. Blech. Almost everything is offensive to someone, somewhere right now. And I don't think that the people who find the word 'jyhad' offensive will take too kindly to a game about vampires so they wouldn't buy it even now. So that reason, for me, is pretty much invalid. But that topic has been discussed before so I won't get into it. Enough rambling, I've said my piece. Todd -- "So what if God is a lie? What would you do then?" "If it is necessary to choose between God and the truth I will always pick God." -Crimes and Misdemeanors

Kevin Carle <wild...@wildfox.caltech.edu> wrote: >Hmm. Only problem I see is, this applied ONLY to Duelist Convocation >tournaments. A lot of people I know are saying they dont like the idea >of mixed decks, which will rule out some friendly play. And there's >also, believe it or not, many non-DC sanctioned tournaments... But why are people insisting on not even *trying* to play the game with mixed card backs? Having watched several games of Dark Sovereigns playtesting, in which the DS cards were these little white rectangles of paper and thus blatantly obvious, it just didn't seem to be any kind of advantage to know that you had a DS card coming up vs. a Jyhad card coming up. Great, so you you know you have a Sovereigns card coming up; so do your opponents. I would suggest that anyone concerned about the mixed card backs try a little experiment. Find a bunch of basic lands from Magic (they are the same size as Jyhad cards, even), and proxy some amount of your Jyhad deck. Play a few games and see if it really helps to know that you have one of the proxy cards coming up, instead of one of your Jyhad cards, and see if it really makes a difference in your play strategies. In all of the inhouse playtesting for Dark Sovereigns, nobody ever decided that knowing whether they were getting a Dark Sovereign or Jyhad card was coming up was a particular advantage. It certainly wasn't any more of an advantage than just building the deck out of 10 cards or so. Or, if you have more Jyhad lying around than you know what to do with, use spare cards with they "JYHAD" on the back blacked out, instead of using basic lands. The visual cue of a card coming up will be less obvious, making the test more accurate. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Montri Chew <mon...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >A few months ago after Matt announced on the Jyhad mailing list that the card >backs would change I flamed him by e-mail and then ended up corresponding with >him for a little while. He eventually did issue a news release (which >unfortunately I didn't save) that Wizard$ of the Coa$t had made the decision >to keep the library card backs the same. It did read like a final policy. >I was pretty happy with that decision. Too bad he had to go back on his words. Well, I can't speak for the content of what Matt sent you, but this is the first press release WotC has ever issued on whether the card backs will/would be changing or not. You may have received something that looked like a press release, but it was not. >IMHO, Wizard$ of the Coa$t for all practical purpose is turning it into >a completely new game. They are also only *explicitly* not shutting >people out from using Jyhad cards. How is it turning it into a new game? You can play Jyhad decks against V:TES decks. You can put V:TES cards into your Jyhad decks and play them just fine. It's the same game, just with a different look. [ quoted text not captured ]

James R. McClure Jr. (jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu) wrote: : bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) wrote: : > I can understand WotC wanting to change the name of the game : > (as I understand it, it was done for these two reasons - first, [blah blah] : > second, some people were assuming it : > was a game about terrorism. : I can accept the first reason, the second reason is BS, pure and simple. : If WotC were worried about offending people's sensabilities (what kind of : politically correct hell are we spiralling into?) then they'd change the : name of Magic to something else, to avoid offending certain Christian : groups. It is a marketting move, pure and simple. Thomas Wylie has said : so (and I'm proud that he did). I don't think the second reason is as important, but it must have been on their minds. My point was, why take heat over a misunderstanding (people not understanding what Jyhad refers to)? Especially when you're taking heat over other stuff (like black magic in MtG etc)? : > So a different card back means giving the player with the : > mixed deck a slight advantage. But, I'll remind you, way back : > in late '93 Wizards was thinking about this issue (for Magic), and : > Garfield's inclination was to say that this doesn't make that much : > difference. : Yes, and it was decided that different card backs were a Bad Thing (TM). That, as I recall, was more of a reaction to gamer outcry than anything. I don't think that WotC saw this as a Bad Thing either before or after the decision not to take that path. : > *For more cut-throat play, there'll be a temptation to : > abuse the change. But the thing to do is to establish : > ground-rules at the outset, whatever you're comfortable : > with... : Are you going to stop and check all your opponents' decks? No. I'm going to play with people I know to be good sports. Or if I don't know them, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. If, after some experience, I think I have reason not to trust them, I'll either confront them about it or stop playing with them. It's a sad situation if you expect most of the people you play with to do whatever they can to win, even if it means abusing the system by effectively marking cards. Personally, I just won't game with people like that. : > What about cards that have changed in power, applicability, etc, : > due to re-wordings? : WotC will hopefully say that all the old cards play like the new cards, I found Tom's response to this to be pretty cryptic. Sounded like they'd like to do things this way, but he also sounded non-commital on what they'd *actually* do. -- Jeremy (bea...@netcom.com, bea...@delphi.com)

A couple of things: 1) How could a survey of Jyhad players give WOTC the idea that WE would prefer to have the card backs changed? This is a ridiculous notion. Obviously, Jyhad players would prefer the card backs remain unchanged. If they were surveying the general gaming public, they don't play Jyhad anyway. Why would they care. Wouldn't it make more sense to listen to the people that got behind your game in the first place, namely us. 2) If you ask one hundred Americans what they think about the word "Jyhad", I can just about guarantee you that 90 of them have never heard of the word (Please don't post saying you know what the word means, I found internet folk to be more in the know than the average American). If WOTC made this decision based on the notion that fewer people will be offended by "Vampire" than "Jyhad" then I think they are nuts.

bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) writes: >I don't think the second reason is as important, but it must have >been on their minds. My point was, why take heat over a misunderstanding >(people not understanding what Jyhad refers to)? Because they already made the decision on the name and sold half a bazillion cards with it. >Especially when you're taking heat over other stuff (like black magic in >MtG etc)? Come on, if T$R can avoid selling out, how hot can this 'heat' be? -- Aaron Mandelbaum (why not call it Vampire: the Jyhad? :)

bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) writes: >IMHO, people are over-reacting. > >I can understand WotC wanting to change the name of the game >(as I understand it, it was done for these two reasons - first, >some people weren't recognizing it as a game about Vampires >(from the name alone); second, some people were assuming it >was a game about terrorism. Regardless of the dictionary definition >of Jihad, the modern popular connotation is with Islamic terrorist >groups; and the concept of a game about terrorism was offensive to >many). To who? And by what reasoning? I think before this can be acknowledged as a true problem, someone has to defend the argument. Simply acknowledging that the word "Jihad" is controversial is not justification for obsoleting all the valuable cards people own. >Given that I accept that changing the name of the game is ok, what >do you do about the card backs? Hmm...well, having a game that's >called one thing but says something else on the actual product >sounds pretty bizarre and confusing to me. Having the green back >cards say "Jyhad" and the Vamp cards say "Vampire : tES" is the >worst of both worlds. It's confusing and bizarre, with the green backs; >and there's much more chance for recognizing a vamp card that's >"marked" because of card back, since there are so few cards in the >crypt. Even if I wasn't intending to cheat, if I know my cards >well and recall that Dancin Dana, Bianca, and Dre in my crypt >were the only ones with card back X, I *definitely* gain info >by seeing the top card in the crypt... What you're saying - in essence - is that different card backs cause the crypt to be more problematic than the library. Perhaps true but not the right issue. The question is: why different card backs at all. Just keep ALL the card backs the way they were, then we don't worry about this issue. Now, what was confusing and bizarre about that? They may call the game anything they like - just don't change the card backs! >So a different card back means giving the player with the >mixed deck a slight advantage. But, I'll remind you, way back >in late '93 Wizards was thinking about this issue (for Magic), and >Garfield's inclination was to say that this doesn't make that much >difference. He originally wanted to have each expansion set have a >different back design - this way, if you wanted to say "I don't like to >play against decks with Antiquities", you'd know whether your >opponent was complying or not. I simply do not understand this point of view. OF COURSE different card backs are a problem. Tell me, were you ever desperate enough to play cards that you used two or more different decks with different card backs to fill up a standard deck of 52 playing cards? How did you like playing that way? It's terrible - you go out and buy a new deck at your first opportunity because IT DOESN'T WORK! And this won't work. Alpha cards have been the second stickiest issue the Convocation has had to deal with in the game, after sleeves. No one wants to allow them except the people who own them and want to use them. If Garfield thought they didn't make much of a difference (and particularly if he STILL thinks that) then Garfield is idiot. >Here's what I would predict/advise regarding the card back change : > *Tournaments will effectively be "most or all one edition" > decks to avoid cheating; not such a big deal to me but > it does restrict expansion usage by people with old cards. > How many of you have played in a tournament anyway? I've never even seen a Convocation Jyhad tournament. I've been to one such WotC sponsored-event, early in its publication. Frankly, I think you're right - Magic is a good game for tournaments. Jyhad is fairly lousy. The reason I hate this move by WotC is that there is simply no tournament rules they can make up that solve the problem: DIFFERENT CARD BACKS IN DECKS TOTALLY SCREW UP THE GAME! > *For friendly play it just won't matter. Bullshit. You know what cards you put in your deck and what backs they have. Your opponent know what cards he put in his deck and what backs they have. It will be an issue whenever the question of what card you may or may not draw next is crucial. This cannot be changed, wished, or hoped away. Different card backs change the game. Fred

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >The decision was in flux precisely because of customer feedback. The >"subterfuge" you refer to was not an attempt to assess overall customer >input, just one NetRep acting on his own. ...and what feedback was that? No - I don't need numbers or sources. I just want to know what the nature of the complaints you were getting that made WotC unwilling to publish a game called V:TES, packaged with the name V:TES, but with the old cardbacks on the cards. That's what's been mystifying me. While a relatively small number of posters have defended the current decision, the gist of their logic is "it's not so bad". That's arguable, I suppose, but what I want to know was, what's so bad about the alternative, as I (and many others) have suggested avoe. Fred

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >How is expanding the market of players going to harm the older players? Because you're doing it in a way that obsoletes our card collections. I'm sorry but this seems like a very obvious no-brainer answer to me. Do you really not understand?!? In doing this, you are also alienating the segment of the market that plays the game now. Is this going to be a market expansion, in the end? I can say that I will not invest in a non-Magic trading-card game from a company that is showing that they have NO CLUE about how important it is that they NOT mess with the value of their customers previous investments in their products. There are a lot of other minor trading-card games on the market, if I feel the desire to get involved with another one. I make the exception for Magic because it is THE definitive trading card game and I feel it's likely that even WotC would have courage to mess with its card backs. I sure hope I'm not wrong. I'd hate to be around for the carnage... Fred

In article <3o674c$b...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >Kevin Carle <wild...@wildfox.caltech.edu> wrote: >>Hmm. Only problem I see is, this applied ONLY to Duelist Convocation >>tournaments. A lot of people I know are saying they dont like the idea >>of mixed decks, which will rule out some friendly play. And there's >>also, believe it or not, many non-DC sanctioned tournaments... > >But why are people insisting on not even *trying* to play the game with >mixed card backs? Having watched several games of Dark Sovereigns playtesting, >in which the DS cards were these little white rectangles of paper and thus >blatantly obvious, it just didn't seem to be any kind of advantage to know >that you had a DS card coming up vs. a Jyhad card coming up. Great, so you >you know you have a Sovereigns card coming up; so do your opponents. Well, presumably (especially in a tournament), you know better than your opponents what cards are Jyhad and what are VteS. But even so, I agree. I think it is workable. My problem isnt myself, its others - I know many people (take a look at this newsgroup) who will blatantly reject it and not try to get it to work. This affects me, because it means I have to try even HARDER to find players (and unlike Magic, finding Jyhad players is not always the easiest thing - I have enough trouble now, it'll be worse when so many of the current players quit - if they do as they've been threatening). I think the problem a lot of people have is they feel they shouldnt HAVE to worry about this - they feel betrayed by WotC. Obviously, no loyalty is required in this situation, but many players are afraid that if WotC is doing things like this, worse things may happen in the future, and thus are stopping WotC purchases (not myself, but others I have talked to). They feel that it will cause unnecessary problems... that the card backs could have been left alone with far fewer problems (keeping the name change on the boxes and packs, and explaining all this in the rule book). I'm willing to try it - but at the same time, Im afraid to buy too many Jyhad cards now, for fear that I will be unable to use them with players and tournament directors who treat it too seriously, and forget it is a game. >Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3o674c$b...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >But why are people insisting on not even *trying* to play the game with >mixed card backs? Having watched several games of Dark Sovereigns playtesting, >in which the DS cards were these little white rectangles of paper and thus >blatantly obvious, it just didn't seem to be any kind of advantage to know >that you had a DS card coming up vs. a Jyhad card coming up. Great, so you >you know you have a Sovereigns card coming up; so do your opponents. But playtesting is a best-case scenario. You try to get a good mix of cards to balance the set with what's already out there. In actual play, there will be differences. The most common example: I (a Jyhad only owner) find a terribly nifty card or two that I feel are indespensible in Dark Sovereigns (this is exactly what has happened in each magic expansion I have purchased). I buy some and put them in. They are in fact quite nifty, and when I know that they are coming up, I use my discard phase to grab one *now* rather than wait, which I normally would not have done. I am not malicious, merely taking advantage of a fact that is staring me in the face. >if it really makes a difference in your play strategies. In all of the >inhouse playtesting for Dark Sovereigns, nobody ever decided that knowing >whether they were getting a Dark Sovereign or Jyhad card was coming up >was a particular advantage. It certainly wasn't any more of an advantage >than just building the deck out of 10 cards or so. Then nobody was building tight, tuned decks. If I know that the next card is a Necromancy card (since that's the only DS discipline I use, for example), I'm gonna pull it so that my Katia Giovanni can use it to good effect. I'm sorry to say this, but you're being a bit naive. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeremy York <bea...@netcom.com> wrote: >: WotC will hopefully say that all the old cards play like the new cards, >I found Tom's response to this to be pretty cryptic. Sounded like >they'd like to do things this way, but he also sounded non-commital >on what they'd *actually* do. Again, the situation here will be exactly the same as in Magic. While we recommend that people play with the updated card texts if they know what those card texts are, we have no reliable way of getting the updated card texts circulated, so can't make that the official policy right now. And I don't know how soon we'll be able to circulate the texts. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >To who? And by what reasoning? I think before this can be acknowledged >as a true problem, someone has to defend the argument. Simply acknowledging >that the word "Jihad" is controversial is not justification for obsoleting >all the valuable cards people own. But Jyhad cards are not being made obselete. You can play with them against V:TES decks just fine, and can mix cards from the two in the same deck just fine. Regardless of what people seem to think on this, mixing in different card backs just isn't a useful tactic. I highly recommend that people actually experiment with differing card backs before condemning the idea, rather than just assuming that Jyhad and V:TES are oil and water. >I simply do not understand this point of view. OF COURSE different card >backs are a problem. Tell me, were you ever desperate enough to play cards >that you used two or more different decks with different card backs to fill >up a standard deck of 52 playing cards? How did you like playing that way? >It's terrible - you go out and buy a new deck at your first opportunity >because IT DOESN'T WORK! And this won't work. Actually, I have done that fairly often, and have never had a huge problem with it. It's a little bit annoying if the cards have wildly different sizes and printing styles, but assuming there's a reasonable blend of the two card backs, it's difficult to try and cheat based on the backs. Granted, having one or two differing cards can be bad, but that's because in most standard card games there are limited resources, and it's critical to have some idea of who is getting what cards. Think how bad Hearts would be if just the queen of spades is marked. But since people are not pulling cards from a common deck in Jyhad, this is not really an issue. >Alpha cards have been the second stickiest issue the Convocation has had to >deal with in the game, after sleeves. No one wants to allow them except the >people who own them and want to use them. If Garfield thought they didn't >make much of a difference (and particularly if he STILL thinks that) then >Garfield is idiot. Again, that situation is different than Jyhad's. There are basically two ways to mark your deck with alpha cards. First, have all your mana be alphas, and all the other cards be non-alpha (or the other way around). Here you are basically marking your resources as being functionally different from your functional cards. In Jyhad, the resources and the functional cards are basically in different decks, so this concern doesn't really apply. The other reason to mix alphas is to mark a few key cards to the deck; this will tell you how important it is to draw a whole bunch of cards right now, or do something to build up what you have in play. Since you know in Jyhad that you're probably going to draw the top card of your library within the next turn, and since the wild type of decks that this alpha marking helps with don't exist in Jyhad, this is not really an issue either. >Bullshit. You know what cards you put in your deck and what backs they have. >Your opponent know what cards he put in his deck and what backs they have. >It will be an issue whenever the question of what card you may or may not >draw next is crucial... Yes, but how often is this *really* going to help? Say you've made all your V:TES cards political cards. Are you really going to toss a Wake with Evening's Freshness on a hopeless "block" just to get to the vote faster? If so, you'd better hope that vote gets you a major advantage, since otherwise you've thrown away a valuable card for nothing. >Different card backs change the game. But not significantly. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I would suggest that anyone concerned about the mixed card backs try a > little experiment. Find a bunch of basic lands from Magic (they are the > same size as Jyhad cards, even), and proxy some amount of your Jyhad deck. > Play a few games and see if it really helps to know that you have one > of the proxy cards coming up, instead of one of your Jyhad cards, and see > if it really makes a difference in your play strategies. In all of the > inhouse playtesting for Dark Sovereigns, nobody ever decided that knowing > whether they were getting a Dark Sovereign or Jyhad card was coming up > was a particular advantage. It certainly wasn't any more of an advantage > than just building the deck out of 10 cards or so. I have done this several times in magic (My moxes were quite a bit mopre played as was my Anc. Recall, time walk and Lotus). This MAKES a huge difference on how you play your cards. I play only one of a given card in my Jyhad deck. I proxied 6 cards and 4 2 strength vampires. It helped me out immensely. There was no balancing factor because even though my friends knew I had a proxy card coming up they had no clue. Saying that a mixeed is not an advantage is a bad cover up job (and it's strange that the DC ruled this since they are so paranoid about marked cards in M:TG). Blake the STU

Why can't they just keep the card backs saying Jyhad, while the wrappers around the boosters and starters tell the potential buyers that it's about 'Vampire - The Eternal Struggle'. Or would WotC get suited for that? Even when they also put the word 'Jyhad' on the wrapper? This certainly would make everybody happy: Jyhad players because all card backs stay the same. New players because they now know the game is about vampires. WotC because less people loose trust in them. I think WotC is a very brave company daring to turn their backs on people who have shown that they will and want to buy a game in favour of a potential audience. Especially when it is a game that needs more than two players. Another compromise: WotC should offer two games: Revised Jyhad (Jyhad card backs) and VTES (VTES card backs). WotC should offer two expansions: Dark Souverigns for VTES (all VTES backs) and Dark Souverigns for Jyhad (all Jyhad backs). In summer 1996, see what game sold best and continue that game. In the mean time, you might find people who want to collect both versions of a card, so you can sell cards twice... -- Johan Meijdam jo...@pa.twi.tudelft.nl

A game of Jyhad/V:tes: As I draw my four initial vampires and look at their backs, I grimace. Figures. I hate having different card backs, and now my regular playing group knows exactly who I'm going to bring out. See, Wizard$ of the Coa$t screwed around with all the backs. All right, I guess I can live with that. I draw my seven initial hand cards. Cool. Three of those four majesties I traded for last week are in my hand. Suddenly, Dave shouts, "Eyes on Erik, boy, he's got some new card backs. Those wouldn't be the majesties I traded to you last week would they?" I flush, and mutter a negative response followed by an obscenity. Damn! Wizard$ really raped me! I try to hold my cards behind each other, in a stack. Eventually I win the game, or maybe not, but whatever the case I didn't feel as if I had any surprise when I played Majesty. Cheesy card though it is, it's not fun when other players can see it coming. This could be any card, from wolf claws to political flux. The point is, you might get some newbie Vtes player, with all Vtes cards, and suddenly he buys some... theft of vitaes, let's say... off of some disgusted ex-jyhad player. Now look! He's got four Jyhad card backs! All other players know what they are, if they're his regular playing group. You can't expect them to role-play it as if they didn't know what the cards were. I wasn't going to buy any more Jyhad cards anyway, I so originally this whole thing didn't bother me. But when I heard about the expansion set, I was ecstatic. Unfortunately now people are going to know when I have expansion set cards in my hand, etc. Well, there's nothing I can really do about it except complain, which won't do anything anyway. Sorry for wasting your time. Erik

bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) wrote: > James R. McClure Jr. (jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu) wrote: > : bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) wrote: > : > I can understand WotC wanting to change the name of the game > : > (as I understand it, it was done for these two reasons - first, [blah blah] > : > second, some people were assuming it > : > was a game about terrorism. > > : I can accept the first reason, the second reason is BS, pure and simple. > : If WotC were worried about offending people's sensabilities (what kind of > : politically correct hell are we spiralling into?) then they'd change the > : name of Magic to something else, to avoid offending certain Christian > : groups. It is a marketting move, pure and simple. Thomas Wylie has said > : so (and I'm proud that he did). > > I don't think the second reason is as important, but it must have > been on their minds. My point was, why take heat over a misunderstanding > (people not understanding what Jyhad refers to)? Especially when you're > taking heat over other stuff (like black magic in MtG etc)? Peace Jeremy, Ok, if we agree that this is totally a marketting move (an I think we do), then why doesn't WotC take the simpler win-win solution I proposed yesterday: leave the card backs alone, but change the deck, pack, and stand displays to read "Vampire: the Eternal Struggle." This way, they get the increased market penetration they are looking for AND the old and new cards are fully compatible. I don't see why WotC doesn't choose this alternative. > : > So a different card back means giving the player with the > : > mixed deck a slight advantage. But, I'll remind you, way back > : > in late '93 Wizards was thinking about this issue (for Magic), and > : > Garfield's inclination was to say that this doesn't make that much > : > difference. > > : Yes, and it was decided that different card backs were a Bad Thing (TM). > > That, as I recall, was more of a reaction to gamer outcry than anything. > I don't think that WotC saw this as a Bad Thing either before or after > the decision not to take that path. Well, it sure looks to me like there is a hell of a lot of player outcry going on. If WotC is responsive to their customers, they'll change this foolish policy before it is instituted. [ quoted text not captured ]

ad...@po.cwru.edu (Aaron Mandelbaum) wrote: > Aaron Mandelbaum why not call it Vampire: the Jyhad? Peace Aaron, That works extremely well with my idea of changing only the "wrappers" the cards come in. They could call it VtJ and leave the card backs alone. Everyone would be happy! How about it, WotC?? [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: > >To who? And by what reasoning? I think before this can be acknowledged > >as a true problem, someone has to defend the argument. Simply acknowledging > >that the word "Jihad" is controversial is not justification for obsoleting > >all the valuable cards people own. > > But Jyhad cards are not being made obselete. You can play with them against > V:TES decks just fine, and can mix cards from the two in the same deck > just fine. Regardless of what people seem to think on this, mixing in > different card backs just isn't a useful tactic. I highly recommend that > people actually experiment with differing card backs before condemning > the idea, rather than just assuming that Jyhad and V:TES are oil and water. Peace Tom, They will be obsolessed (sp) if mixed decks prove to be a problem (which a significant portion of the net.aware players seem to think it will). Yes, mixing card backs can be a useful tactic and at the very least can give you valuable information about what is coming up next in your deck. Here's a very good example: Let's say you have a Brujah rush combat deck and a sizable number of both sets of cards. You could make all your non-combat cards VtES backs and all your combat cards Jyhad backs. Now, I'm in combat and I see that my next card is a VtES back, I won't press and hope to draw a Strike card, because I KNOW that the next card isn't. I've been in this situation (should I press/ maneuver and hope to draw a strike) several times recently [I've been playing Brujah quite a bit since Curt Adams claimed they couldn't beat S&B] and KNOWING whether the next card is playable in the current combat or not IS a big advantage. PLEASE, DON'T CHANGE THE CARD BACKS! It isn't necessary. > >Alpha cards have been the second stickiest issue the Convocation has had to > >deal with in the game, after sleeves. No one wants to allow them except the > >people who own them and want to use them. If Garfield thought they didn't > >make much of a difference (and particularly if he STILL thinks that) then > >Garfield is idiot. > > Again, that situation is different than Jyhad's. There are basically two > ways to mark your deck with alpha cards. First, have all your mana be > alphas, and all the other cards be non-alpha (or the other way around). > Here you are basically marking your resources as being functionally > different from your functional cards. In Jyhad, the resources and the > functional cards are basically in different decks, so this concern doesn't > really apply. The other reason to mix alphas is to mark a few key cards to > the deck; this will tell you how important it is to draw a whole bunch of > cards right now, or do something to build up what you have in play. Since > you know in Jyhad that you're probably going to draw the top card of your > library within the next turn, and since the wild type of decks that this > alpha marking helps with don't exist in Jyhad, this is not really an > issue either. And, Tom, there ARE ways to mark your library with different card backs in Jyhad (see above for just one good example). This is an extremely bad idea and the amount of user response should show that. > Yes, but how often is this *really* going to help? Say you've made all > your V:TES cards political cards. Are you really going to toss a Wake > with Evening's Freshness on a hopeless "block" just to get to the vote > faster? If so, you'd better hope that vote gets you a major advantage, > since otherwise you've thrown away a valuable card for nothing. Try it with a combat deck (see above). Or how about a Malk S&B where all the Dominate bleed mods are a different back? Then you could start a bleed with the stealth card in your hand and KNOW that you'll draw a modifier to increase the bleed (I've been here too). > >Different card backs change the game. > > But not significantly. More significantly than you believe, Tom. Check my examples. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : But why are people insisting on not even *trying* to play the game with : mixed card backs? Possibly because we would like to get some of the expansion cards, but do not want to have to go out and buy replacement V:TES cards for _every_single_ Jyhad card we own? Possibly because WotC said that it was okay to do so, and even (we are told) will issue Tournament rules allowing us to do so? I get the impression from this statement that you think us fools for playing with the Jyhad cards we own, _and_ with any expansion sets/VTES cards we may buy. I hope this is not what you meant to say. : Having watched several games of Dark Sovereigns playtesting, : in which the DS cards were these little white rectangles of paper and thus : blatantly obvious, it just didn't seem to be any kind of advantage to know : that you had a DS card coming up vs. a Jyhad card coming up. Great, so you : you know you have a Sovereigns card coming up; so do your opponents. One minopr problem with that scenario (and the 'proxy MtG cards' scenario you also mentioned); in this situation, the other person/people _know_ that those particular cards are 'marked'. In a tournament scenario, there is no way to know if differing card backs are an indication that that person has marked their deck or not - they could just be a money-poor player that has traded willy-nilly to get the cards they want regardless of backs. Until and unless one plays that questionable deck a few times, paying close attention to which cards have which backs, there is _still_ no way to know, short of actually examining the entire deck. (And if you think people freely let others riffle through their tournament decks....) So now (for example) we have a situation where player A has all V:TES, player B has all Jyhad, player C has a mix and is not 'cheating' and player D has a mix and _is_ marking his cards. C will be more likely to believe that D is not cheating, since C is not. D will be more likely to believe that C _is_ cheating, since D is too. A and B will not know, and will have to watch both decks closely, since (according to what you posted) it will be up to them to decide whether or not to call a judge over to examine the mixed decks. In this scenario, A and B are not paying full attention to the game, as they are too busy trying to police the other players - and thus you hamper the people who are honest by splitting their attention. Hardly seems fair to me.... Shane Travis | The stupid neither forgive nor forget; tra...@duke.usask.ca | The naive both forgive and forget; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | The wise forgive but do not forget. | -- Thomas Szasz

Jeremy York (bea...@netcom.com) wrote: : James R. McClure Jr. (jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu) wrote: : : Are you going to stop and check all your opponents' decks? : No. I'm going to play with people I know to be good sports. Or if : I don't know them, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. If, after : some experience, I think I have reason not to trust them, I'll either : confront them about it or stop playing with them. It's a sad situation : if you expect most of the people you play with to do whatever they : can to win, even if it means abusing the system by effectively marking : cards. Personally, I just won't game with people like that. In a tournament situation, however, one does not have the option of playing with whomever one chooses, and you can bet your bippie that everyone who shows up is doing everything they feel morally comfortable with to win the tournament. Just because _you_ think that mixing and matching carbacks with disciplines is cheating doesn't mean that Johnny Munchkin over there considers it anything but another tool he can use.... [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >That survey posted to AOL was in no way intended to be an exhaustive survey >of what people though about the card back issue. It was posted to AOL because >the AOL NetRep had concerns on the issue, so *he* went ahead and polled the >people in the forum he was covering. There is nothing wrong with this, but >it should not be construed as an attempt to base the decision solely on >AOL feedback. The decision was based on feedback from all sorts of sources, >both on and off the net. In other words, it wasn't a charade, it was a last-ditch effort by a renegade to stop an ill-considered and inconsiderate decision. The post had originally made me suspect that. Bully for him. Pity it wasn't enough. >>With regards to tournaments, I think most tournament organizers will >>not put up with the potential cheating problem and will simply ban >>decks which mixes the two editions. Jyhad will indeed become obselete >>regardless of what Wizards of the Coast wants us to believe. >The Convocation rules will explicitly allow mixing Jyhad and V:TES card backs. >Banning one or the other in a sanctioned tournaments is a good way to put the >tournament on the fast track to being thrown out. Obviously unofficial >tournaments can do what they want, but hopefully people will realize that >it's actually difficult to blatantly mark your deck with mixed card backs. It's easy to obtain a substantial advantage. Nosferatu/Giovanni deck, for example. "Hm. My next crypt card is a Jyhad card. Wonder if it's a Nosferatu?" You can scarcely HELP doing that kind of thing. Never mind what you can do if you try. This doesn't just affect tournaments, it affects every Jyhad/V:TES game played anywhere or anywhen with mixed decks. It won't affect me, as I will never play with, or against a mixed deck (unless I am forced to in a tournament). >>What really galled me is the way they kept >>changing their decision (the last previous one was keeping the library >>card backs the same) and then resorting to a public relation subtefuge >>to justify what they've apparently wanted to do all along. >The decision was in flux precisely because of customer feedback. The >subterfuge" you refer to was not an attempt to assess overall customer >input, just one NetRep acting on his own. Customer feedback? Phooey. We all know what the feedback was. Everybody I've spoken with and virtually every post I've seen has expressed disgust at changing the card backs. I've yet to see or hear even ONE person outside of WotC say the change was needed (the best has been that it is tolerable, and even that's rare). I'm sure there are a few, considering there are thousands of members of the Flat Earth Society. You've informed us that the AOL poll was not officially put out by WotC as a company, but by one lone rep. In that case, WotC wasn't considering customer opinion at all. Although dishonesty fits well with blatant disregard for customer wishes and benefits, it earns no brownie points, and WotC's going to need a lot of brownie points now. If you didn't care what the customers thought, you should at least say so. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <3o876f$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >Customer feedback? Phooey. We all know what the feedback was. Everybody >I've spoken with and virtually every post I've seen has expressed disgust >at changing the card backs. I've yet to see or hear even ONE person >outside of WotC say the change was needed (the best has been that it is >tolerable, and even that's rare). I'm sure there are a few, considering >there are thousands of members of the Flat Earth Society. I do know someone who is happy about the change in card backs. She doesn't play much anymore, but she has a full set, and hopes that the change in backs will raise the value of her complete set. [ quoted text not captured ]

An example from experience that different card backs in a large deck don't make that much difference - Galactic Empires. It is trivial to tell, at a glance, the difference between a alpha/beta card and a Primary edition/expansion card. This is because the older cards were on a linen finish stock; the texture of this stock is easily recognizable. Has this made any appreciable difference in any game of GE I've ever played (even though *all* of us were playing with mixed decks)? Not that I was able to notice. The example someone gave of have a Jyhad deck with only Necromancy cards with a V:tES back was a good one. If you don't have a decent vamp with that discipline in play, you're not going to discard a potentially useful card just in hopes of getting something good. The opposite case holds true - you know that your necromancy cards would come in very handy, so you ditch something, anything, just to be able to draw it. BUT it doesn't need to be that way if you make a point of being a good sport. In Magic, I used to play a lot with decks that had all editions of the cards, including alphas. To offset any unfair advantage this might give me, I always kept my pool of land cards totally mixed up. If I grab a handful of Swamps for a deck, I might get one-third alphas. Similarly with all of my commons. This way I made sure that my deck was sporting - seeing that alpha on top of my deck didn't tell me "aha, that's either my ancestral recall or my winter orb" because it might have been an Island or a Llanowar elf, too. So don't use only Necromancy cards from a V:tES expansion in a Jyhad deck. Buy or trade for a few regular V:tES cards, and replace a bunch of your commons, indiscriminantly, with the equivalent new edition card. Advantage zapped, no longer an issue. "I can't expect my opponents to do the same" you say. Well, maybe not, but it's an issue of sportsmanship. A good sport tries to play in a way that's fair even if that fairness is not universally practiced. And again, I say, if I play against people who I think cheat or abuse the game system to their advantage, I confront them about it and stop playing with them. -- Jeremy (bea...@netcom.com, bea...@delphi.com)

>>Please show some respect for those who find the word 'jyhad' offensive. >I'm sorry - there _is_ a such thing as being too sensitive. In any case, >I haven't even heard the case, yet. Not in the news nor Usenet nor >anywhere. I strongly question whether there really is anyone anywhere who >actually has a legitimate gripe about this. > >Fred Actually, Fred, I would go one step further and state that anyone who takes offense to the word "Jihad" is prejudiced against Islam. Jihad means essentially the same thing as Crusade, and WOTC doesn't seem to be planning to take that card out of Magic. The only people I could see legitimately having a gripe over this is Muslims who think that the word Jihad is being trivialized by being applied to a fantasy game. And I think most gamers reactions to that would be the same as if a Christian group objected to the Crusade card.... EZ

James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >Ok, if we agree that this is totally a marketting move (an I think we do), >then why doesn't WotC take the simpler win-win solution I proposed yesterday: >leave the card backs alone, but change the deck, pack, and stand displays to >read "Vampire: the Eternal Struggle." This way, they get the increased market >penetration they are looking for AND the old and new cards are fully >compatible. I don't see why WotC doesn't choose this alternative. Because it will look stupid and inconsistent to new players for these holdouts from the old game to be lying around. The name of the game is changing, so the presentation of the game is being changed to reflect this. Maybe people who play Jyhad don't think it would look stupid for the V:TES cards to say Jyhad on the backs, but we disagree. >If WotC is responsive to their customers, they'll change this >foolish policy before it is instituted. The customer input was basically "We don't want to see the card backs change because people will ruin the game by marking their decks." After testing whether having different backs really helps someone out, we decided that it's not particularly an advantage to mix the card backs, so the main reason given for keeping the card backs the same didn't apply. We do have the new customers to think about as well as the old, so we chose the approach of changing the card backs, and helping the old customers through the transition. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <beanishD...@netcom.com>, Jeremy York <bea...@netcom.com> wrote: >An example from experience that different card backs in a large >deck don't make that much difference - Galactic Empires. It >is trivial to tell, at a glance, the difference between a >alpha/beta card and a Primary edition/expansion card. This >is because the older cards were on a linen finish stock; the >texture of this stock is easily recognizable. There are many games which I do not think would be adversely affected by mixed backs. I've played a lot of them. Jyhad, however is one that I think would be adversely affected, by virtue of the way you draw cards in the game (almost all other card games (all that I can think of off the top of my head) limit you to 1 card per turn and leave you stuck if you empty your hand (who cares what that next card is, I'm depsarate for *something* to do!), whereas in Jyhad you have the luxury of timing your draw more closely). >The example someone gave of have a Jyhad deck with only >Necromancy cards with a V:tES back was a good one. If you Thank you. >BUT it doesn't need to be that way if you make a point of >being a good sport. In Magic, I used to play a lot with decks >that had all editions of the cards, including alphas. To >offset any unfair advantage this might give me, I always kept >my pool of land cards totally mixed up. If I grab a handful >of Swamps for a deck, I might get one-third alphas. Similarly >with all of my commons. ... >So don't use only Necromancy cards from a V:tES expansion in >a Jyhad deck. Buy or trade for a few regular V:tES cards, and >replace a bunch of your commons, indiscriminantly, with the equivalent >new edition card. Advantage zapped, no longer an issue. Being a good sport that way will cost me more money or trading time. I've already spent lots of both on the game, and don't plan on repeating my investment (to me, trading is work. Almost more work than buying. That's life). The *only* thing I need to purchase from now on is expansions. That's all I plan on doing. Anything else is repeating my investment for little return. Kinda sad that you have to *pay* to be a good sport. [ quoted text not captured ]

bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) writes: >So don't use only Necromancy cards from a V:tES expansion in >a Jyhad deck. Buy or trade for a few regular V:tES cards, and >replace a bunch of your commons, indiscriminantly, with the equivalent >new edition card. Advantage zapped, no longer an issue. To replace 'a bunch' of commons, ie enough to make a difference, I'd have to buy quite a bit of V:tES. Which is obviously what they want. Which is why I think it stinks. No one who comes in after Jyhad is going to trade FOR marked backs, 'cause they couldn't use the cards. Therefore, we'd have to buy as much as we've already got for them not to be marked. I have no intention of shelling out fifty or sixty bucks for no other reason than that they decided to change the damn name. I have SOME pride, if nothing else. That means that if I DO buy any of the expansion (which I WAS planning to do), they'll be marked. I was never planning to buy more normal Jyhad, just expansions. End conclusion: It's not worth it to me to buy any V:TES. Ever. If I want new cards (which I do) it's more cost effective to start playing some other game. -- Aaron Mandelbaum

>Because it will look stupid and inconsistent to new players for these holdouts >from the old game to be lying around. The name of the game is changing, >We do have the new customers to think about as well as the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >old, so we chose the approach of changing the card backs, and helping >the old customers through the transition. *NEW CUSTOMERS* ... Yes.. new customers are good for WotC, as are new players for the elder Jyhad players. BUT if you look at all these dedicated customer posts... the "old customers" are mostly LEAVING. Do not assume that these are simply a few pissed off flamers whose loss to the market will be negligible. This is actually the MAJORITY opinion of all Jyhad players i have spoken with, and the MAJORITY opinion of the readers of this newsgroup. So if WotC really thinks that they will still somehow profit off of a string of new customers, while losing all the old.. then there is no point in argueing, because our voice is hitting deaf ears. But in business and marketing the philosophy: "Let's get rid of all our old customers and just hope we get more new ones... " doesn't tend to float very well. Though this decision may seem trivial to you at WotC, you are in fact violating some very BASIC business etiquette, and bringing down V:TES and Jyhad along with it. Focus on your earlier days in business school. You, as I, may recall little key concepts and phrases like: "The customer is ALWAYS first.. " "Be courteous, LISTENING, and attentive.. " "Fit there needs.. " "... to KEEP THEM COMING BACK ..." I do not myself even play Jyhad. I was simply directed to this argument by a friend who is pissed off and was discusted with some of the arguments and positions WotC has taken up. I have only some advice for WotC in this matter: Listen to your PRESENT customers. They are the ones with the voices. They are the ones you can count on. It can not be simply assumed that you will get a whole new array of customers.. ESPECIALLY if you have others (the ex-Jyhaders) going around convincing people NOT to buy V:TES. Besides.. I can't imagine this whole "new" generation of V:TES players to be so discusted by card backs that display "Jyhad" as to not buy V:TES any more. Buyers DO have common sense. All it takes is few simple words of explanation in the first part of the manual, to bring this fact to the attention of a questioning buyer, and they will understand completely, ESPECIALLY if they have ever played any other collectable card game in their life. Remember.. these people who post on this newsgroup are the Jyhad ELITE.. they are the ones who really care about the game, and the ones you should be considering. If you have any business background at all, you will realize that this is, in fact, the truth. Thank you for your time, John L. Ross

On 1 May 1995, Thomas R Wylie wrote: > James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: > >How about showing respect for the people who have purchased significant > >amounts of Jyhad cards and have put a lot of time and effort into promoting > >the game [like me]? IMHO, WotC is fucking over the older players... > > How is expanding the market of players going to harm the older players? > It's not like we're turning it into a completely new game, or shutting people > out from using Jyhad cards. The change had to happen, for the benefit of > the overall game. > > Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for > aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. To Tom Wylie, You said previously that you can't be held to tenative plans, such as card backs. So how can we trust that WotC would change the ruling about the older Jyhad cards. I will not hold my breath. Jyhad is the BEST trading card game I have seen. And since there is a game glut and I money shortage, I made the decision long ago to make Jyhad _MY_ game. I feel I may have made the wrong decision. Marty Runyon ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "One day, I shall come back. Yes, I shall come back. Until then, there must be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your beliefs, and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine." - The Doctor, "Doctor Who: The Dalek Invasion of Earth" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Marty "Anjin" Runyon <run...@robles.callutheran.edu> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: (Bad) News From WotC Netrep Regarding V: TES Card Backs >Kevin Carle <wild...@wildfox.caltech.edu> wrote: >>Hmm. Only problem I see is, this applied ONLY to Duelist Convocation >>tournaments. A lot of people I know are saying they dont like the idea >>of mixed decks, which will rule out some friendly play. And there's >>also, believe it or not, many non-DC sanctioned tournaments... >But why are people insisting on not even *trying* to play the game with >mixed card backs? Having watched several games of Dark Sovereigns playtesting, >in which the DS cards were these little white rectangles of paper and thus >blatantly obvious, it just didn't seem to be any kind of advantage to know >that you had a DS card coming up vs. a Jyhad card coming up. Great, so you >you know you have a Sovereigns card coming up; so do your opponents. You're not trying very hard. Do you know why casinos ditch card deck after just one session? Just the advantage of figuring out a few cards can convert the house advantage to a player advantage. I would not expect the playtesters to be trying to take advantage of obvious test card distinctions. It's not part of useful playtesting. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <3o98ve$n...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote in response to the card back issue: > The user responses clearly indicates that the users *think* it's a major > difference. It hasn't been demonstrated that the users have determined > whether it actually is or not. We have experimented with it, and have > determined to our satisfaction that it is not a major problem. Tom, May I recommend that all future expansions of all current and future WotC products be printed with their own backs? After all, it's not a problem. I'm assuming Ice Age will have it's own back since it's a stand-alone from MT$. Ray Betting Tom will ignore this post as well. Wondering if anyone would trade him 1-for-1 Jyhad for BloodWars or Wyvern.

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : Well, I can't speak for the content of what Matt sent you, but this is the : first press release WotC has ever issued on whether the card backs will/would : be changing or not. You may have received something that looked like : a press release, but it was not. What about the announcement, made about a month or two ago, about the new edition and the expansion and player's guide, which appeared both here on Usenet and in Comic Shop News, stating (among other things) that the crypt backs would stay the same? If WoTC is supplying information to Comic Shop News, I'd say that's a press release. From the looks of this newsgroup, opinions range from "don't change the backs" to "it's probably not a problem if you do." I think if you took a vote, the majority would vote against the change, with some votes in the neutral and maybe a tiny few votes for. Of course, this is not a democracy, and we don't have any votes with which to influence the marketing people at WoTC. The only voting power we have is in the marketplace itself, where we can easily vote against the change by NOT BUYING THE NEW CARDS. If a company disregards its customer base, this is the only recourse. Myself, I'm thinking that Rage looks interesting... Best wishes to WoTC in its attempt to find a new customer base - this is where we part ways. Bye now, 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

OK, this isn't exactly a defence or condemnation of the card back switch made by Wizards of the Coast. However, I've read a few comments concerning the name 'Jyhad' which I REALLY have to respond to, as people are brushing off the 'offensive to others' argument as specious, a marketing ploy, or what have. If nothing else, I definitely agree with this particular point. Jyhad, used in the manner it is in both White Wolf products and in the CCG produced by WotC, IS offensive. Jihad, or Jyhad is an arabic term which does NOT mean war, or conflict, as so many people in the Western world are quick to believe, but simply means 'struggle'. A 'jihad' in mainstream Islam SELDOM refers to an armed conflict or a 'war against the infidels', but instead to a spiritual struggle. Usually. Unfortunately, the Western media (as it is wont to do) has picked up the term and completely misapplied in numerous ways. While certain terrorist groups (Islamic Jihad, for one) have taken the name, this is no different than a group which calls itself Church of the True Christianity, which then proceeds to blow away small children (they don't exist, but its for the sake of example). Of course, since most North Americans aren't exposed to Islamic belief systems, and are far more familiar with Christianity, its easy to assume that a Jihad is something dark and nasty. Sadly, this term has even found itself misapplied in the RPG industry...I was moderately upset with White Wolf that they used it to denote the continual struggle for dominance amongst the Vampire Clans, although they at least were correct in the denotion of it as a 'struggle'. Nor was I pleased with Wizards of the Coast when they had a 'Jihad' card in Arabian Nights which depicting an armed host thundering across the plains. Use of this term in such a way only perpetuates an already dangerous stereotype. When 'Jyhad', the CCG came out, I was upset yet again...and now I'm rather impressed that WotC has changed the name. Note, however, that I'm not exactly sure what effect this will have on gameplay, however, and I can't say that I think this decision was entirely a good one. However, to dismiss the argument that 'Jyhad is offensive' by saying it is not relevent is not exactly fair. Just my Canadian .02. (Sorry about the rant, but as an Anthropology Major with a Minor in Religion I take my cultural studies seriously...and of course, my field in Anthro is comparitive religious systems, so hey...:)) {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} {}Jeff Scott Franzmann {} "So slide back down and close your eyes{} {}Internet Representative {} sleep a while you must be tired, {} {}Campaign Outfitters {} Cause every every night I fall, {} {}Winnipeg, Manitoba {} Every night I call your name..." {} {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} Opinions expressed above are not those of Campaign Outfitters. They're mine

|>OK, this isn't exactly a defence or condemnation of the card back switch |>made by Wizards of the Coast. However, I've read a few comments |>concerning the name 'Jyhad' which I REALLY have to respond to, as people |>are brushing off the 'offensive to others' argument as specious, a |>marketing ploy, or what have. I think the main reason they're changing the name is that people didn't understand that 'jyhad' referred to a term from the Vampire:tM role playing game. They were counting on that sort of production recognition to help sell the CCG. And, as bit of a counter-point to your article, there is nothing wrong with the term _simply_ because it is incorrectly used. Incorrect by whose standards? The term 'dumb', in American english has come to mean 'stupid', whereas it originally meant 'unable to speak'. Does this mean that everyone on this side of the atlantic doesn't know what 'dumb' means? Not at all! They have become two separate words, one of which has been derived from the other. V:tM is primarily set in the US and so a lot of the terminology is influenced by the US usages of words. Also, *any* word you use is probably likely to offend *someone*. =) -john- --

In article <3o8n4s$d...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >The customer input was basically "We don't want to see the card backs >change because people will ruin the game by marking their decks." >After testing whether having different backs really helps someone out, >we decided that it's not particularly an advantage to mix the card >backs, so the main reason given for keeping the card backs the same >didn't apply. We do have the new customers to think about as well as the >old, so we chose the approach of changing the card backs, and helping >the old customers through the transition. You'll be helping old customers through the transition? So, then, you'll be letting us send in all our old, Jyhad-backed cards and replace them with V:TES-backed cards? That's the only way I can see it being possible to help the old customers through the transition to the new system. If you're doing this, great, I'll drop the loudest of my objections to the name change and cardback change, and I'll bundle up my collection to ship it out to you, and I'll keep buying WotC products when they come out. If you're not doing that, your post is just so much rhetoric. I already have a good core set of Jyhad cards, and the only reason for me to buy more cards is to get expansions. If the expansions all say one thing on the back, and the core cards say another, it's clearly obvious that they really can't be mixed, and to say otherwise is either willful ignorance or a lie for marketing reasons. At least, with M:tG, when Betas came out with the different corners, I was able to sell my entire collection of Alphas and start from scratch. With Jyhad, the likelyhood that I'll be able to sell my entire current collection is pretty damned slim. Fortunately, with "On The Edge" and with "Illuminati: New World Order" I've found some card games I like that have nothing to do with Wizards of the Coast, so if they screw me over on this issue I can just decide to jump ship once and for all. WotC seems to have this problem with commitment to old customers. Repeated problems with gratuitous rules changes indicate this, and this name change nonsense indicates this. -- Doug DeJulio | R$+@$=W <-- sendmail.cf file mailto:dd...@pitt.edu | {$/{{.+ <-- modem noise http://www.pitt.edu/~ddj/ | !@#!@@! <-- Mr. Dithers swearing

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: > >Ok, if we agree that this is totally a marketting move (an I think we do), > >then why doesn't WotC take the simpler win-win solution I proposed yesterday: > >leave the card backs alone, but change the deck, pack, and stand displays to > >read "Vampire: the Eternal Struggle." This way, they get the increased market > >penetration they are looking for AND the old and new cards are fully > >compatible. I don't see why WotC doesn't choose this alternative. > > Because it will look stupid and inconsistent to new players for these holdouts > from the old game to be lying around. The name of the game is changing, > so the presentation of the game is being changed to reflect this. Maybe > people who play Jyhad don't think it would look stupid for the V:TES cards > to say Jyhad on the backs, but we disagree. Peace Tom, Obviously I disagree with your definition of "stupid and inconsistent." You have every right to disagree. The established players have a right to boycott WotC products. We can be just as pig-headed as you. > >If WotC is responsive to their customers, they'll change this > >foolish policy before it is instituted. > > The customer input was basically "We don't want to see the card backs > change because people will ruin the game by marking their decks." > After testing whether having different backs really helps someone out, > we decided that it's not particularly an advantage to mix the card > backs, so the main reason given for keeping the card backs the same > didn't apply. We do have the new customers to think about as well as the > old, so we chose the approach of changing the card backs, and helping > the old customers through the transition. Tom, I've got to seriously disagree with your testing model, then. I've only thought about mixed decks for two days and I've already presented two /good/ examples of how mixed decks could give you an advantage (not to mention the several other ways my group has thought of). Yes, you do have the new customers to think of, but you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Losing a significant portion of your established customer base is going to significantly hamper VtES's ability to increase marketshare (established players bring in new players). I really don't see why you feel that it would be "stupid" to leave the card backs alone. Since you feel that having "Jyhad" on hte card backs would be "inconsistant," then call the new game "Vampire: the Eternal Jyhad" like someone else suggested. I just don't see how WotC can win from doing this. Whether you (the company) feel that you have or not, you've effectively stabbed a significant portion of your established customers in the back. Losing a sizeable number of your dedicated players _will_ significantly hamper VtES's ability to grow. Maybe I'm blind, in a marketting and business sense, but I cannot see how WotC will benefit from this. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here> P.S.: Tom, if my posts appear 'hostile' it isn't intentional. I just feel that WotC is about to ruin the best CCG on the market and I feel strongly about 'losing' the revised cards and the expansion(s).

In article <3o98ve$n...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >>And, Tom, there ARE ways to mark your library with different card backs in >>Jyhad (see above for just one good example). This is an extremely bad idea >>and the amount of user response should show that. > >The user responses clearly indicates that the users *think* it's a major >difference. It hasn't been demonstrated that the users have determined >whether it actually is or not. We have experimented with it, and have >determined to our satisfaction that it is not a major problem. This is irrelevent. The user response is what matters. If people feel you're screwing them over, they *will* drop the game. No amount of arguing will change that. *Plus*, you are basically now putting forth as company policy the attitude that "our users are a bunch of ignorant doofuses -- we're smarter than them, and are confident we can ignore their wishes". That's not going to help... Whether testing indicates it's a problem or not, if the customers *think* it's a problem, then it *is* a problem. Totally independantly of how it actually plays in practice. One way you could save face is the way Intel did with the Pentium. Even though most users really never *would* bump into the bug, because of customer perception, they were eventually forced to replace, at great expense, all the old chips with new ones. Whether you see it or not, WotC has put themselves in a similar situation here. You can get away with changing the name, if you replace all the old cards with new ones, or find some other way to make sure that all the current players don't see the name change as a problem. Saying "try it, you'll like it" won't cut it -- you're telling me to trust you, go out and buy some cards, and see how it works, when if I think it *doesn't* work, buying those cards will just be *further* wasted money. No go -- I'm not going to burn more of *my* money to try to prove to myself that a mistake you're making isn't really a mistake. [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > > > James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: > >They will be obsolessed (sp) if mixed decks prove to be a problem (which a > >significant portion of the net.aware players seem to think it will)... > > But part of my point is that as far as I can tell, all of these net.aware > players are just operating on a hunch and what they think will happen, not > on actual experiences with mixing card backs. Part of my point is that > it's ridiculous to swear off a game you've enjoyed for the last nine > months because you *think* something has gone horribly wrong with it. > Everyone gets on the design team's case about how there didn't appear to > be enough playtesting with the rules, cards, etc. Well, the same applies > here. We have tried mixed card backs, and it appears that no one else has > not. And it is our opinion that the one thing that everyone is up in arms > about (i.e., mixing card backs) just isn't a big deal. Peace Tom, Well, I consider my hypothesis to be fairly accurate. I'm not some newbie gamer. I've been gaming for over 2/3 of my life (20yrs). I've seen what has happened with the Alphas and I believe that this will happen with the Jyhad cards. No, I don't have a pile of VtES prototype cards that I can mix into my deck, but I have been playing a while and I know that you can mark you deck with different card backs. Yes, it would be rediculous to swear off a game that I had enjoyed because I "think" something has gone wrong. Guess what, Tom, I quit playing Magic because it had become a horribly unbalance coster game. I feel that it is equally rediculous to go against the overwhelming sentiment of your customers and change the backs of the cards, just because you *think* it will increase marketshare. Only time will tell whether mixed decks get outlawed, but history is on my side and I'll take bets. While I'm thinking about it, just because most of your established players don't buy any more cards doesn't mean they can't play with all the cards they already have. I don't have to quit playing Jyhad, I just have to refuse to rebuy all my cards. > >...Let's say you have a Brujah rush combat deck and a sizable number > >of both sets of cards. You could make all your non-combat cards VtES backs and > >all your combat cards Jyhad backs. Now, I'm in combat and I see that my next > >card is a VtES back, I won't press and hope to draw a Strike card, because I > >KNOW that the next card isn't... > > But maybe that next card on the library is a press card, and the one > underneath it is the strike that you need. How are you going to know? > And if you try to mark both presses and strikes, you're right back to not > *really* knowing what you have coming up. And if the strike you're looking > for is that great, shouldn't you try to arrange to get to it as soon as > possible, and therefore use the strike? Read "combat" as "strike", whatever. The point is valid. You haven't proven it wrong. It is only the first example. There are much more devious minds then mine out there, afterall, I've been a champion of game balance for quite a while. > >And, Tom, there ARE ways to mark your library with different card backs in > >Jyhad (see above for just one good example). This is an extremely bad idea > >and the amount of user response should show that. > > The user responses clearly indicates that the users *think* it's a major > difference. It hasn't been demonstrated that the users have determined > whether it actually is or not. We have experimented with it, and have > determined to our satisfaction that it is not a major problem. And your responce shows me that you also think it is possible to mark a deck. What do you define as "a major problem?" > >Try it with a combat deck (see above). Or how about a Malk S&B where all > >the Dominate bleed mods are a different back? Then you could start a bleed > >with the stealth card in your hand and KNOW that you'll draw a modifier to > >increase the bleed (I've been here too). > > That's actually a bit more useful than the combat example. But having the > Dominate cards marked will also indicate to your opponents how urgent it is > to block the Malkavian, right? Part of the power of a Stealth/Bleed deck > is that your opponents have to guess whether you have that special dominate > card in hand or not... such decks aren't half as scary if the opponents never > have to guess whether to use those intercept reactions now, or can save > them for later. Only if my opponents have played against me before will they know that 'such- and-such-a-card-back' is Dominate bleed mods. As far as blocking is concerned, I WANT my prey to try to block. Then I can play an Obfuscate action modifier and draw that Dominate bleed mod that is sitting on top of my library. I'm not worried about scaring my prey. I'm concerned with ousting them in as short a time as possible. Know what the next card is can and will make a difference. Some players more devious than myself will prove it at conventions and WotC will have no choice but to ban mixed decks and then all the old cards will be obsolesed (see the History of Alpha Magic cards in Tournaments for more details). [ quoted text not captured ]

rmu...@cello.gina.calstate.edu (Ray Mulford) wrote: > > In article <3o98ve$n...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> > Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote in response to the card back issue: > > > The user responses clearly indicates that the users *think* it's a major > > difference. It hasn't been demonstrated that the users have determined > > whether it actually is or not. We have experimented with it, and have > > determined to our satisfaction that it is not a major problem. > > Tom, > > May I recommend that all future expansions of all current and future WotC > products be printed with their own backs? After all, it's not a problem. > > I'm assuming Ice Age will have it's own back since it's a stand-alone from > MT$. Peace Ray, I double dare them to change the Ice Age backs! They wouldn't screw their cash cow. [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > And what does that say about the other cards in your deck, that you're so > willing to just pitch one of them? Peace Tom, It's saying that the next card is more useful right now. That's what happens in the discard phase of every turn, after all. You get rid of the least useful card in your hand to draw a more useful one. In my experience, players who do not utilize the Discard Phase on a regular basis lose. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <beanishD...@netcom.com>, Jeremy York <bea...@netcom.com> wrote: >So don't use only Necromancy cards from a V:tES expansion in >a Jyhad deck. Buy or trade for a few regular V:tES cards, and >replace a bunch of your commons, indiscriminantly, with the equivalent >new edition card. Advantage zapped, no longer an issue. Sorry, Jeremy, but this is just not practical. After extensive buying and trading, I already have all the *core* Jyhad cards I need. All I'll be buying from now on are expansions. Furthermore, new players who don't have big collections and who might be persuaded to trade for my commons aren't going to *want* them, because the backs say Jyhad. They're also probably not going to be willing to play for ante, because of the cardbacks, so I won't be able to make my core set drift towards a mixture that way either. If I keep playing this game, I can't see how it'll be possible for me to arrange what you suggest. Without a humungous expenditure in new core cards, I'll be able to tell at a glance whether the next card I draw is from an expansion or not, and that's an advantage, and I won't play that way. And rather than not being sporting by cheating in such an obvious way, even if my opponents don't mind, I'd rather just drop the game entirely, even though I like it better than any other CCG besides I:NWO. [ quoted text not captured ]

posi...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Jonathan Haas) wrote: > > Guys, why are you bothering? It's patently obvious, from Wylie's > posts, that WotC does *not* intend to listen to the massive > outcry, but instead will press ahead with this change. It's > obvious that *nothing* will persuade them to change their minds. Peace Jonathan, Why? Because Jyhad is THE BEST CCG ON THE MARKET, bar none. And I really hate to lose it. I was very enthused when I heard WotC was finally going to print an expansion for Jyhad. I put a lot of time and effort prolytizing Jyhad locally. I wanted this game to succeed. I really like this game. I hate the idea that WotC is going to fuck up and shut me out of future Jyhad developments. That's why. > Frankly, it's quite a departure from what I've come to expect > from WotC. They've usually been quite attentive to their customers' > needs, and I'm surprised to see them turning a deaf ear like > this. So am I, Jonathan. If I didn't think it would make a difference, I'd save bandwidth. I keep hoping that if enough people voice their displeasure with WotC's decision that they will have to see the light. > A word to Wylie: You decried people for denouncing the changed > backs without giving them a chance. You said, "Part of my point > is that it's ridiculous to swear off a game you've enjoyed for > the last nine months because you *think* something has gone horribly > wrong with it." But *your* problem ("you" being WotC) is that > what your customers *think*, right or wrong, will determine > what they buy. Jyhad with mixed backs may be ten times, *fifty* > times better than the original Jyhad... but if your customers > *think* it's lousy, they won't buy, and that will be your loss. > Like it or not, a company must respond to its customers' > perceptions, or it will lose. I completely agree, but I'm just some "stupid" gamer. > Fellows, if it bothers you so strongly, don't buy any more Jyhad. > But don't expect to get WotC to change their minds... if the > huge number of people declaring *loudly* that they won't buy > any more Jyhad doesn't persuade them, nothing will. I won't buy any VtES cards (why contribute to the deliquincy [sp]). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3o674c$b...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >But why are people insisting on not even *trying* to play the game with >mixed card backs? Because I don't think it will work, and even if I accept that I might be wrong about that, you're telling me I have to spend my own money to find out if I'm wrong or not. If you *gave* me enough cards to really mix 'em up, I would try it, but I'm not going to burn my own money to run an expermient that I don't realy think is going to work anyway. Is this really that hard to understand? Current players think mixed decks are unplayable. In all probability, no simple argument you can make will change this basic belief. Furthermore, they're not going to experiment on their own to test the theory, because it's perceived as throwing money away. Back when WotC was the only game in town they might have been able to get away with this, but now there are so many alternatives that it's just not neccesary. [ quoted text not captured ]

jock...@news-server.engin.umich.edu (William Jockusch) wrote: > > Guys, why not just consider the card backs a legitimate part of the game? > I mean, let people set up their decks any way they want. If they want > to get info out of the card backs, fine. However, their opponents may > catch on to what the backs mean as well . . . Peace William, Because, once it is proven that mixed decks are unfair, they will be outlawed (see The History of Alpha Magic Cards in Tournaments for more details). This means that some time in the not too distant future all the cards that I have will obsoless (sp). If, at that time, I had purchased some Dark Sovereigns, I will be forced to purchase a large number of VtES cards just to be able to play with my DS cards. I do not believe that this is a desireable outcome and I won't contribute to WotC doing that to anyone else. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3o8n4s$d...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: |> |> James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: |> >Ok, if we agree that this is totally a marketting move (an I think we do), |> >then why doesn't WotC take the simpler win-win solution I proposed yesterday: |> >leave the card backs alone, but change the deck, pack, and stand displays to |> >read "Vampire: the Eternal Struggle." This way, they get the increased market |> >penetration they are looking for AND the old and new cards are fully |> >compatible. I don't see why WotC doesn't choose this alternative. |> |> Because it will look stupid and inconsistent to new players for these holdouts |> from the old game to be lying around. The name of the game is changing, |> so the presentation of the game is being changed to reflect this. Maybe |> people who play Jyhad don't think it would look stupid for the V:TES cards |> to say Jyhad on the backs, but we disagree This is indeed a matter of opinion. Other games that have multiple decks have different terms for each deck. (i.e. Rage has a sept deck and a combat deck). In Jyhad the decks were the crypt deck and the library deck. No one would have thought it odd if the deck backs said crypt and library. All you need to do is rename the library deck the Jyhad deck. Then explain that Jyhad is the term for the epic struggle between vampires. Bingo! Now the Jyhad deck has Jyhad on the back. This can easily work. |> |> >If WotC is responsive to their customers, they'll change this |> >foolish policy before it is instituted. |> |> The customer input was basically "We don't want to see the card backs |> change because people will ruin the game by marking their decks." |> After testing whether having different backs really helps someone out, |> we decided that it's not particularly an advantage to mix the card |> backs, so the main reason given for keeping the card backs the same |> didn't apply. We do have the new customers to think about as well as the |> old, so we chose the approach of changing the card backs, and helping |> the old customers through the transition. |> |> |> Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for |> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. |> You ain't helping the old customers at all unless you are willing to trade new cards for old. David Kiker k...@template.com

James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >They will be obsolessed (sp) if mixed decks prove to be a problem (which a >significant portion of the net.aware players seem to think it will)... But part of my point is that as far as I can tell, all of these net.aware players are just operating on a hunch and what they think will happen, not on actual experiences with mixing card backs. Part of my point is that it's ridiculous to swear off a game you've enjoyed for the last nine months because you *think* something has gone horribly wrong with it. Everyone gets on the design team's case about how there didn't appear to be enough playtesting with the rules, cards, etc. Well, the same applies here. We have tried mixed card backs, and it appears that no one else has not. And it is our opinion that the one thing that everyone is up in arms about (i.e., mixing card backs) just isn't a big deal. >...Let's say you have a Brujah rush combat deck and a sizable number >of both sets of cards. You could make all your non-combat cards VtES backs and >all your combat cards Jyhad backs. Now, I'm in combat and I see that my next >card is a VtES back, I won't press and hope to draw a Strike card, because I >KNOW that the next card isn't... But maybe that next card on the library is a press card, and the one underneath it is the strike that you need. How are you going to know? And if you try to mark both presses and strikes, you're right back to not *really* knowing what you have coming up. And if the strike you're looking for is that great, shouldn't you try to arrange to get to it as soon as possible, and therefore use the strike? >And, Tom, there ARE ways to mark your library with different card backs in >Jyhad (see above for just one good example). This is an extremely bad idea >and the amount of user response should show that. The user responses clearly indicates that the users *think* it's a major difference. It hasn't been demonstrated that the users have determined whether it actually is or not. We have experimented with it, and have determined to our satisfaction that it is not a major problem. >Try it with a combat deck (see above). Or how about a Malk S&B where all >the Dominate bleed mods are a different back? Then you could start a bleed >with the stealth card in your hand and KNOW that you'll draw a modifier to >increase the bleed (I've been here too). That's actually a bit more useful than the combat example. But having the Dominate cards marked will also indicate to your opponents how urgent it is to block the Malkavian, right? Part of the power of a Stealth/Bleed deck is that your opponents have to guess whether you have that special dominate card in hand or not... such decks aren't half as scary if the opponents never have to guess whether to use those intercept reactions now, or can save them for later. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > But playtesting is a best-case scenario. You try to get a good >mix of cards to balance the set with what's already out there. In >actual play, there will be differences. Um, yes and no. Part of playtesting, especially in a game that's attempting to avoid card limits entirely, is to overload a deck with a card to see if it's degenerate. In tarding card games you have to assume people are spending hordes of money on a game, and amassing as many copies of a card as they want. > The most common example: I (a Jyhad only owner) find a terribly >nifty card or two that I feel are indespensible in Dark Sovereigns (this >is exactly what has happened in each magic expansion I have purchased). I >buy some and put them in. They are in fact quite nifty, and when I know >that they are coming up, I use my discard phase to grab one *now* rather >than wait, which I normally would not have done... And what does that say about the other cards in your deck, that you're so willing to just pitch one of them? [ quoted text not captured ]

Guys, why not just consider the card backs a legitimate part of the game? I mean, let people set up their decks any way they want. If they want to get info out of the card backs, fine. However, their opponents may catch on to what the backs mean as well . . . William

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >>I simply do not understand this point of view. OF COURSE different card >>backs are a problem. Tell me, were you ever desperate enough to play cards >>that you used two or more different decks with different card backs to fill >>up a standard deck of 52 playing cards? How did you like playing that way? >>It's terrible - you go out and buy a new deck at your first opportunity >>because IT DOESN'T WORK! And this won't work. > >Actually, I have done that fairly often, and have never had a huge problem >with it. It's a little bit annoying if the cards have wildly different >sizes and printing styles, but assuming there's a reasonable blend of the >two card backs, it's difficult to try and cheat based on the backs. Hmmm. I think we're getting into a territory where the company rep encourages everyone to consider how harmless different card backs are. (Reminds me of Mr. Burns having to eat the three-eyed fist (Blinky, was it?) on 'The Simpsons' to show everyone how harmless mutant fish are as food. "Sure, I play cards with decks that have differing card backs all the time. Barely notice the difference...") Meanwhile, we're all panicing and putting things in the worst possible light because, frankly, we don't want to deal with this at all. I imagine the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but I still have no intention whatsoever of accepting this as a V:TES consumer, for reasons I've posted elsewhere. This move on WotC's part is simply not necessary as far as I can tell. >>Alpha cards have been the second stickiest issue the Convocation has had to >>deal with in the game, after sleeves. No one wants to allow them except the >>people who own them and want to use them. If Garfield thought they didn't >>make much of a difference (and particularly if he STILL thinks that) then >>Garfield is idiot. > >Again, that situation is different than Jyhad's. There are basically two >ways to mark your deck with alpha cards. First, have all your mana be >alphas, and all the other cards be non-alpha (or the other way around). There's LOTS of ways to mark your deck with Alphas. I don't understand why you think land/non-land is the only distinction one might be interested in. As a very simple example, I might make all of my creature-killer or all of my artifact-killer cards alphas (or non-alphas). I might mark my direct damage cards or my land destruction cards. OR I might just have five specific spells that I know are all Alpha cards - it may not be the most valuable marking, but it tells me something before I draw the card. And it's legally unchallengable. But "marking", per se, is really not my bone of contention in particular. You misunderstand. The point for me is the same point as it is for playing cards - one can glean information from the card back that SHOULD NOT be available in any way, shape, or form whether one even wants to or not. I want to play the constructed deck game, not Concentration where I'm guessing from past memory what cards my opponent has in his deck with J-card-backs vs. VTES-card-backs. Or taking into account that (as a theorectical example) the next card coming up can not be a Fame card because it has a VTES card back and Fame was rotated out of VTES. The card back problem introduces a new and foreign and _bad_ dimension to the game that cannot be explained away by WotC Press Releases or fixed with Convocation rule changes. >>Bullshit. You know what cards you put in your deck and what backs they have. >>Your opponent know what cards he put in his deck and what backs they have. >>It will be an issue whenever the question of what card you may or may not >>draw next is crucial... > >Yes, but how often is this *really* going to help? I don't actually care how often or to what extent it helps one player or hinders another. It is not good and it is not necessary. Fred

Guys, why are you bothering? It's patently obvious, from Wylie's posts, that WotC does *not* intend to listen to the massive outcry, but instead will press ahead with this change. It's obvious that *nothing* will persuade them to change their minds. Frankly, it's quite a departure from what I've come to expect from WotC. They've usually been quite attentive to their customers' needs, and I'm surprised to see them turning a deaf ear like this. A word to Wylie: You decried people for denouncing the changed backs without giving them a chance. You said, "Part of my point is that it's ridiculous to swear off a game you've enjoyed for the last nine months because you *think* something has gone horribly wrong with it." But *your* problem ("you" being WotC) is that what your customers *think*, right or wrong, will determine what they buy. Jyhad with mixed backs may be ten times, *fifty* times better than the original Jyhad... but if your customers *think* it's lousy, they won't buy, and that will be your loss. Like it or not, a company must respond to its customers' perceptions, or it will lose. Fellows, if it bothers you so strongly, don't buy any more Jyhad. But don't expect to get WotC to change their minds... if the huge number of people declaring *loudly* that they won't buy any more Jyhad doesn't persuade them, nothing will. -- __/\__ Jonathan S. Haas | Jake liked his women the way he liked \ / posi...@neosoft.com | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm- /_ _\ Finger for PGP 2.3 key | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and \/ Don't Tread On Me | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.

ross...@arctic.uucp (John Lawrence Ross) writes: > Remember.. these people who post on this newsgroup are the Jyhad >ELITE.. Oooh, goody! I'm elite! You all heard him say it, so it must be true! Bow down and worship me, pathetic lurkers, for your ELITE brethren are wise in the ways of wisdom... -- Aaron Mandelbaum (sorry, just feeling a bit silly tonight)

Shane Travis (tra...@duke.usask.ca) wrote: : In a tournament situation, however, one does not have the option of : playing with whomever one chooses, and you can bet your bippie that : everyone who shows up is doing everything they feel morally comfortable : with to win the tournament. I've never even *seen* a Jyhad tournament! I've never even *heard* of one in my area. Anyway, I don't play Jyhad or Magic or any other game because I'm hoping to be a tournament contender - I play to have fun. Most of the time, if I go to a tournament, the main thing I'm hoping for is to see some new playing styles and different decks. But because of the high munchkin factor, I rarely go out of my way to attend one. And when I do happen to win or do well, that's gravy. The play's the thing though. If you let concerns about tournaments drive your decisions about which games to play and how, well, that's something I just don't understand. -- Jeremy (bea...@netcom.com, bea...@delphi.com)

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >>Ok, if we agree that this is totally a marketting move (an I think we do), >>then why doesn't WotC take the simpler win-win solution I proposed yesterday: >>leave the card backs alone, but change the deck, pack, and stand displays to >>read "Vampire: the Eternal Struggle." This way, they get the increased >>market penetration they are looking for AND the old and new cards are fully >>compatible. I don't see why WotC doesn't choose this alternative. > >Because it will look stupid and inconsistent to new players for these holdouts >from the old game to be lying around. The name of the game is changing, >so the presentation of the game is being changed to reflect this. Maybe >people who play Jyhad don't think it would look stupid for the V:TES cards >to say Jyhad on the backs, but we disagree. Will it really look so stupid? Or will the new players be able to have the confidence of knowing that WotC isn't going mess with the future value of _their_ collections, either? I think WotC is underestimating the importance of integrity in supporting their past product lines. Fred

tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) writes: >Jeremy York (bea...@netcom.com) wrote: >: James R. McClure Jr. (jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu) wrote: >: : Are you going to stop and check all your opponents' decks? >: No. I'm going to play with people I know to be good sports. Or if >: I don't know them, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. If, after >: some experience, I think I have reason not to trust them, I'll either >: confront them about it or stop playing with them. It's a sad situation >: if you expect most of the people you play with to do whatever they >: can to win, even if it means abusing the system by effectively marking >: cards. Personally, I just won't game with people like that. >In a tournament situation, however, one does not have the option of >playing with whomever one chooses, and you can bet your bippie that >everyone who shows up is doing everything they feel morally comfortable >with to win the tournament. Just because _you_ think that mixing and >matching carbacks with disciplines is cheating doesn't mean that Johnny >Munchkin over there considers it anything but another tool he can use... It's not just tournament situations. I've played with Jyhad players who are munchkins. Some were even members of my group. Am I to say, in a multiplayer game, that I won't play with so-and-so? I'll have to say it to their face, too. To make matters worse, people disagree over who is a munchkin. That can easily create a horrible situation, where player A is arguing with player B whether player C can be played with, while the other players stare at their shoelaces and get embarassed. In a multiplayer CCG, the rules have to bar munchkin play, or make it ineffective. If they don't, house rules have to be created to stop them (card changes, card limits, league rules, whatever). Otherwise the social situation gets to be a real mess. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Well, the whole card back issue resolves pretty simply for me: I won't be buying or trading for any new card backs, and because of the card backs, I won't be buying any of the expansion cards. And I would estimate that I have spent about $4,000 on trading card games, mostly Magic and Jyhad. The customer is always right. Anton Dovydaitis

In article <3o8n4s$d...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >The customer input was basically "We don't want to see the card backs >change because people will ruin the game by marking their decks." >After testing whether having different backs really helps someone out, >we decided that it's not particularly an advantage to mix the card Didn't you test the same thing out for Magic, and come to the same conclusion about Arabian Knights, and yet *keep* the backs the same? Why? Because, if I recall correctly, of customer demand. People did not want it, and you would be alienating your customers if you did so. And people thought that decision was good, and the game went well. So now, why have you decided to do the opposite for this game? We've all said don't do it, but you're not listening. I guess this is a test of how far you can push your customer base. Good luck... >didn't apply. We do have the new customers to think about as well as the >old, so we chose the approach of changing the card backs, and helping >the old customers through the transition. From what I've read here, you're alienating more than you're helping. If it is truly your intention to help them through, you may want to reevaluate your policy on this matter. | 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 ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK

In article <3ob3r0$k...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: :In article <3o98ve$n...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, :Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: ::But part of my point is that as far as I can tell, all of these net.aware ::players are just operating on a hunch and what they think will happen, not :... ::here. We have tried mixed card backs, and it appears that no one else has ::not. And it is our opinion that the one thing that everyone is up in arms ::about (i.e., mixing card backs) just isn't a big deal. : : You don't get it, do you? That's just not the point anymore. :You have acknowledged (in this very post) that marking schemes are :doable and might work. That means that problem or not, it most :certainly *IS* a factor of gameplay. But beyond that, it also shows a :lack of respect on your part for the game. If you recall, I said that :Jyhad was a B-title, compared to Magic, an A-title. When the customers :said no to changing cardbacks (which in Magic affects gameplay even less :than Jyhad), you listened and didn't change the cardbacks. But when the :Jyhad customers scream, you don't listen and just do what you want. :That shows less respect for us than for Magic players. It's more than :just gameplay (although that is a factor that concerns us). And you're :telling us we don't count. If you're right, Vampire will be a great :hit. If not, it's only your own reputation for respect that will :suffer. : ::The user responses clearly indicates that the users *think* it's a major ::difference. It hasn't been demonstrated that the users have determined ::whether it actually is or not. We have experimented with it, and have ::determined to our satisfaction that it is not a major problem. : : And our opinion doesn't count, so you will do it the way you :please, regardless of our feedback. : ::That's actually a bit more useful than the combat example. But having the ::Dominate cards marked will also indicate to your opponents how urgent it is ::to block the Malkavian, right? Part of the power of a Stealth/Bleed deck : : Assuming you've been nice enough to tell them how exactly you've :marked the deck... : :| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* [ quoted text not captured ]

Canticle <cant...@MBnet.MB.CA> writes: >OK, this isn't exactly a defence or condemnation of the card back switch >made by Wizards of the Coast. However, I've read a few comments >concerning the name 'Jyhad' which I REALLY have to respond to, as people >are brushing off the 'offensive to others' argument as specious, a >marketing ploy, or what have. Sorry, I have to comment on the reasoning because it's the same politically correct bullshit logic that I've never agreed with. Basically, we don't understand the proper meaning of the word "Jihad" because it's not part of our culture, therefore it has misunderstood negative connotations that are unjustified, therefore it should be accepted that its use is offensive to some unspecified group of others, presumedly those who are more knowledgable about its meaning. The trouble is none of these turns of logic follow its predecessor, IMHO. If every word that entered our language and mutated in meaning by movement were considered "offensive", we would have no language left. As others have pointed out, by this logic, there is not a word in the English language that can not be considered "offensive". They were all borrowed from other languages at some point - some now dead, some not - and they were all misunderstood by the new population. Whether they seemed "dark and nasty" to their new users, probably varied depending on the word, but charging westerners with that attitude towards "Jihad" is extremely speculative at best and is in no event relevant. Some words in your language must be dark and nasty, too. If they had their roots in another culture, even if misunderstood by the new culture, that is part of life and part of language. >Sadly, this term has even found itself misapplied in the RPG industry... And just _why_ is it so "sad"? I think what's sad is when the people are too afraid of all the color in the world because of some contrived reasons why others should be afraid of our selection of words. It's not the word that's offensive - it's the idea that the word is attempting to convey that's important. Fred

jock...@news-server.engin.umich.edu (William Jockusch) writes: >Guys, why not just consider the card backs a legitimate part of the game? Because it would be a _bad_ part of the game. It's abundantly clear that the game was not designed to be played with differing card backs. Otherwise, why didn't they make cards with differering backs in the first place? Fred

In article <3o99cm$n...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >> But playtesting is a best-case scenario. You try to get a good >>mix of cards to balance the set with what's already out there. In >>actual play, there will be differences. > >Um, yes and no. Part of playtesting, especially in a game that's attempting >to avoid card limits entirely, is to overload a deck with a card to see >if it's degenerate. In tarding card games you have to assume people are >spending hordes of money on a game, and amassing as many copies of a card >as they want. Um, what does that have to do with a best-case play scenario? Playtesters are usually ethical people who know a bit about game design and can make constructive comments that are relevant. They also tend to have certain basic assumptions about the game that come from the designers in forms other than written rules. No matter what kind of deck they play with, they are still a best case play scenario. >> The most common example: I (a Jyhad only owner) find a terribly >>nifty card or two that I feel are indespensible in Dark Sovereigns (this >>is exactly what has happened in each magic expansion I have purchased). I >>buy some and put them in. They are in fact quite nifty, and when I know >>that they are coming up, I use my discard phase to grab one *now* rather >>than wait, which I normally would not have done... > >And what does that say about the other cards in your deck, that you're so >willing to just pitch one of them? Oh, you're right, I'm a horrible player! I have so many useless cards that sit in my hand all day while my predator bleeds me senseless and I can't do a thing about it! There were just so many cards with nifty pictures that I didn't even pay attention to those little box thingys on the side of the card! I should be removed from the CCG world becasue I am so pitiful as to have a card that I feel is not as important as another card! I am not worthy!!! Get off it, Tom. You've admitted that card marking is doable. Don't resort to name-calling to defend WotC's position. It's not very professional. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > Didn't you test the same thing out for Magic, and come to the >same conclusion about Arabian Knights, and yet *keep* the backs the >same? Why? Because, if I recall correctly, of customer demand... Actually, it was based on feedback from the playtesters for Arabian Nights. Also, marking cards in Magic is much more significant than marking them in Jyhad. [ quoted text not captured ]

Once again, marking cards in Magic is a very different beast than marking cards in Jyhad. In Magic, which you are required to play cards to dig through your deck quickly, and where you have your resources and functional cards in the same deck, you get much more valuable information by marking your cards. In Jyhad, where the resources (crypt) and functional cards (library) are separate, and where you're constantly cycling your deck if it's working well at all, this information is much less important. [ quoted text not captured ]

James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >And your responce shows me that you also think it is possible to mark a deck. >What do you define as "a major problem?" A "major problem" is where marking your deck helps you much more than your opponents. Virtually every method of stacking a deck with different card backs helps your opponents know whether and how to counteract your moves as much as it helps you figure out what you should be doing. >Only if my opponents have played against me before will they know that 'such- >and-such-a-card-back' is Dominate bleed mods. They will figure it out soon enough when they keep seeing Dominate bleed mods that have different faces than the rest of your cards. >As far as blocking is concerned, I WANT my prey to try to block. Then I >can play an Obfuscate action modifier and draw that Dominate bleed mod that >is sitting on top of my library... Which doesn't help if they can intercept the action anyway, and which will help them cycle their Telepathic Counters (or whatever) out of their hands when you do play the card. >Know what the next card is can and will make a difference... But not just to you. To your opponents as well. >players more devious than myself will prove it at conventions... And they may just prove you wrong, but using the marking against you. [ quoted text not captured ]

Doug DeJulio <dd...@pitt.edu> wrote: >Saying "try it, you'll like it" won't cut it -- you're telling me to >trust you, go out and buy some cards, and see how it works, when if I >think it *doesn't* work, buying those cards will just be *further* >wasted money... You don't have to go out and buy V:TES product in order to see what you think of marking up decks. Go buy some basic lands at a penny a card, or use extra vampires and commons if you're swimming in Jyhad cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jonathan Haas <posi...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote: >Guys, why are you bothering? It's patently obvious, from Wylie's >posts, that WotC does *not* intend to listen to the massive >outcry, but instead will press ahead with this change. It's >obvious that *nothing* will persuade them to change their minds. We have spent the last several months debating whether we should be changing the card backs or not. Sooner or later, a decision has to be made, particularly because the game has to go to print at some point. We accepted feedback for several months. The deadline we set for ourselves to make a final decision has passed. If we had been determined to make a decision without customer input, we never would have asked in the first place. It should not surprise anyone that sooner or later, customer input was going to be irrelevant; that's just how things work. >Frankly, it's quite a departure from what I've come to expect >from WotC. They've usually been quite attentive to their customers' >needs, and I'm surprised to see them turning a deaf ear like this. We are not turning a deaf ear. We simply do not agree that the concern that is almost always expressed over changing the card backs, that this will ruin the game by marking cards, is a major concern. >...Jyhad with mixed backs may be ten times, *fifty* >times better than the original Jyhad... but if your customers >*think* it's lousy, they won't buy, and that will be your loss. >Like it or not, a company must respond to its customers' >perceptions, or it will lose. Which is why we're trying to explain that mixed card backs aren't as bad as people make them out to be. We probably should have done this months ago, while we still had time to make a final decision, but it's too late to back up now. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3ob795$g...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Once again, marking cards in Magic is a very different beast than >marking cards in Jyhad. In Magic, which you are required to play cards >to dig through your deck quickly, and where you have your resources and >functional cards in the same deck, you get much more valuable information >by marking your cards. In Jyhad, where the resources (crypt) and functional No you don't. Unless you have the ability to change your drawing, you're pretty much stuck with what you've got. Knowing whether or not the next card is a "save me" card does no good if you can't get at it until next turn. I've found marked Magic much less useful than marked Jyhad... >cards (library) are separate, and where you're constantly cycling your deck >if it's working well at all, this information is much less important. ...where the decision to do something or not is directly related to how fast that top card will get into your hands. The information about what card is on top in Jyhad is immediately usable, unlike Magic where you have to wait on it until next turn. That makes a *whole* lot of difference. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3ob795$g...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > >Once again, marking cards in Magic is a very different beast than >marking cards in Jyhad. In Magic, which you are required to play cards >to dig through your deck quickly, and where you have your resources and >functional cards in the same deck, you get much more valuable information >by marking your cards. In Jyhad, where the resources (crypt) and functional >cards (library) are separate, and where you're constantly cycling your deck >if it's working well at all, this information is much less important. > > >Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. > I don't see my library cards as not being resources. They are my votes, my powerbases, my equipment, my locations, my retainers, my allies... -steve kertes ker...@geoworks.com

In article <3ob8ek$h...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >first place. It should not surprise anyone that sooner or later, >customer input was going to be irrelevant; that's just how things work. ^^^^^^^^^^ I've been silently tracking the threads here and elsewhere in regards to the proposal that WotC had for Jyhad. I was one of the orginal people who forwarded the first fateful "announcement" from jyhad-l to the newsgroups in regards to change. I had supported Jyhad and introduced/taught/organized players to playing Jyhad. I abandoned M:tG and re-invested the funds into Jyhad. I took up ST:CCG before anyone even suspected (at least in my area) as to what a cash-cow this card game was going to be and abandoned that for Jyhad because I still felt Jyhad was a better game. I have been "faithful", as it were, to Jyhad. I have 5 complete sets and a partial 6th. I have another ~4500-5000 singles... my investment into this game has been considerable, and I actively promoted the purchase and acquiring of Jyhad cards to others. The fact that my input and support (be it for or against certain company proposals) is IRRELEVANT... well, I'm not quite sure that was the most professional way express that idea/thought. Even if it's true, a business professional does not explicitly state to his/her client that their input is irrelevant, especially if they want to keep that client (read: customer). >Which is why we're trying to explain that mixed card backs aren't as >bad as people make them out to be. We probably should have done this >months ago, while we still had time to make a final decision, but >it's too late to back up now. I understand your difficulty in dealing with us on the net. I am and have been very appreciative of your efforts to address our questions and concerns relating to all aspects of WotC, be it policy, or game-play. I had hoped the situation would not have come to this. Regards, ______________ <<<<<<Syzygy Darklocke<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<(__(*)_________] "I'm not afraid." "Heh. You will be... You will be." - Luke & Yoda (SWV:ESB)

On 4 May 1995, Thomas R Wylie wrote: > > Once again, marking cards in Magic is a very different beast than > marking cards in Jyhad. In Magic, which you are required to play cards > to dig through your deck quickly, and where you have your resources and > functional cards in the same deck, you get much more valuable information > by marking your cards. In Jyhad, where the resources (crypt) and functional > cards (library) are separate, and where you're constantly cycling your deck > if it's working well at all, this information is much less important. > > > Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for > aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. > But there _are_ resources in the library as well! The vamps beyond the first 5 or so, are so much extra baggage: far from being truly useful resources. But that Ventrue HQ that you're still waiting for can turn the game. There are many resources similar to this that are in among the functional cards. Yes, each card in the library is useful in a planned deck. But there are some cards that are still more useful than others, no matter what you do in planning. This is why marking can be a valid problem. 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."

: Peace William, : Because, once it is proven that mixed decks are unfair, they will be outlawed : (see The History of Alpha Magic Cards in Tournaments for more details). This : means that some time in the not too distant future all the cards that I have : will obsoless (sp). If, at that time, I had purchased some Dark Sovereigns, I : will be forced to purchase a large number of VtES cards just to be able to play : with my DS cards. I do not believe that this is a desireable outcome and I won't : contribute to WotC doing that to anyone else. : Nil carborundum illigitimi, : James R. McClure Jr. : The OS/2 Apostle But, they're not unfair if both you and your opponent have an equal right to use them. And remember, using a mixed deck has substantial drawbacks. Yes, you get partial information about what is on the top of your library. But, your opponent gets the above information *and* also gets partial information about what is in your hand. Over all, it seems they might well come out ahead.

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > > > Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > > Didn't you test the same thing out for Magic, and come to the > >same conclusion about Arabian Knights, and yet *keep* the backs the > >same? Why? Because, if I recall correctly, of customer demand... > > Actually, it was based on feedback from the playtesters for Arabian Nights. > Also, marking cards in Magic is much more significant than marking them > in Jyhad. Peace Tom, Please, explain why you feel that card marking is more significant in Magic than in Jyhad. Thank you, in advance. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

In article <3oajp9$n...@hermes.louisville.edu>, >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > Because it will look stupid and inconsistent to new players for these holdouts > from the old game to be lying around. The name of the game is changing, > so the presentation of the game is being changed to reflect this. Maybe > people who play Jyhad don't think it would look stupid for the V:TES cards > to say Jyhad on the backs, but we disagree. THIS??? This is the compelling argument for changing the backs? That it would look stupid to new customers. Humph. I think that after one or two games at most, people would be used to them. Especially if you have an explanatory paragraph in the rulebook which, surprise surprise, a fair number of people actually read (though you probably couldn't tell from reading r.g.t-c.m.rules). Or if you learn from someone, who will tell you what they mean, after which they quickly blend into the background. I though that the Discipline symbols in Jyhad were stupid and inconsistent -- why is Presence marked with a Chaos Symbol? -- but after my first two games I had assimilated these quirks into the background. The same thing goes for the Jyhad on the card backs. It extends the learning curve of the game by 10, maybe 15 minutes. Having two sets of card backs has a _permanent_ effect on the game, which no amount of imploration can dispel. I also don't think it would be stupid to have library cards say 'jyhad' on them, especially if you rename the library deck the jyhad deck (an excellent idea, whoever suggested it.) I do think it would be stupid to have some library cards say one thing and some library cards say another. > The customer input was basically "We don't want to see the card backs > change because people will ruin the game by marking their decks." > After testing whether having different backs really helps someone out, > we decided that it's not particularly an advantage to mix the card > backs, so the main reason given for keeping the card backs the same > didn't apply. We do have the new customers to think about as well as the > old, so we chose the approach of changing the card backs, and helping > the old customers through the transition. How did you arrive at the converse conclusion? That we'd prefer to have the card backs changed? And dismissing the change as meaningless because it provides no 'advantage' overlooks two important points, which are principally behind my (and I feel many other's) dismay at this change. [Life story mode engaged. Music swells. Lights dim.] In high school my friends and I were all rabid card players. We played many games which required standard decks, such as Bridge, Cribbage, Hearts, and 9-2-5 (the *best* 3 person game for standard decks). We also played Pinochle, which uses a 48 card deck consisting of two of all the 9s through As from all four suits. We would usually take two of our normal decks and just take the relevant cards from the red and blue decks and combine them. I have probably played around twice as many 1500 point series of Pinochle, using 50:50 mixed-back decks, as games of Jyhad. In all that time, I don't think the split decks gave anyone much of an advantage. Once in a great while you would be able to tell if someone had a card of a suit or not (by seeing that they had nothing but blue cards) but this was neither frequent nor important. But the split decks *were* unsatisfactory, and eventually we shelled out the three bucks for a proper Pinochle deck with just one back. First, it added a complication to the game that was not in the rules. It changed the way you count cards -- you can count by back as well as suit and rank. In friendly play, we were usually too busy cracking jokes to count cards at all (let alone this carefully) but when we wanted to, it was not too hard to count them all. In a tournament with split decks, I would absolutely count the cards by back, just because occasionally it would net an extra 10 points to set a contract. If my opponents don't, then I have a net advantage. If my opponents do, there's no net advantage. But the character of the game is subtly and *significantly* changed, since players have more information about their opponents cards as before. Second, it was just plain ANNOYING. If we didn't have the pinochle deck with us, we made do with two normal decks, amongst general mummerings of 'gooberhead forgot the pinochle deck again...' Having two different backs in the same deck was just not as aesthetically pleasing as having a proper, single-backed deck. It was an unnecessary complication to the game, and when we had the right deck we _always_ used it instead of the mixed deck, even though the pinochle deck was all worn-out and sticky while the mixed deck was made of two nice new decks. And that's just with perfect 50:50 mixed decks, that everyone knew the total contents of. With self-constructed decks, which nobody else knows the contents of, the possible change in the game environment is greater and will subtly, but significantly, change the way people play the game. If mixed decks come into play, it will just become another thing serious players will have to diligently keep track of. It will not have _too_ great an advantage, but since every marginal advantage counts in a tournament setting, this means that all serious players will have to keep track of backs, if only to nullify the advantage that your opponent will be getting. This means that a new 'feature' will be added to the game that is _not_ written into the rules. A 'feature' that is completely unneccessary if the backs are left alone. And it will be even more annoying. Just because the mixed card backs do not give an advantage does not mean that being forced to play with a mixed deck is preferable! Having one card back is just flat-out more elegant, especially since the reasons _in favor_ of the change are, at best, marginal. Leaving the backs alone looks stupid and inconsistent for a game or two. Changing the backs looks stupid and inconsistent as well, but in this case it's FOREVER. Well, 'forever' means the 6 months that it will take for VTES to bomb, since the critical mass of players will have been snuffed out by the card back change. Which is too bad, really. I think that Jyhad is the best multiplayer CCgame on the market, and I've had nothing but good responses from WotC and their products. This decision to change the card backs really baffles me, because it is irrational, unjustified, and completely unlike them to behave so. Disappointedly, Bill "Eye-witness to the purchase of over four display boxes of boosters by friends I introduced to the game, and am really feeling torn up that now I may have wasted not only MY money but my *friends* money as well" Gilliland -- "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

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >>They will be obsolessed (sp) if mixed decks prove to be a problem (which a >>significant portion of the net.aware players seem to think it will)... >But part of my point is that as far as I can tell, all of these net.aware >players are just operating on a hunch and what they think will happen, not >on actual experiences with mixing card backs. Part of my point is that >it's ridiculous to swear off a game you've enjoyed for the last nine >months because you *think* something has gone horribly wrong with it. Several of my Magic spoilers are marked by wear. Back when I played Magic that was a big advantage. Casinos go to great length to avaoid the slighhtest markings, and mixed Alpha decks are now barred from most tournaments. When experienced players, casinos, and tournament directors all agree that mixed decks are a problem, they are a problem. Incidentally, I intend to keep playing Jyhad. I just won't BUY anything. Over time, I expect other games (which are producing expansions of interest to me) to draw my interest. >We have tried mixed card backs, and it appears that no one else has >not. And it is our opinion that the one thing that everyone is up in arms >about (i.e., mixing card backs) just isn't a big deal. Put your money where your mouth is. Permit 2-way marking of Magic decks in Convention tournaments, since it "isn't a big deal". Then your claim would be plausible. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >> But playtesting is a best-case scenario. You try to get a good >>mix of cards to balance the set with what's already out there. In >>actual play, there will be differences. >Um, yes and no. Part of playtesting, especially in a game that's attempting >to avoid card limits entirely, is to overload a deck with a card to see >if it's degenerate. In tarding card games you have to assume people are >spending hordes of money on a game, and amassing as many copies of a card >as they want. Playtesting, from what I've heard, explores the interactions of cards. I wasn't aware that WotC playtests for cheating. >> The most common example: I (a Jyhad only owner) find a terribly >>nifty card or two that I feel are indespensible in Dark Sovereigns (this >>is exactly what has happened in each magic expansion I have purchased). I >>buy some and put them in. They are in fact quite nifty, and when I know >>that they are coming up, I use my discard phase to grab one *now* rather >>than wait, which I normally would not have done... >And what does that say about the other cards in your deck, that you're so >willing to just pitch one of them? It says that Joe plays Jyhad. In Jyhad, most cards are useful in combinations. Govern the Unaligned is great for a Malk deck, but when you've a plethora of + bleed cards, you're happy to ditch them for stealth. With only 7 cards, no matter how carefully your deck is designed, you're usually far from an optimal mixing due to statistical variation. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: > >And your responce shows me that you also think it is possible to mark a deck. > >What do you define as "a major problem?" > > A "major problem" is where marking your deck helps you much more than your > opponents. Virtually every method of stacking a deck with different card > backs helps your opponents know whether and how to counteract your moves > as much as it helps you figure out what you should be doing. Peace Tom, Given your definition of "major problem" Alpha cards should be allowed in Mt$ tourneys, why aren't they? Doesn't your opponent gain just as much infor- mation as you? > >Only if my opponents have played against me before will they know that 'such- > >and-such-a-card-back' is Dominate bleed mods. > > They will figure it out soon enough when they keep seeing Dominate bleed > mods that have different faces than the rest of your cards. They are keeping an awfully close look at my deck, then. I doubt that most players at tournaments put that much concentration into remembering which card backs 'tended' to be which cards. > >As far as blocking is concerned, I WANT my prey to try to block. Then I > >can play an Obfuscate action modifier and draw that Dominate bleed mod that > >is sitting on top of my library... > > Which doesn't help if they can intercept the action anyway, and which > will help them cycle their Telepathic Counters (or whatever) out of their > hands when you do play the card. Unless my prey as an anti-S&B deck, this is very improbable. > >Know what the next card is can and will make a difference... > > But not just to you. To your opponents as well. Then why aren't Alpha allowed in Mt$? > >players more devious than myself will prove it at conventions... > > And they may just prove you wrong, but using the marking against you. Are you a betting man, Tom? I'll wager that it will take less time for mixed decks to be outlawed at tourneys than it did for Alphas to be. I'm that confident, are you? [ quoted text not captured ]

ish...@news.holonet.net (Anton Dovydaitis) wrote: > The customer is always right. Peace Anton, It is too bad that WotC doesn't realize that. [ quoted text not captured ]

I could be wrong, but I imagine the good old buddies at Wizard$ of the Coa$t are thinking... "Hey, so some old players are upset. They already had all the Jyhad cards they were going to buy, anyway, with the exception of expansions. These *new* card backs will get us a WHOLE bunch of new players, happy to spend their money on this game. Pass me another slice of cheese, would you?" Maybe that's what they were thinking, maybe not. It's the only thing I could come up with, because if you look at it any other way, they wouldn't have decided to screw their old players. So Wizard$, you're fucking us over. And you may not think it right now, but we're going to fuck you over. I'm not sure how many people post to this newsgroup, but I'll believe there's about twice that number who *don't* post to this newsgroup but still read it. That's a lot of people, all over the country. Now at least half of those if not more are opposed to the new card backs, and now opposed to your moneymaking schemes. Who do you think gets new players into the game? It's not your flashy "Vampire Eternal Struggle" card wrappers or backs, it's US. The old players do. We play a game, other people ask us about it, etc. I've gotten at least a dozen people interested in this game in the past three months I've been playing it. Do you think we're going to keep on recommending the game? I didn't think so. I read in a previous post that twice as many people pay attention when you say something is bad, or worthless, than those who pay attention when you say it's cool. That means I'll be able to turn about 24 people off of Jyhad. There are other people who can do the same, if not more, and they will. They've said they will. Essentially, I'm just letting you know how much I plan to fuck the hand that fed me. Erik ====================================== "Too many puppies! "With guns in their hands! "Too many puppies! "In foreign lands!" --Primus ======================================

Peace be with you all, Having played my first game(s) of Magic in three months [I had quit because the game is unbalanced, but I got the itch to play last night], I stumbled across some new ammunition to lob at Tom. [Ready] I mentioned the card back changes to the Mt$ players at the local store and everyone of them thought it was a stupid idea. I asked them what they would do if Ice Age or Fourth Edition came out with different backs and they said, to a person, that they wouldn't buy any. [Aim] When I mentioned the hypothetical change to Fourth Edition card backs, a guy pulled out some 4thEd starter decks to show me what had been 'added' to 4E and what had been 'removed. Guess what I noticed? The deck boxes for Magic: the Gathering Fourth Edition are different than the old boxes. They are a burnt red & orange color. My question is: [Fire] Tom, why didn't you change the card backs in 4E to match the card box changes? Isn't that "confusing" to new players? Isn't it true that WotC realizes that changing the card backs for Mt$ would kill their cash cow? Why do you treat your Jyhad players different from your Magic players? If you can change the packaging for 4E but not the card backs, why not do this for Jyhad? Several very good solutions have be posted (call the library the 'jyhad deck', call the game Vampire: the {Eternal} Jyhad, etc.). Why the double standard? Why do I feel like singing "We shall overcome?" [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 4 May 1995, Frederick Scott wrote: > Canticle <cant...@MBnet.MB.CA> writes: > > >OK, this isn't exactly a defence or condemnation of the card back switch > >made by Wizards of the Coast. However, I've read a few comments > >concerning the name 'Jyhad' which I REALLY have to respond to, as people > >are brushing off the 'offensive to others' argument as specious, a > >marketing ploy, or what have. > > Sorry, I have to comment on the reasoning because it's the same politically > correct bullshit logic that I've never agreed with. Basically, we don't As I said to someone else, then, you won't mind at all if I produce a game called 'Queer', where the goal is to convert hetersexuals into homosexuals at all costs. There is a difference between, as you term it, 'Politically Correct Bullshit' and misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is taking a term, and using it in a manner which is CONTRARY to what it is intended to mean. 'Jyhad' is NOT supposed to mean a senseless, destructive series of power struggles to gain dominance, yet this is what more and more Americans are coming to belief through misreprentation of the term. And please don't tell me that Islam doesn't have an image problem in the US :). > understand the proper meaning of the word "Jihad" because it's not part of > our culture, therefore it has misunderstood negative connotations that > are unjustified, therefore it should be accepted that its use is offensive > to some unspecified group of others, presumedly those who are more knowledgable > about its meaning. 600+ million people are not an 'unspecified' group. They are Muslims, and have far more understanding of the term 'Jihad' (or 'Jyhad') than a bunch of gamers. Jihad is a religious term used by them to denote a spiritual struggle, a term used for centuries, long before someone thought it meant 'struggle for power' or 'warfare' and decided to apply it to the struggle between Vampire Clans. Its not 'Politically Correct bullshit' to point out that a certain term is misrepresentative, and I by no means boycotted WotC or White Wolf because of their use of the term. I knew the difference between what they're portrayal of it was, and what it really meant, so why should I bother complaining about it...I believe in their right to express themselves however they wish. I simply stated that I was upset by the use of the term, and that I certainly wasn't going to condemn their argument that it was 'offensive' to some people, because it was. Nothing 'politically correct' about it. > The trouble is none of these turns of logic follow its predecessor, IMHO. > If every word that entered our language and mutated in meaning by movement > were considered "offensive", we would have no language left. As others have Not particularily true. Jihad is still used by over 600 million folks to denote a form of spiritual struggle, as opposed to a ethics barren power grab. The problem here is not one of 'language mutating', but rather the English speaking, non-Islamic world taking a word from another language (a word with completely different connotations over there), and applying it to something which is the antithesis of what it is to those particular people. For the sake of example- A group of people speak a language and observe a religion in which the term 'Fleezle' means 'peaceful struggle for enlightenment'. Now, some bizarre, whacked out terrorist group calling itself 'The Fleezle Movement' bombs a church in the US, declaring war on Christianity. This 'Fleezle' movement is as representative of real Fleezalites as those nuts who shoot abortion doctors are representative of Christians. HOWEVER, the US Media begins calling this a 'Fleezle which has been declared against the US people by the Fleezlites...', people begin referring to ANY struggle as Fleezle, and so on and so forth... This is exactly what has occured with Islam. Radical, non representative groups call themselves 'Islamic Jihad', and immediately the terms are applied through media use as something completely opposed to what they actually are. > pointed out, by this logic, there is not a word in the English language that > can not be considered "offensive". They were all borrowed from other languages > at some point - some now dead, some not - and they were all misunderstood by > the new population. Whether they seemed "dark and nasty" to their new users, > probably varied depending on the word, but charging westerners with that > attitude towards "Jihad" is extremely speculative at best and is in no event > relevant. Some words in your language must be dark and nasty, too. If they > had their roots in another culture, even if misunderstood by the new culture, > that is part of life and part of language. Actually, my language IS English :). I can speak a bit of German, a smattering of French, but I was raised in an English household, speak English...and so on and so forth. It isn't speculative to say that 'Jihad' has been BADLY misrepresented in the media, or that people in North America have towards it. A simple way of discovering just how badly misrepresented is to ask any twelve of your friends what 'Jihad' means. I guarantee you that 'Holy War' will be one of the most popular answers. And it is entirely incorrect. > >Sadly, this term has even found itself misapplied in the RPG industry... > > And just _why_ is it so "sad"? I think what's sad is when the people are > too afraid of all the color in the world because of some contrived reasons > why others should be afraid of our selection of words. It's not the word > that's offensive - it's the idea that the word is attempting to convey that's > important. And the idea is misrepresentative of belief systems held by millions of people. Note once again that I never condemned or called for action against WotC or White Wolf for their use of the term...I simply felt that it was perpetuating a rather sad stereotype. I still play Vampire, M:tG, and Werewolf. I don't usually complain about policies of this nature...I simply wanted to point out that stating that 'Jyhad' is NOT offensive to people is incorrect. It is. {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} {}Jeff Scott Franzmann {} "So slide back down and close your eyes{} {}Internet Representative {} sleep a while you must be tired, {} {}Campaign Outfitters {} Cause every every night I fall, {} {}Winnipeg, Manitoba {} Every night I call your name..." {} {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} Opinions expressed above are not those of Campaign Outfitters. They're mine

In article <adm4.1793...@po.cwru.edu> ad...@po.cwru.edu (Aaron Mandelbaum) writes: As for the thundering Arabian hordes, it's hardly a stereotype. It's observation. In the past, arabian hordes thundered. And they keep threatening to do it again. As for it being a dangerous... archetype, I think that if more people had gone by it instead of trying to deal with middle-easterners as reasonable people, a lot of bloodshed would have been avoided. Regardless of your intentions, this is racism, pure and simple. There are appropriate places to express these sentiments, but rec.games.trading-cards.misc is not one of them. Let's try to keep 'politics' off of this newsgroup. Josh Bluestein wa...@ftp.com Disclaimer: My opinions are not those of FTP Software, Inc.

In article <3obee6$6...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > No you don't. Unless you have the ability to change your >drawing, you're pretty much stuck with what you've got. Knowing whether >or not the next card is a "save me" card does no good if you can't get >at it until next turn. I've found marked Magic much less useful than >marked Jyhad... Actually knowing when that time walk is coming up is crucial. Eg, the following scenario: My life is at 12, opponent has a craw wurm and is at 5 life and I have a juzam djinn. He also has an untapped maze of ith. He attacks and I knowing by the card back that my next card is a time walk, I let it through, knowing that I can hit him for enough even with the maze of ith out due to the fact that I will be drawing a Time Walk. If I did not know that the next card was the Walk, I would have let the juzam block his wurm, killing both creatures. -- Vijay Gill |The (paying) customer is always right. wr...@cs.umbc.edu | - Piercarlo Grandi vi...@umbc.edu | Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get These are my opinions only. | sucked into jet engines.

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes... }James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: }>Ok, if we agree that this is totally a marketting move (an I think we do), }>then why doesn't WotC take the simpler win-win solution I proposed yesterday: }>leave the card backs alone, but change the deck, pack, and stand displays to }>read "Vampire: the Eternal Struggle." This way, they get the increased market }>penetration they are looking for AND the old and new cards are fully }>compatible. I don't see why WotC doesn't choose this alternative. } }Because it will look stupid and inconsistent to new players for these holdouts }from the old game to be lying around. The name of the game is changing, }so the presentation of the game is being changed to reflect this. Maybe }people who play Jyhad don't think it would look stupid for the V:TES cards }to say Jyhad on the backs, but we disagree. } }Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for }aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Which doesn't answer the question of why didn't they just reaname the bloody thing "Vampire: The Eternal Jyhad" and leave the card backs as the were? This would have made everybody happy. Card backs stay the same = players happy. "Vampire" plastered all over the box and displays = trendy vampire craze "this has something to do with vampires" recognition factor = WotC happy. But no, they have to go and do things the hard way. So much for cleverness. --- Carl

Canticle <cant...@MBnet.MB.CA> writes: >Sadly, this term has even found itself misapplied in the RPG industry...I >was moderately upset with White Wolf that they used it to denote the >continual struggle for dominance amongst the Vampire Clans, although they >at least were correct in the denotion of it as a 'struggle'. Nor was I >pleased with Wizards of the Coast when they had a 'Jihad' card in Arabian >Nights which depicting an armed host thundering across the plains. Use of >this term in such a way only perpetuates an already dangerous stereotype. Hey, if the meaning has changed then the meaning has changed. Live with it. I've *never* heard the term Jihad used to denote anything but a physical, violent struggle based on fanatical beliefs. I never thought it really applied to Jyhad because the game wasn't bloody enough, and they followed too many rules. (the pred-prey thing, etc) As for the thundering Arabian hordes, it's hardly a stereotype. It's observation. In the past, arabian hordes thundered. And they keep threatening to do it again. As for it being a dangerous... archetype, I think that if more people had gone by it instead of trying to deal with middle-easterners as reasonable people, a lot of bloodshed would have been avoided. -- Aaron Mandelbaum (on a Jihad against people like YOU!!!!!!)

In article <3o7utt$9...@hermes.louisville.edu>, James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >> But Jyhad cards are not being made obselete. You can play with them against >> V:TES decks just fine, and can mix cards from the two in the same deck >> just fine. Regardless of what people seem to think on this, mixing in >> different card backs just isn't a useful tactic. I highly recommend that >> people actually experiment with differing card backs before condemning >> the idea, rather than just assuming that Jyhad and V:TES are oil and water. >They will be obsolessed (sp) if mixed decks prove to be a problem (which a >significant portion of the net.aware players seem to think it will). Yes, >mixing card backs can be a useful tactic and at the very least can give you >valuable information about what is coming up next in your deck. Here's a very >good example: Let's say you have a Brujah rush combat deck and a sizable number >of both sets of cards. You could make all your non-combat cards VtES backs and >all your combat cards Jyhad backs. Now, I'm in combat and I see that my next >card is a VtES back, I won't press and hope to draw a Strike card, because I >KNOW that the next card isn't. I've been in this situation (should I press/ >maneuver and hope to draw a strike) several times recently [I've been playing >Brujah quite a bit since Curt Adams claimed they couldn't beat S&B] and KNOWING >whether the next card is playable in the current combat or not IS a big advantage. You're going to have to do a lot better than this. I'm not much of a Jyhad player, but if you were playing this deck, and the dividing line were this clear (combat cards vs. noncombat cards), it would probably take a couple of turns at most before I couldn't help but notice the pattern... and then you would start getting hammered, because I would know how many combat cards you had in your hand and whether or not you would be drawing one soon, and I would start altering my attacks and tactics appropriately. I would wager a lot of money that I could make a lot more use out of knowing the nature of your whole hand _and_ your next card than you could do knowing only the nature of your next card. And, since I'd be playing all Jyhad backs, you would have no such information about my cards. People, before you start thinking about obvious marketing strategies, think about this fact; if your opponent can figure out the pattern, your opponent is getting much more added information than you're getting. You know what your cards are once they're in your hand; he doesn't, unless you use the card backs to telegraph that fact to him. In fact, if I were playing in a tournament under the proposed rules, I think I'd play a mixed deck with a totally random pattern of mixing (and chuckle softly when I saw a V:tES card turn up in my deck), just to drive my opponent crazy and take his attention off the game while he's trying to figure out a pattern that doesn't exist. :-) The only rule I might add would be a minimum-proportions rule--say, if you're going to use a mixed deck, at least 25% of the cards have to come from each set. With that many cards of one "marking", the pattern is likely to be either obvious enough that the opponent will catch on quickly, or nebulous enough that it won't be much help to anyone. -- \o\ If you're interested in books/stories with transformation themes,\o\ \o\please try <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/phaedrus/Menu.html>, or \o\ /o/anonymous-ftp to ftp.halcyon.com in /local/phaedrus/translist. /o/ /o/ Comments and submissions to this list are always welcome. /o/

In article <3ob74j$g...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >> Didn't you test the same thing out for Magic, and come to the >>same conclusion about Arabian Knights, and yet *keep* the backs the >>same? Why? Because, if I recall correctly, of customer demand... > >Actually, it was based on feedback from the playtesters for Arabian Nights. >Also, marking cards in Magic is much more significant than marking them >in Jyhad. Interesting. I read my data in an interview with Richard Garfield. He said in that interview that playtesting showed that there wasn't much of a difference in play, but that many people objected to it, so they went with the same backs. I'm not sure if he specified *who* objected, but the playtesting showed the same results. As to marking in Magic being more significant: I don't think so. You rarely have the power to decide when you will draw in Magic. You often have that power in Jyhad. That flexibility of draw timing makes Jyhad marked cards much easier to use than Magic. The "save me" card on top does no good if you can't get it into your hand. | 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 ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK

Canticle <cant...@MBnet.MB.CA> writes: >On 4 May 1995, John Martin Karakash wrote: > >> I think the main reason they're changing the name is that >> people didn't understand that 'jyhad' referred to a term from the >> Vampire:tM role playing game. They were counting on that sort of >> production recognition to help sell the CCG. > >Oh, I agree here...there were more reasons behind the change in name >than,"Uh, this isn't really a cool term to use..." :) > >> And, as bit of a counter-point to your article, there is >> nothing wrong with the term _simply_ because it is incorrectly >> used. Incorrect by whose standards? The term 'dumb', in American > >Well, as a counter-point to your counter-point, you won't mind at all >then, if I create a game called 'Holy Communion', in which the goal is to >consume the body and blood of deities. Oooh! Cool. I like it. >This is what using the term >'Jyhad' to refer to a selfish seeking of power and victory is akin to. >Now, as a non-Christian, such a game might be a little intriguing, if not >a little gross. However, a large number of Christians would take this as >a gross misrepresentation of their faith...and they would be right. No, they would be wrong - if "Holy Communion" were a term that had taken up popular usage with another meaning in another place where non-Christians were scarce. (Were Christians not scarce, the meaning of the term wouldn't mutate as you are suggesting happened with Jyhad.) They would be using "Holy Communion" to mean what they use it to mean and that can't be construed as offensive, unless we're looking to be offended. Noone controls the meaning of a word or phrase. >I don't mind people using religions in games, as long as the religions are >ACCURATELY portrayed...I mean, there ARE crazed religious fundamentalists >out there. Hey, no one is "portraying" ANY religion here. It's a game about Vampires. What's yer point? Fred

Doug DeJulio (dd...@pitt.edu) wrote: : In article <beanishD...@netcom.com>, : Jeremy York <bea...@netcom.com> wrote: : >So don't use only Necromancy cards from a V:tES expansion in : >a Jyhad deck. Buy or trade for a few regular V:tES cards, and : >replace a bunch of your commons, indiscriminantly, with the equivalent : >new edition card. Advantage zapped, no longer an issue. : Sorry, Jeremy, but this is just not practical. After extensive buying : and trading, I already have all the *core* Jyhad cards I need. All : I'll be buying from now on are expansions. I *think* your concerns would be covered if WotC would do a massive old-for-new card exchange...but it would certainly be a considerable inconvenience to you...I remember stories of who the (well-intentioned) Legends exchange took a long time to process some requests... -- Jeremy (bea...@netcom.com, bea...@delphi.com)

Canticle <cant...@MBnet.MB.CA> writes: >On Thu, 4 May 1995, Frederick Scott wrote: > >> Canticle <cant...@MBnet.MB.CA> writes: >> >> >OK, this isn't exactly a defence or condemnation of the card back switch >> >made by Wizards of the Coast. However, I've read a few comments >> >concerning the name 'Jyhad' which I REALLY have to respond to, as people >> >are brushing off the 'offensive to others' argument as specious, a >> >marketing ploy, or what have. >> >> Sorry, I have to comment on the reasoning because it's the same politically >> correct bullshit logic that I've never agreed with. Basically, we don't > >As I said to someone else, then, you won't mind at all if I produce a >game called 'Queer', where the goal is to convert hetersexuals into >homosexuals at all costs. Personally, no. It depends on how well the game was designed but I have a feeling I'd get a chuckle out of it. But would a homosexual have a right to be offended? I'm sort of divided on it myself but by and large, I think so. The reason I think so is because the term "Queer" has only ever been used as a derisive term for homosexuals, similar to "Nigger" vis-a-vis black people or "Prairie Nigger" vis-a-vis Native Americans. On the other hand, we might debate about whether the use of "Indian" should be offensive to Native Americans. Note that I do not propose to call them "Indians" if they want to be called "Native Americans. That's just being unnecessarily provocative. But I do question whether we should never use the word "Indian" at all in deference to their sensitivities, however. >Misrepresentation is taking a term, and using it in a manner which is >CONTRARY to what it is intended to mean. Jyhad' is NOT supposed to mean >a senseless, destructive series of power struggles to gain dominance, yet >this is what more and more Americans are coming to belief through >misreprentation of the term. Excuse me, but "misrepresentation of (a) term" in language - over time - is impossible. Yes, it may be true that English-speaking people may have subtly changed the meaning of an Arab word as we've adopted it into our language. But now it's here and it means what we use it to mean. We can't help what ignorance will do to the meaning of a word as it moves around the globe. But it just scares me that people would try to claim that 'now we can't use the word' because it may not be all that flattering to Arabs or the Muslim religion. >> understand the proper meaning of the word "Jihad" because it's not part of >> our culture, therefore it has misunderstood negative connotations that >> are unjustified, therefore it should be accepted that its use is offensive >> to some unspecified group of others, presumedly those who are more >> knowledgable about its meaning. > >600+ million people are not an 'unspecified' group. You miss my point. Substitute "a given group". sheesh (I hope you're not suggesting that Muslims are more important than other groups due to weight of numbers.) >They are Muslims, and >have far more understanding of the term 'Jihad' (or 'Jyhad') than a bunch >of gamers. Nonsense. They know what THEY mean by the term. We know what we (and not gamers but English-speaking people) mean by it. >Jihad is a religious term used by them to denote a spiritual >struggle, a term used for centuries, long before someone thought it meant >'struggle for power' or 'warfare' and decided to apply it to the struggle >between Vampire Clans. In Arabic, perhaps that's true. But here it means a "fanatical religious war" - and not necessarily fought by Muslims. >> If every word that entered our language and mutated in meaning by movement >> were considered "offensive", we would have no language left. As others have > >Not particularily true. Jihad is still used by over 600 million folks to >denote a form of spiritual struggle, as opposed to a ethics barren power >grab. What, they still use it their way so we can't use it ours?!? Great - and where do we "register" for permission to use a word. Do copyrights expire eventually? Can we use it after they're done with it? I think this represents a misunderstanding of language and its gradual transformation over time. One has only to look at French/English dictionary to see common examples of words that have moved from one language to another and subtly change meaning - but still exist in both languages. Do the French have the right to be offended by our use of bastardized versions of French words? Are we not allowed to use such words in our game titles? >The problem here is not one of 'language mutating', but rather the >English speaking, non-Islamic world taking a word from another language >(a word with completely different connotations over there), and applying >it to something which is the antithesis of what it is to those particular >people. For the sake of example- Now, all of sudden, this is the "antithesis" of what Jihad means in Arabic?!? I haven't been arguing about this but I think you're starting to go a little overboard on your misrepresentation of what Jihad really means to Muslims. I can go read history books that describe "Jihads" being declared by Muslim powers. Are these descriptions really completely the invention of English- speaking historians, or is it possible that ONE definition of "Jihad" does indeed mean "holy war", even to Muslims? I can't believe no Muslim ever used this term in describing a truly military struggle that had taken on religious implications. (It's a side issue. It really has no bearing on the thrust of my arguments. But I had to point it out.) >A group of people speak a language and observe a religion in which the >term 'Fleezle' means 'peaceful struggle for enlightenment'. Now, some >bizarre, whacked out terrorist group calling itself 'The Fleezle >Movement' bombs a church in the US, declaring war on Christianity. This >'Fleezle' movement is as representative of real Fleezalites as those nuts >who shoot abortion doctors are representative of Christians. HOWEVER, the >US Media begins calling this a 'Fleezle which has been declared against >the US people by the Fleezlites...', people begin referring to ANY >struggle as Fleezle, and so on and so forth... If: a) the original group of people do not exist in U.S. culture (or barely exist) to have any perceptible effect on our language, and b) the word 'Fleezle' has taken on its own distinct meaning in English over time, then this is a completely reasonable state of affairs. It may, of course, cause an unfortunate misunderstanding of the original group by ignorant Americans (when has THAT ever happened before?). But it's the cultural equivalent of 1984 and "Newspeak" to try to change that. That the politically correct can't understand that basic fact is what galls me about the whole way of thinking. >It isn't speculative to say that 'Jihad' has been BADLY misrepresented in >the media, or that people in North America have towards it. "Changed", yes. "Misrepresented", no. >A simple way >of discovering just how badly misrepresented is to ask any twelve of your >friends what 'Jihad' means. I guarantee you that 'Holy War' will be one >of the most popular answers. And it is entirely incorrect. Actually, I myself would say 'Holy War'. So, wondering what's wrong with me, I wandered over to our nearby Miriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary and discovered, to my surprise that BZZZZZT!!! I AM CORRECT AND YOU ARE INCORRECT. Miriam defines it as a "Holy War", too. Or is Miriam Webster and all other English dictionaries with that definition wrong, too? Is my point a little clearer at least? You can say that Americans misunderstood the meaning of "Jihad" when they started using it in their language. That would be truthful. But in language, a "mistake" eventually becomes "correct", and that is what's happened in this case. >> >Sadly, this term has even found itself misapplied in the RPG industry... >> >> And just _why_ is it so "sad"? I think what's sad is when the people are >> too afraid of all the color in the world because of some contrived reasons >> why others should be afraid of our selection of words. It's not the word >> that's offensive - it's the idea that the word is attempting to convey >> that's important. > >And the idea is misrepresentative of belief systems held by millions of >people. I admit, that's unfortunate. But we can't fix that now and we certainly shouldn't be sabotaging the value of people's card collections to express our angst over it. That's not justified. >Note once again that I never condemned or called for action >against WotC or White Wolf for their use of the term... So noted. >I simply felt that >it was perpetuating a rather sad stereotype. I still play Vampire, M:tG, >and Werewolf. I don't usually complain about policies of this nature...I >simply wanted to point out that stating that 'Jyhad' is NOT offensive to >people is incorrect. It is. I don't think we're arguing over whether 'Jyhad' is actually offensive to anyone. No matter what I say, _some_ people will insist on being offended. My bone of contention is whether they should be offended or not - and what we should do about that. Fred

The name of Magic: the Gathering is not changing. Changing the packaging on the boxes is just the sort of thing you do to keep a product fresh whenever you upgrade it to a new edition. Jyhad is becoming Vampire: the Eternal Struggle. The two games are perfectly compatible, but it *is* a different product, and hence warrants a more extensive change in presentation than a new edition of an existing product does. M:tG is still called M:tG, so there is no reason to remove that from the card backs. Jyhad is now called V:TES, so there's a very real reason to change the overall presentation. Magic is doing far better than anyone could have ever dreamed of. Jyhad was a disappointment, especially in projected markets outside of the gaming industry. Thus there is no reason to overhaul Magic, and a very real reason to overhaul Jyhad. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > As to marking in Magic being more significant: I don't think so. >You rarely have the power to decide when you will draw in Magic. You >often have that power in Jyhad. That flexibility of draw timing makes >Jyhad marked cards much easier to use than Magic. The "save me" card on >top does no good if you can't get it into your hand. But in Jyhad, you are constantly drawing many cards, and if you're not, then your deck probably isn't doing anything useful and all the marked cards in the world aren't likely to help much. In Magic, you have to use up resources in order to draw multiple cards, and thus it's much more useful to know whether you should use up those resources now, or save them for later. [ quoted text not captured ]

K. Chadwick <wis...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >I don't see my library cards as not being resources. They are my votes, my >powerbases, my equipment, my locations, my retainers, my allies... I am not defining those as resources any more than I would consider a Sol Ring or Hive to be a resources. "Resources" are the cards that you have to have in order for the rest of your cards to do anything. In Magic, the resources are mana-producing lands, and arguably the Moxen. In Jyhad, the resources are vampires. Locations, retainers, etc. are not resources, they are the functional cards in the deck. The vampires serve both functions. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3odkpv...@topdog.cs.umbc.edu>, Vijay Gill <wr...@cs.umbc.edu> wrote: >In article <3obee6$6...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >> No you don't. Unless you have the ability to change your >>drawing, you're pretty much stuck with what you've got. Knowing whether >>or not the next card is a "save me" card does no good if you can't get >>at it until next turn. I've found marked Magic much less useful than >>marked Jyhad... > >Actually knowing when that time walk is coming up is crucial. >Eg, the following scenario: You're missing the point. I am not saying that marking a Magic deck is not useful, I'm saying that it's less useful than marking a Jyhad deck. Your Time Walk scenario can only come up once in a game (maybe more with Regrowth, Recall and Timetwister, but then you're getting *really* esoteric), while in Jyhad my combat scenario (is that next card a strike?) will come up many times in a game. And my scenario doesn't rely on out-of-print rares, or even *any* powerful cards at all. You've listed a combo that relies on a very hard to get card. I've listed a typical situation that happens at least once a game, usually more than that. Marking of decks at all should be discouraged, not encouraged. (BTW, I just finished reading the squealy clean new Duelist Convocation rules. You know what really amuses me? The statement that all card backs must be identical. That's in a separate paragraph from the one about alphas!) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 5 May 1995, Aaron Mandelbaum wrote: > >Sadly, this term has even found itself misapplied in the RPG industry...I > >was moderately upset with White Wolf that they used it to denote the > >continual struggle for dominance amongst the Vampire Clans, although they > >at least were correct in the denotion of it as a 'struggle'. Nor was I > >pleased with Wizards of the Coast when they had a 'Jihad' card in Arabian > >Nights which depicting an armed host thundering across the plains. Use of > >this term in such a way only perpetuates an already dangerous stereotype. > > Hey, if the meaning has changed then the meaning has changed. Live with it. The meaning hasn't 'changed'. 'Jihad' STILL means, to the vast majority of muslims 'struggle' in the spiritual sense. Nothing more, nothing less. To 600+ million people, it does not mean 'bloody carnage against things you do not like'. > I've *never* heard the term Jihad used to denote anything but a physical, > violent struggle based on fanatical beliefs. I never thought it really > applied to Jyhad because the game wasn't bloody enough, and they followed > too many rules. (the pred-prey thing, etc) Then you've never spoken to a Muslim about his beliefs, or asked anyone who is familiar with Islam about what Jihad means. The last thing a real Muslim believes is that a Jihad is a 'violent struggle'. Islamic Jihad might, but that is because they are terrorists. Just as the Christian who shot an abortion doctor calls himself a Christian and believes he was acting under the authority of God. > As for the thundering Arabian hordes, it's hardly a stereotype. It's > observation. In the past, arabian hordes thundered. And they keep > threatening to do it again. Really? And the Crusades weren't a case of Christians thundering to the conversion of the heathen? Please, if you're going to rush into sterotyping, don't pick on one group. Stereotype everyone. Christians are all fanatics who want to restrict your right to read, think and watch what you want, just as Islamic folk are zealots out to conquer the world. I think your attitude towards the term Jihad proves my point about its misrepresentation in the Western media quite well. > As for it being a dangerous... archetype, I think that if more people had > gone by it instead of trying to deal with middle-easterners as reasonable > people, a lot of bloodshed would have been avoided. So anyone of middle-eastern descent is inherently unreasonable? I REALLY hope you don't mean that. Seems like the US involvement in Nicaragua, Grenada, and the entire Cold War era is no different than the stupidites performed by the GOVERNMENTS of Islamic nations. Incidentally, I find it ironic that in the 'liberated' Western World, there are so few women leading nations...and yet in the 'repressed, hateful' Islamic world, women are in charge in several. Turkey, Pakistan and Bangladesh to name a few off hand. > -- > Aaron Mandelbaum (on a Jihad against people like YOU!!!!!!) People like me? And who, pray tell, are people like me? Those who hold ideas you don't like? I'm not telling you NOT to play Jyhad, or not to buy Jyhad...all I've tried to do is show why SOME people find the application of Jyhad offensive. I'm not even advocating a boycott. Nor have I stereotyped entire religious belief systems, entire cultures, or entire concepts. {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} {}Jeff Scott Franzmann {} "So slide back down and close your eyes{} {}Internet Representative {} sleep a while you must be tired, {} {}Campaign Outfitters {} Cause every every night I fall, {} {}Winnipeg, Manitoba {} Every night I call your name..." {} {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} Opinions expressed above are not those of Campaign Outfitters. They're mine

James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >Given your definition of "major problem" Alpha cards should be allowed in >Mt$ tourneys, why aren't they? Doesn't your opponent gain just as much infor- >mation as you? It almost never helps you to know whether your opponent has a basic land on top of their library or not. It routinely helps you to know whether your opponent has a Wake With Evening's Freshness in their hand or not. The signal/noise ratio from marked cards, at least from the opponent's point of view, is much higher in Jyhad than in Magic. >They are keeping an awfully close look at my deck, then. I doubt that most >players at tournaments put that much concentration into remembering which >card backs 'tended' to be which cards. If they're stressing about marked decks as much as everyone opposed to the card back change is stressing about them, then they're certainly going to watching your deck. Rembember, we are talking about tournament environments here. If it is worth your time to try and mark your deck, it is worth their time to watch for that and use the knowledge against you. >> Which doesn't help if they can intercept the action anyway, and which >> will help them cycle their Telepathic Counters (or whatever) out of their >> hands when you do play the card. >Unless my prey as an anti-S&B deck, this is very improbable. Given that S&B decks are so prevalent, it should be assumed that anti-S&B decks will be fairly common. >Are you a betting man, Tom? I'll wager that it will take less time for >mixed decks to be outlawed at tourneys than it did for Alphas to be. I'm >that confident, are you? I do not think that mixed decks are going to be outlawed overnight, no. But I am not a betting man. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3oe6oa$r...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: : (BTW, I just finished reading the squealy clean new Duelist ^^^^^^^ er, make that squeaky... :Convocation rules. You know what really amuses me? The statement that [ quoted text not captured ]

Syzygy Darklocke <syz...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: >The fact that my input and support (be it for or against certain company >proposals) is IRRELEVANT... well, I'm not quite sure that was the most >professional way express that idea/thought. Even if it's true, a business >professional does not explicitly state to his/her client that their input is >irrelevant, especially if they want to keep that client (read: customer). Had you retained the context surrounding the quote that you posted, it should have been obvious to people just reading this is that customer input has become irrelevant not because we don't care, but because sooner or later, the deadline for making a final decision had to arrive. At some point, the cards have to go to press. We certainly have to have a final decision made by then. But that's not the actual deadline, because our production department has to make sure they're happen with what's being sent to the printer. And the actual deadline is actually a little bit before that, since they need some time to digest the overall look of the game, and make any necessary changes to the files. That deadline has arrived. We always value customer input. But the reality is that every decision has to be made sooner or later, and it has to be final at that point. That time has been reached for the V:TES card backs. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > Um, what does that have to do with a best-case play scenario? >Playtesters are usually ethical people who know a bit about game design >and can make constructive comments that are relevant. They also tend to >have certain basic assumptions about the game that come from the >designers in forms other than written rules. No matter what kind of >deck they play with, they are still a best case play scenario. We do realize that our games are going to be played in tournaments, so we do some playtesting where we assume people are going to be evil in order to make every attempt to win. We know whether we playtest the cards assuming a tournament environment or not, and I think it's strange that you're attempting to tell us that we aren't. >>And what does that say about the other cards in your deck, that you're so >>willing to just pitch one of them? > Oh, you're right, I'm a horrible player! I have so many useless >cards that sit in my hand all day while my predator bleeds me senseless >and I can't do a thing about it!... The point here is that I think it's a little strange that in a tournament deck, you would actually be willing to pitch cards from your hand on a regular basis solely to get to the top card on your library, rather than actually using those cards to help your position. It seems to me that if your deck is well designed, you would actually need all the cards in your hand be trying to use them, which means you're going to be drawing the top card of the library soon whether you know what it is or not. If you took that as a personal attack, I'm sorry. But it was simply a general rebuttal to this sort of argument, and I happened to respond to your post is all. [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >In other words, it wasn't a charade, it was a last-ditch effort by a >renegade to stop an ill-considered and inconsiderate decision. The post >had originally made me suspect that. Bully for him. Pity it wasn't enough. We do not consider JD to be a renegade. He was an employee who was concerned about a decision a product team was making, so stated his objection and looked for additional feedback to help make his point. There is nothing wrong with this. But from what little I saw, that last minute poll didn't turn up any new considerations, so it probably didn't have much impact on the decision, no. >I've yet to see or hear even ONE person >outside of WotC say the change was needed (the best has been that it is >tolerable, and even that's rare)... But nobody outside of WotC has to manage the product, or decide how it should be marketed, or be responsible for the success or failure of the game. How many people thought the name of the game should have been changed in the first place? Probably not very many, so of course there wouldn't have been many (if any) people who would be advocating changing the card backs. [ quoted text not captured ]

Karl J. Hiller <br...@iglou.iglou.com> wrote: >What about the announcement, made about a month or two ago, about the new >edition and the expansion and player's guide, which appeared both here on >Usenet and in Comic Shop News, stating (among other things) that the crypt >backs would stay the same? If WoTC is supplying information to Comic Shop >News, I'd say that's a press release. Looking at my posts for the last couple of months, this is the announcement you're probably thinking of. Note that it only talks about the fronts of the minion cards changing, and doesn't talk about the vampires at all. * Vampire: the Eternal Struggle is scheduled for an August release. Each of the * minion card types will have its own border design. * * Dark Sovereigns, the first expansion for V:TES, is scheduled for an August * release. The borders of the minion cards will match the new cards. It will * introduce the Ravnos and Giovanni clans, and will include a number of new * princes from the major cities of Europe, as well as vampires of the * Inner Circle. * * Darkness Unveiled, the first V:TES novel, is scheduled for a September * release. It will be in hardback, with cover art by Dave McKean. The * interior will be * two color, with new art by a number of V:TES artists. I don't know what Comic Shop News did or didn't say about V:TES, but there has been no announcement about card backs in the last couple of months except for the press release on the final decision, and we do know magazines who have said the backs wouldn't be changing without bothering to check with us as to whether they'd be changing or not. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3o76u0$r...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: > >Jeremy York <bea...@netcom.com> wrote: >>: WotC will hopefully say that all the old cards play like the new cards, >>I found Tom's response to this to be pretty cryptic. Sounded like >>they'd like to do things this way, but he also sounded non-commital >>on what they'd *actually* do. > >Again, the situation here will be exactly the same as in Magic. While we >recommend that people play with the updated card texts if they know what >those card texts are, we have no reliable way of getting the updated card >texts circulated, so can't make that the official policy right now. >And I don't know how soon we'll be able to circulate the texts. You're making a new version, and you can't include the texts in the new rules? Is it because you're not really expecting V:tES to sell (evil grin) or something? -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

On 4 May 1995, John Martin Karakash wrote: > I think the main reason they're changing the name is that > people didn't understand that 'jyhad' referred to a term from the > Vampire:tM role playing game. They were counting on that sort of > production recognition to help sell the CCG. Oh, I agree here...there were more reasons behind the change in name than,"Uh, this isn't really a cool term to use..." :) > And, as bit of a counter-point to your article, there is > nothing wrong with the term _simply_ because it is incorrectly > used. Incorrect by whose standards? The term 'dumb', in American Well, as a counter-point to your counter-point, you won't mind at all then, if I create a game called 'Holy Communion', in which the goal is to consume the body and blood of deities. This is what using the term 'Jyhad' to refer to a selfish seeking of power and victory is akin to. Now, as a non-Christian, such a game might be a little intriguing, if not a little gross. However, a large number of Christians would take this as a gross misrepresentation of their faith...and they would be right. I don't mind people using religions in games, as long as the religions are ACCURATELY portrayed...I mean, there ARE crazed religious fundamentalists out there. However, to portray something which has a real world equivalent in a game, and misrepresent it, can do a lot of harm. > from the other. V:tM is primarily set in the US and so a lot of > the terminology is influenced by the US usages of words. Which is unfortunate in the extreme. The US fixation on Islam as a militant, violent religion is distressing in the extreme, and is fuelled primarily by misrepresentations in the media. 'Jihad' is a holy war, Muslim extremists...so and so forth. EVERY religion has its extremists, EVERY culture group has its fanatics, so why assume ONE group in particular is more prone towards them. Prime case in point...immediately after the Oklahoma Bombing, the media and 'experts' were claiming it was the work of Muslim extremists, going so far as to point out that there was a Muslim sect in Oklahoma (SHOCK! HORROR! Islam being one of the fastest growing religions in the world, this comes as a surprise?). This disgusted me on two levels- (a) That because a building was bomed in the US, it HAD to be Muslim extremists, and (b) People were ignoring a more obvious answer. Of course, that obvious answer ended up being the correct one...a home grown loon who believed that the Federal Government had to be made to pay for their crimes at Waco. The first thing I noticed about the bombing was the date...2 years to the day after the Waco raid. Now, ask yourself why EVERYONE was looking for Muslims right off the bat? > Also, *any* word you use is probably likely to offend > *someone*. =) Its not the word so much as the representation of it. Jihad, in the application used by both WotC and WW is misrepresentative. As a counterpoint, I'm VERY upset with WotC for removing all cards from the new Edition of Magic:The Gathering that have 'Demon' in the title. EVERYONE knows what a demon is...representative of evil and darkness, evil purveyors of all things nasty, and they have never been portrayed as anything different. People get offended by the word 'Jyhad' because it is misrepresentative of a belief system...people get offended by 'demon' because it is exactly representative of what it is. -Jeff Franzmann

In article <3od81m$b...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >ish...@news.holonet.net (Anton Dovydaitis) wrote: >> The customer is always right. >It is too bad that WotC doesn't realize that. But which customers? The ones currently in the game who don't like the new backs, or the ones who would be in the game except for its name? There are lots of different kinds of customers. They can't all be right. Doug L.

CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >Playtesting, from what I've heard, explores the interactions of cards. I >wasn't aware that WotC playtests for cheating. It has become clear over the last couple of years that we do have to assume cheating will occur in tournaments, especially when we're talking about redesigning the cards in such a case as this. No, we don't think the majority of your customers will cheat on a regular basis. But we do face the fact that it will happen here and there, so some playtesting time is addressed to this in these situations. Since we were playtesting Dark Sovereigns anyway, and had blatantly marked cards in that playtest, we certainly paid attention to the issue during that playtesting. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > >Once again, marking cards in Magic is a very different beast than >marking cards in Jyhad. In Magic, which you are required to play cards >to dig through your deck quickly, and where you have your resources and >functional cards in the same deck, you get much more valuable information >by marking your cards. In Jyhad, where the resources (crypt) and functional >cards (library) are separate, and where you're constantly cycling your deck >if it's working well at all, this information is much less important. !!! You've got to be kidding. It's much more valuable to know what's coming up when you can control when and whether to draw it. This does not sound like you tested marked decks carefully. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Tom Wylie writes: > in Jyhad, you are constantly drawing many cards, and if you're not, then >your deck probably isn't doing anything useful and all the marked cards in >the world aren't likely to help much. In Magic, you have to use up resources >in order to draw multiple cards, and thus it's much more useful to know whether >you should use up those resources now, or save them for later. Jyhad is much more combination-dependent than Magic. In addition, most Jyhad cards are transient - use them and they are gone. If I'm using, say Prot Green + FoN, if I draw Prot Green, I've little need to know if Mr. FoN is my next draw. Throw down the Prot Green, and when Mr. FoN shows up, I can use it. In Jyhad, if I've got a hand of + bleed cards in an S&B deck, they are all useless. I can't pitch them down and wait for the stealth to come up. It's very important to know exactly when my stealth starts showing up. In addition, discard is critical in Jyhad (re James' comment). It's enormously valuable to have even a clue about what is going on to guide discards. You're using a Magic evaluation of cards - they're good or they aren't, in any particular game (not quite true, but close). In Jyhad, context is all. What matters is whether a card is good NOW, in combination with the rest of my hand. If not, I throw it out. It's twin will come back later, when I can use it. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Tom Wylie writes: >"Resources" are the cards that you >have to have in order for the rest of your cards to do anything. In Magic, >the resources are mana-producing lands, and arguably the Moxen. In Jyhad, >the resources are vampires. Close but no cigar. Right on the definition of resource, but wrong on the application to Jyhad. In Jyhad, almost every card will serve as a resource for another in a good deck. I need stealth to use my + bleed; I need + bleed to use my stealth. I need Rush to use combat cards; I need combat cards to use Rush. I need useful actions to tap out to use my Wakes; I need Wakes to tap out doing useful actions. I need Disguised Weapon to pull surprises with my weaponry; I need weaponry to usefully use my DW. I need presses for my Thaumaturgy nukes, I need Thaumaturgy nukes to safely use presses. I need Flashes for my Sewer Lid; I need ranged damage for my manuevers. Etc., etc., etc. Nobody can figure out a good Jyhad marking scheme in a real game. You have multiple opponents to track and they will probably have sophisticated marking schemes which you will never see again. They can switch schemes for every deck after every session, or, if that's too much work, every time somebody cracks the code. I'll switch from marking my Rushes to marking my presses. Even if a deck is not marked, card counting will provide an edge. When I've drawn all my Jyhad Wakes, I'll know a Jyhad card is something else - most likely the stealth where I've drawn mostly VTES. Most people can count their own decks, but almost nobody can count a whole table. In any case, they won't know the relative composition of my deck, so seeing 3 Jyhad Wakes means much less to them than to me. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Tom Wylie writes: >If they're stressing about marked decks as much as everyone opposed to the >card back change is stressing about them, then they're certainly going to >watching your deck. Rembember, we are talking about tournament environments >here. If it is worth your time to try and mark your deck, it is worth their >time to watch for that and use the knowledge against you. But they can't keep up with it. Humans are not able to count six decks simultaneously unless they are highly trained. So Jyhad tournaments will be won by the occaisional kid with photographic memory. I certainly won't have a chance. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Tom Wylie writes: >Since we were playtesting Dark Sovereigns >anyway, and had blatantly marked cards in that playtest, we certainly >paid attention to the issue during that playtesting. That's only the tip of the marking iceberg. First, everybody knows the marking scheme. Second, nobody has any control over marking schemes - I have no choice on the back for my Wakes. Voluntary marking is orders of magnitude worse than involuntary marking. In terms of the accuracy of testing, we could go around endlessly. I have, personally, been able to benefit from involuntary marking in Magic (even when I didn't want to) and am sure I would have no trouble doing so in Jyhad. You say your playtesters can't figure out a way. There's no resolution unless I play against the playtesters. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : At some point, the cards have to go to press. We certainly have to have a : final decision made by then. But that's not the actual deadline, because : our production department has to make sure they're happen with what's being : sent to the printer. And the actual deadline is actually a little bit before : that, since they need some time to digest the overall look of the game, and : make any necessary changes to the files. That deadline has arrived. : We always value customer input. But the reality is that every decision : has to be made sooner or later, and it has to be final at that point. : That time has been reached for the V:TES card backs. Sounds like a lost driver who sees a "Bridge Out" sign ahead but stubbornly keeps driving toward the bridge because, dammit, he made the decision to drive down that road, and at some point you have to make a decision and stick with it. If the sign says, "Bridge Out", your car is going to fall into the river, no matter how determined you are not to turn back. If 90% of your customer base says "We are not going to buy your product if you do this", your game is going to sit on the shelves, no matter how determined you are that your customers just don't know what they're talking about. You people must be pretty damned sure that we're just a non-representational minority. It's a shame that you're not a betting man. Brand P.S. to Tom: Just in case you're in the ugly position of HAVING to try to calm us down and sell us on the idea of V:TES, whether or not you agree with the things that you're saying - like the PR men who got stuck with the job of telling retailers that Marvel going exclusive through Heroes's World was going to be GOOD for them - well, you have my sympathy. None of my messages are meant as personal attacks. That's all. -- br...@iglou.com "Shake a person up enough and what they thought was a --------------- personality starts to separate. We can be *anything*." - Grant Morrison

On 5 May 1995, Thomas R Wylie wrote: > > >I've yet to see or hear even ONE person > >outside of WotC say the change was needed (the best has been that it is > >tolerable, and even that's rare)... > > But nobody outside of WotC has to manage the product, or decide how it > should be marketed, or be responsible for the success or failure of > the game. How many people thought the name of the game should have > been changed in the first place? Probably not very many, so of course > there wouldn't have been many (if any) people who would be advocating > changing the card backs. So why does WOTC feel that it is now necessary to change the name of the product? You say (not you personally) that you're not reaching the 'target' audience of the game. That sir is BULL and you know it. I don't buy the claim that people do not know what the game is about either, I've seen the ads in the Duelist. Lets just say for the salke of argument that the whole name change thing has only to do with money. Jyhad didn't sell a trillion and one cards like Magic, Boo-hoo! I really don't think the game is going to amazingly sell better just 'cause you change the name. Lets face it, Jyhad takes a little thinking to play, unlike Magic, and (oh horror!) you can't play a game in less than two hours. Which means the people playing actually have to have an attention span... Oh yea...if we weren't the target audience then who is? -Rob -death to extremists

Douglas Limmer (lim...@math.orst.edu) wrote: : In article <3od81m$b...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." [ quoted text not captured ] What? Who are the customers who would be in the game except for the name? People offended by the word "Jyhad"? Go ahead and try to find one. People who don't know that the game is about vampires? OK, change the name, change the packaging, and leave the card backs the same, and then find me a single customer who still can't figure it out. The people who are angry about the backs changing are very real and there are a lot of them. What other group of customers are you talking about? Brand [ quoted text not captured ]

Why doesn't someone make this thread into a novel could make lots of $$$$? Eric Kochhar In article <3ocudu$6...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, ska...@u.washington.edu says... > >In article <3oajp9$n...@hermes.louisville.edu>, >>aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > >> Because it will look stupid and inconsistent to new players for these holdouts >> from the old game to be lying around. The name of the game is changing, >> so the presentation of the game is being changed to reflect this. Maybe >> people who play Jyhad don't think it would look stupid for the V:TES cards >> to say Jyhad on the backs, but we disagree. > >THIS??? This is the compelling argument for changing the backs? That it >would look stupid to new customers. Humph. I think that after one or >two games at most, people would be used to them. Especially if you have >an explanatory paragraph in the rulebook which, surprise surprise, a fair >number of people actually read (though you probably couldn't tell from >reading r.g.t-c.m.rules). Or if you learn from someone, who will tell >you what they mean, after which they quickly blend into the background. >I though that the Discipline symbols in Jyhad were stupid and inconsistent >-- why is Presence marked with a Chaos Symbol? -- but after my first two >games I had assimilated these quirks into the background. The same thing >goes for the Jyhad on the card backs. It extends the learning curve of >the game by 10, maybe 15 minutes. Having two sets of card backs has a >_permanent_ effect on the game, which no amount of imploration can dispel. > >I also don't think it would be stupid to have library cards say 'jyhad' on >them, especially if you rename the library deck the jyhad deck (an excellent >idea, whoever suggested it.) I do think it would be stupid to have some >library cards say one thing and some library cards say another. > >> The customer input was basically "We don't want to see the card backs >> change because people will ruin the game by marking their decks." >> After testing whether having different backs really helps someone out, >> we decided that it's not particularly an advantage to mix the card >> backs, so the main reason given for keeping the card backs the same >> didn't apply. We do have the new customers to think about as well as the >> old, so we chose the approach of changing the card backs, and helping >> the old customers through the transition. > >How did you arrive at the converse conclusion? That we'd prefer to have >the card backs changed? And dismissing the change as meaningless because >it provides no 'advantage' overlooks two important points, which are >principally behind my (and I feel many other's) dismay at this change. > >[Life story mode engaged. Music swells. Lights dim.] > > In high school my friends and I were all rabid card players. We played >many games which required standard decks, such as Bridge, Cribbage, Hearts, >and 9-2-5 (the *best* 3 person game for standard decks). We also played >Pinochle, which uses a 48 card deck consisting of two of all the 9s through >As from all four suits. We would usually take two of our normal decks >and just take the relevant cards from the red and blue decks and combine >them. I have probably played around twice as many 1500 point series of >Pinochle, using 50:50 mixed-back decks, as games of Jyhad. > In all that time, I don't think the split decks gave anyone much of an >advantage. Once in a great while you would be able to tell if someone >had a card of a suit or not (by seeing that they had nothing but blue >cards) but this was neither frequent nor important. But the split decks >*were* unsatisfactory, and eventually we shelled out the three bucks for >a proper Pinochle deck with just one back. > > First, it added a complication to the game that was not in the rules. >It changed the way you count cards -- you can count by back as well as >suit and rank. In friendly play, we were usually too busy cracking jokes >to count cards at all (let alone this carefully) but when we wanted to, it >was not too hard to count them all. In a tournament with split decks, >I would absolutely count the cards by back, just because occasionally >it would net an extra 10 points to set a contract. If my opponents don't, >then I have a net advantage. If my opponents do, there's no net advantage. >But the character of the game is subtly and *significantly* changed, since >players have more information about their opponents cards as before. > Second, it was just plain ANNOYING. If we didn't have the pinochle >deck with us, we made do with two normal decks, amongst general mummerings >of 'gooberhead forgot the pinochle deck again...' Having two different >backs in the same deck was just not as aesthetically pleasing as having >a proper, single-backed deck. It was an unnecessary complication to the >game, and when we had the right deck we _always_ used it instead of the >mixed deck, even though the pinochle deck was all worn-out and sticky >while the mixed deck was made of two nice new decks. > >And that's just with perfect 50:50 mixed decks, that everyone knew the >total contents of. With self-constructed decks, which nobody else knows >the contents of, the possible change in the game environment is greater >and will subtly, but significantly, change the way people play the game. >If mixed decks come into play, it will just become another thing serious >players will have to diligently keep track of. It will not have _too_ >great an advantage, but since every marginal advantage counts in a >tournament setting, this means that all serious players will have to keep >track of backs, if only to nullify the advantage that your opponent will >be getting. This means that a new 'feature' will be added to the game >that is _not_ written into the rules. A 'feature' that is completely >unneccessary if the backs are left alone. > >And it will be even more annoying. Just because the mixed card backs >do not give an advantage does not mean that being forced to play with a >mixed deck is preferable! Having one card back is just flat-out more >elegant, especially since the reasons _in favor_ of the change are, at >best, marginal. Leaving the backs alone looks stupid and inconsistent >for a game or two. Changing the backs looks stupid and inconsistent >as well, but in this case it's FOREVER. > >Well, 'forever' means the 6 months that it will take for VTES to bomb, >since the critical mass of players will have been snuffed out by the card >back change. Which is too bad, really. I think that Jyhad is the >best multiplayer CCgame on the market, and I've had nothing but good >responses from WotC and their products. This decision to change the >card backs really baffles me, because it is irrational, unjustified, and >completely unlike them to behave so. > >Disappointedly, > >Bill "Eye-witness to the purchase of over four display boxes of >boosters by friends I introduced to the game, and am really feeling >torn up that now I may have wasted not only MY money but my *friends* >money as well" Gilliland > >-- >"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

Canticle <cant...@MBnet.MB.CA> writes: >On Thu, 4 May 1995, Frederick Scott wrote: >> Canticle <cant...@MBnet.MB.CA> writes: > >> >OK, this isn't exactly a defence or condemnation of the card back switch >> >made by Wizards of the Coast. However, I've read a few comments >> >concerning the name 'Jyhad' which I REALLY have to respond to, as people >> >are brushing off the 'offensive to others' argument as specious, a >> >marketing ploy, or what have. > >> Sorry, I have to comment on the reasoning because it's the same politically >> correct bullshit logic that I've never agreed with. Basically, we don't >As I said to someone else, then, you won't mind at all if I produce a >game called 'Queer', where the goal is to convert hetersexuals into >homosexuals at all costs. As a member of the presumably "offended" group: No, I wouldn't care in the least. Any discussion of substance will "offend" somebody. To avoid "offense" is to stifle discussion. If the target group is meaningfully harmed, they will organize opposition, and others will respect that. The Muslims haven't said a thing, because they know what Jyhad means to an English speaker. The word "Jyhad" has non-religious uses in English, just as you have said it does in Arabic. Speaking of "Holy Communion", RuneQuest had an "Ecstatic Communion" spell, and that wasn't a problem either. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> writes: > We do have the new customers to think about as well as the > old, so we chose the approach of changing the card backs, and helping > the old customers through the transition. I think there's a lesson here. Intel had a public relations problem. They had some chips with a minor defect which almost no one would actually care about. By ignoring their customers they turned it into a major corporate disaster. The funny thing is that when they finally gave in, and let everyone exchange their "defective" chips for free, only about 2% of their customers actually bothered. The whole thing would have cost them virtually nothing, except that the stupid way they handled it pissed people off, and now they are stuck with a warehouse full of "old" chips which they have to write off. So, what's my solution? Let anyone who wants to, mail in their Jyhad cards to be exchanged for the identical VTES cards. They can play with homogeneous backs, so they are happy. The cards cost you little, so you are happy. As long as you make both card backs legal (as you are doing) only a very few people will actually bother to send in their cards, so it won't be a big job for you. And you won't have to deal with the PR problem caused by a small group of loud voices. (Besides, if enough people do mail them in, then the old Jyhad cards will get scarce/valuable, and then you can resell them at a profit....) David desJardins -- Copyright 1995 David desJardins. Unlimited permission is granted to quote from this posting for non-commercial use as long as attribution is given.

In article <3oe6d9$p...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >you upgrade it to a new edition. Jyhad is becoming Vampire: the Eternal >Struggle. The two games are perfectly compatible, but it *is* a different >product, and hence warrants a more extensive change in presentation than It is a different game, *not* Jyhad, then. You've said that it was the same game, now you're saying it's different. How can we expect *anything* that you say about this game to be trustworthy at this point? >Magic is doing far better than anyone could have ever dreamed of. Jyhad >was a disappointment, especially in projected markets outside of the gaming >industry. Thus there is no reason to overhaul Magic, and a very real reason >to overhaul Jyhad. As I've said before best of luck to you. I hope your new market is bigger than the substantial market you are alienating by making this change. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3oe6gh$p...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >But in Jyhad, you are constantly drawing many cards, and if you're not, then >your deck probably isn't doing anything useful and all the marked cards in >the world aren't likely to help much. In Magic, you have to use up resources >in order to draw multiple cards, and thus it's much more useful to know whether >you should use up those resources now, or save them for later. Look, I've played Magic until my eyes have bled. I have played Jyhad far too late into the night. The *FACT* is that I have seen MANY MORE times when marked Jyhad cards have been more useful to me than marked Magic cards. I don't play with the *RARE* cards needed to adjust my Magic draw speed very often, but I do play with the *COMMON* Jyhad cards that are needed to mark the deck. Sorry, Tom, but I don't think you've played enough Jyhad to convince me that you know better than I about marking the Jyhad deck vs. marking the Magic deck. As to your point: In Magic, you have to *have* the resources available to adjust your draw speed (which is not very often, and is mostly illegal in Type II decks thanks to 4E), while in Jyhad it is trivial to adjust your draw speed to match the necessity (or lack of necessity) of drawing that marked card. The combat scenario (is that a strike?) happens 5-10 times a game, while a Time Walk (for instance) only happens once every 5-10 *games*. Each specific Magic marked card may have more of an impact in the specific game in which it's used, but the sheer number of times marking Jyhad cards is useful makes it a much more reliable tactic in Jyhad. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3oe6vb$q...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >If they're stressing about marked decks as much as everyone opposed to the >card back change is stressing about them, then they're certainly going to >watching your deck. Rembember, we are talking about tournament environments >here. If it is worth your time to try and mark your deck, it is worth their >time to watch for that and use the knowledge against you. Good grief, I can see it now. Everyone brings a laptop computer to the Jyhad tournaments so that they can keep track of who has played which card and which back it had, with a match for possible marking running in the background. Yep, those are sure gonna be fun games...... >>> Which doesn't help if they can intercept the action anyway, and which >>> will help them cycle their Telepathic Counters (or whatever) out of their >>> hands when you do play the card. >>Unless my prey as an anti-S&B deck, this is very improbable. > >Given that S&B decks are so prevalent, it should be assumed that anti-S&B >decks will be fairly common. Since you're not a betting man, I won't take you up on that. Around here, S&B isn't used much. The problem with it is that it won't win the game, it will usually only come in second or third to a well constructed deck with a different theme. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3oe821$r...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >>>And what does that say about the other cards in your deck, that you're so >>>willing to just pitch one of them? >> Oh, you're right, I'm a horrible player! I have so many useless >>cards that sit in my hand all day while my predator bleeds me senseless >>and I can't do a thing about it!... > >The point here is that I think it's a little strange that in a tournament >deck, you would actually be willing to pitch cards from your >hand on a regular basis solely to get to the top card on your library, >rather than actually using those cards to help your position. It seems to If I know that the card on top is more useful to me *now* than that second Master card in my hand, you're darn right that I'll discard. It seems strange to me that you would think that every card in my hand would be always useful. As Curt has pointed out a number of times, Jyhad is much more reliant on combinations than Magic, and not every card in your hand can be always useful. If you had played more Jyhad, you might have realized that. As it was, I think that statement alone is a good indicator of how much of the game you've played. >If you took that as a personal attack, I'm sorry. But it was simply a >general rebuttal to this sort of argument, and I happened to respond to >your post is all. I thought you were making an attack. But there's no offense taken. I didn't realize that you believed that what you were saying was true. In Magic, that is a very true and useful argument. It just doesn't work that way in Jyhad. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3oe89s$r...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >to this in these situations. Since we were playtesting Dark Sovereigns >anyway, and had blatantly marked cards in that playtest, we certainly paid >attention to the issue during that playtesting. What kind of situations did you test, exactly? Were there just "general DS" cards mixed in with others, or did people actually try to come up with marked decks (without the knowledge of the other players) and play them? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3oe8sh$r...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >>I've yet to see or hear even ONE person >>outside of WotC say the change was needed (the best has been that it is >>tolerable, and even that's rare)... > >But nobody outside of WotC has to manage the product, or decide how it >should be marketed, or be responsible for the success or failure of >the game. How many people thought the name of the game should have >been changed in the first place? Probably not very many, so of course >there wouldn't have been many (if any) people who would be advocating >changing the card backs. Assume for the moment, that we *don't* care about the product. Assume that we don't care about the money and time we have invested in it, and the evangelism that we did was for purely selfish reasons, not out of love of the game. You (WotC) sold 180 million cards. With Magic, you were expecting to sell 2.5 million cards in 6 *months*. You got lucky with Magic, and are now using it as a yardstick. Jyhad sold well for a gaming product. If I could move 3 million units of *my* game (that's assuming *ALL* 180m were shipped in starters) in less than a year, I'd call it a success. If I could move even 1/3 of that, I'd be ecstatic. Just because retailers can keep it in stock, you consider it a failure. That's not very encouraging. How long does ArM have left? And once you made the decision, it was still not too late to change it back. Matt Burke even came up with the cardback compromise to try and help us, but that seems to have been squished by some other force within WotC (who can overrule the project coordinator, anyway??). Many people also suggested Vampire: the Eternal Jyhad, but that was completely ignored without comment. If we had been as uncaring about the success of the game as you imply, I doubt we would have been so adamant in our suggestions, and I doubt we'd be arguing with you now (many of us would probably have said "screw it" and quietly unsubscribed to this newsgroup). I hope that the people responsible for the success or failure of this game care about it half as much as we do. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3oe9j2$r...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Karl J. Hiller <br...@iglou.iglou.com> wrote: >>What about the announcement, made about a month or two ago, about the new >>edition and the expansion and player's guide, which appeared both here on > >Looking at my posts for the last couple of months, this is the announcement >you're probably thinking of. Note that it only talks about the fronts of >the minion cards changing, and doesn't talk about the vampires at all. How about Matthew Burke's Jan. 31 posting stating that you were going to go with the Jyhad library card compromise? I think that's the statement that we're all curious about. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3ob7pd$g...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > >Doug DeJulio <dd...@pitt.edu> wrote: >>Saying "try it, you'll like it" won't cut it -- you're telling me to >>trust you, go out and buy some cards, and see how it works, when if I >>think it *doesn't* work, buying those cards will just be *further* >>wasted money... > >You don't have to go out and buy V:TES product in order to see what you >think of marking up decks. Go buy some basic lands at a penny a card, >or use extra vampires and commons if you're swimming in Jyhad cards. Once you think about it for a few minutes, it's easy to learn how to shuffle so that you don't turn cards upside down as you do so (if you ever did in the first place). It's possible to mark cards by inverting them, and when you draw them, you'll of course turn them right side up in your hand, so short of Glasses of Urza or some such (Field of Dreams allows the player to perform sleight of hand) in a Magic game, the opponent will never know which cards played were the cards marked... Plus, with different backs, you have unmarked, marked, unmarked-reversed, and marked-reversed...four categories is much more informative than two... Keith -- Disclaimer: Despite the fact that I disclaim any connections between the opinions expressed here and any other person, group, or entity which has not licensed said opinions, my opinions are in fact not connected with any other person, group, or entity which has not licensed them.

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: > >Given your definition of "major problem" Alpha cards should be allowed in > >Mt$ tourneys, why aren't they? Doesn't your opponent gain just as much infor- > >mation as you? > > It almost never helps you to know whether your opponent has a basic land on > top of their library or not. It routinely helps you to know whether your > opponent has a Wake With Evening's Freshness in their hand or not. The > signal/noise ratio from marked cards, at least from the opponent's point of > view, is much higher in Jyhad than in Magic. Peace Tom, That is false, Tom. Knowing that my opponent is going to draw land _can_ make a difference. I'll know if he'll be able to cast anything new next turn (can't cast lands, afterall), which could be very important in the endgame. If I see that my opponent's hand is land, then I could attack or cast spells, knowing that his/her ability to interfere/disrupt my plans is minimal. Yes, seeing those cards in Jyhad is important, but I believe that it is equally important in Magic. > >Are you a betting man, Tom? I'll wager that it will take less time for > >mixed decks to be outlawed at tourneys than it did for Alphas to be. I'm > >that confident, are you? > > I do not think that mixed decks are going to be outlawed overnight, no. > But I am not a betting man. I'm not saying that mixed decks will be outlawed overnight. I'm saying that the win-at-all-costs players will demonstrate that mixed decks are a Bad Thing (TM), just like they did with Alpha cards in Magic. This will cause mixed decks to be outlawed. I'm just saying that I believe that that will occur sooner than you (WotC/DC) believe it will. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: Peace Tom, Boy, you really gave me a freebie this time: > The name of Magic: the Gathering is not changing. Changing the packaging > on the boxes is just the sort of thing you do to keep a product fresh whenever > you upgrade it to a new edition. Jyhad is becoming Vampire: the Eternal > Struggle. The two games are perfectly compatible, but it *is* a different ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > product, and hence warrants a more extensive change in presentation than ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > a new edition of an existing product does. M:tG is still called M:tG, so there ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > is no reason to remove that from the card backs. Jyhad is now called V:TES, > so there's a very real reason to change the overall presentation. Ok, according to the indicated text, are the card backs for Ice Age going to be different? If not, why not? It is a different product, right (it is a stand alone product in every press release I've seen, including your 1995 catalong). If Ice Age has the current Mt$ backs, then there is a double standard (see Jim Crow) going on and I don't really feel like marching through Reston right now (thought I might sing a couple of verses of "We shall overcome."). > Magic is doing far better than anyone could have ever dreamed of. Jyhad > was a disappointment, especially in projected markets outside of the gaming > industry. Thus there is no reason to overhaul Magic, and a very real reason > to overhaul Jyhad. I'm willing to accept the change at this point ONLY because, after talking to the WotC people at Marcon, it is too late to change the decision. I do feel that there are several ways that WotC could prove that they haven't turned their backs on the established Jyhad players, foremost of which is a card trade in. I'm voicing my support for WotC to "do the right thing" and show their customers that they aren't hanging them out to dry nor are they trying to rip them off. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3ojh8e$a...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, Keith Rohrer <kwro...@ta7.cs.uiuc.edu> wrote: >In article <3ob7pd$g...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, >Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >> >>Doug DeJulio <dd...@pitt.edu> wrote: >>>Saying "try it, you'll like it" won't cut it -- you're telling me to >>>trust you, go out and buy some cards, and see how it works, when if I >>>think it *doesn't* work, buying those cards will just be *further* >>>wasted money... >> >>You don't have to go out and buy V:TES product in order to see what you >>think of marking up decks. Go buy some basic lands at a penny a card, >>or use extra vampires and commons if you're swimming in Jyhad cards. > >Once you think about it for a few minutes, it's easy to learn how to shuffle >so that you don't turn cards upside down as you do so (if you ever did in >the first place). On the issue of cards being "upside down" and shuffling so they stay that way... That's why your opponent is explicitly permitted by the rules to shuffle your cards. Even in casual play, I occasionally take advantage of this rule. My opponent will indicate it's time for me to cut, and I'll pick up the deck and give it two or three shuffles, making sure to invert half the cards each time. If you don't do this, you're leaving yourself open to cheaters. So, I do it at random. Also, if you explain that you do it at random, they won't be as insulted as they would be if you only do it when you suspect cheating. It's a good habit to get into. -- Doug DeJulio | R$+@$=W <-- sendmail.cf file mailto:dd...@pitt.edu | {$/{{.+ <-- modem noise http://www.pitt.edu/~ddj/ | !@#!@@! <-- Mr. Dithers swearing

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > >>And what does that say about the other cards in your deck, that you're so > >>willing to just pitch one of them? > > Oh, you're right, I'm a horrible player! I have so many useless > >cards that sit in my hand all day while my predator bleeds me senseless > >and I can't do a thing about it!... > > The point here is that I think it's a little strange that in a tournament > deck, you would actually be willing to pitch cards from your > hand on a regular basis solely to get to the top card on your library, > rather than actually using those cards to help your position. It seems to > me that if your deck is well designed, you would actually need all the > cards in your hand be trying to use them, which means you're going to be > drawing the top card of the library soon whether you know what it is or not. > If you took that as a personal attack, I'm sorry. But it was simply a > general rebuttal to this sort of argument, and I happened to respond to > your post is all. Peace Tom, Please, don't take this personnally (sp), it isn't. I believe that above paragraph demonstrates just how little Jyhad you have played. As I previously posted, using the discard phase is the single greatest thing that separates the experience players from the newbies. A newbie _will_ hold all his/her "good" cards and wait for a situation in which to play them. An experienced player will recongnize that if you sit there will a "dead hand," no matter how useful those cards may be in other circumstances, you will lose. Therefore an experienced player _will_ discard often (I do). Everytime that I have taught a new player, I have tried to stress the importance of the Discard Phase. Unfortunately, ingrained Magic habits prevent new players from discarding on a regular basis. Additionally, as Alan Kwan pointed out, a will constructed deck has no problem with discarding regularly as the card you draw will be no worse than (and most probably better than) the card you are discarding. KNOWING that the next card on my library is valuable gives a significant advantage during the discard phase. It can change a "skill decision" into a "die roll" ("should I 'risk' a discard" vs. "luckily, I just happened to have the card I need sitting on top of my deck"). The best designed decks take discarding into account. Sorry if you took this as a personal attack. Such was not intended. It was only meant as a rebuttle to your argument. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3ola48$2...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Doug DeJulio <dd...@pitt.edu> wrote: >On the issue of cards being "upside down" and shuffling so they stay >that way... > >That's why your opponent is explicitly permitted by the rules to >shuffle your cards. Even in casual play, I occasionally take >advantage of this rule. My opponent will indicate it's time for me to >cut, and I'll pick up the deck and give it two or three shuffles, >making sure to invert half the cards each time. If we ever play, I'll ask that you not do that. I'm a stickler for keeping them all the same direction, and I would end up spending several minutes undoing the inversions once you were done. It's just a personal hangup... Same thing goes in *any* of these games for me. [ quoted text not captured ]

The only way that WotC has a good chance of countering the negative perception of the card back changes would be for them to put out the kind of effort promoting the game they did when the originally came out. That is, put Corey and Crew on tour with Jyhad (excuse me) Vampire tournaments, demo games, etc.. If the group of existing players seems as alienated by the change as this thread indicates, then the core players will not serve to market the game. This means that WotC will have to try to augment or rebuild the core. Which they have done before--Jyhad originally had NO followers. Personally, I have taught several dozen people to play JYHAD at ELYSEUM in San Jose, and at conventions. I am less interested in doing so now, because of the card back change. I am not going to buy new VTES cards (I have enough JYHAD cards to last a lifetime), and I am very wary of the new expansion. WotC may have sold 180 Million cards, but a lot of these are STILL sitting on store shelves. The first print run of JYHAD/VTES has NOT been purchased by end-users, but is STUCK in the retail channel. The store owners I know (and I know dozens across the U.S.) are going to be VERY CAREFUL about their orders for VTES. They'll get SOME, but since they have boxes of JYHAD still sitting on their shelves, they don't really need additional stock. The expansion will do better, as the inconvenience of the new card back might be worth the effort if the cards are worthwhile, but again, the store owners will be cautious. Even more than our complaints here, the fact that JYHAD sits unsold in game stores ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES indicates that VTES may not be a viable game in today's CCG marketplace. Anton Dovydaitis

Phew, this is some looonnngg article. Marking cards - evryone (s'far as I can tell) seems to have an idea about the proble of making cards because you can tell the difference between two types of cards. Now stoopid though I am, I can see the possibity for four different markings (the cards are assymetrical, so if you're clever you can shuffle them in such a way that...) So the problem IMHO is at least twice as big as everyone is making out. Thus making it twice as hard for Wot$ to try to cover up. V:te$ - just say NO Just my 2p worth. Quinch crk...@tower.york.ac.uk http://www.york.ac.uk/~crk103

In article <3omo5j$o...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >> How about Matthew Burke's Jan. 31 posting stating that you were >>going to go with the Jyhad library card compromise? I think that's the > >That was Matt stating this intentions at the time, with regards to the >card backs. It was not meant to represent a final decision. What he posted >may have given that impression, but it was clear to me, from talking to him >shortly afterwards, that the decision could potentially be changed later on. Just a little advice, then: When you see people on the newsgroup you monitor posting about a decision that you know is subject to change, let them know that it is. Especially when they are answering the question over and over and saying that this *is* the way that you will be doing it. Many of my objections stem from the fact that you (as a company) are going back on your word. Matt posted that in an official capacity, and it was taken as the truth. Discussion stopped *because* we all felt we had reached a compromise that we could accept. I'm not going to say that I think things would have turned out differently if you had informed us that the decision was subject to change, but many of us would feel a lot less like you were pulling the rug out from under our feet if you had told us that the compromise was still subject to change. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >>to this in these situations. Since we were playtesting Dark Sovereigns >>anyway, and had blatantly marked cards in that playtest, we certainly paid >>attention to the issue during that playtesting. > What kind of situations did you test, exactly? Were there just >"general DS" cards mixed in with others, or did people actually try to >come up with marked decks (without the knowledge of the other players) >and play them? I can't answer that because the Dark Sovereigns playtesting was pretty much over before I got here. I asked about this, and they did say they were testing the card marking, but they didn't elaborate on the point much. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Robert Matthew Edens <red...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote: > So why does WOTC feel that it is now necessary to change the name of >the product? You say (not you personally) that you're not reaching the >'target' audience of the game. That sir is BULL and you know it... Actually, we're quite sure that Jyhad is not reaching all of its intended audience. It's probably reaching most or all of the intended audience that's already into the gaming hobby, yes, but it's barely penetrated into several alternative groups that we expect it would do well in. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > Just because retailers can keep [Jyhad] in stock, you consider it a >failure. That's not very encouraging. How long does ArM have left? We do not consider the amount of stock lying around to mark Jyhad as a failure in and of itself. However, we do know that it is not penetrating into all of the markets that we wanted it to. The amount of stock lying around is evidence of the fact that Jyhad is selling to a relatively narrow segment of the populace compared to what we had hoped for, not purely as a reason for changing the game. > And once you made the decision, it was still not too late to >change it back. Matt Burke even came up with the cardback compromise to >try and help us, but that seems to have been squished by some other >force within WotC (who can overrule the project coordinator, anyway??). Matt overrode himself on this one, actually, with the consensus of the project team as a whole. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >>you upgrade it to a new edition. Jyhad is becoming Vampire: the Eternal >>Struggle. The two games are perfectly compatible, but it *is* a different >>product, and hence warrants a more extensive change in presentation than > It is a different game, *not* Jyhad, then. You've said that it >was the same game, now you're saying it's different. How can we expect >*anything* that you say about this game to be trustworthy at this point? The problem here stems from trying to use "game" in two different senses. If you just go and pick up a few starters of V:TES and play it, the game will be basically the same as if you had picked up a few starters of Jyhad and played it. A few cards will work a little differently, but it will basically be the same game, from the viewpoint of how you play it. However, it will have a very different rulebook, the card backs will be different, the fronts of the minion cards will be different, and so on. So from a presentation standpoint, it's very different. Basicaly, Jyhad and V:TES are differently packaged versions of the same product. I'll try to be clearer about what I mean in the future. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > How about Matthew Burke's Jan. 31 posting stating that you were >going to go with the Jyhad library card compromise? I think that's the >statement that we're all curious about. That was Matt stating this intentions at the time, with regards to the card backs. It was not meant to represent a final decision. What he posted may have given that impression, but it was clear to me, from talking to him shortly afterwards, that the decision could potentially be changed later on. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3ojh8e$a...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> kwro...@ta7.cs.uiuc.edu (Keith Rohrer) writes: >Once you think about it for a few minutes, it's easy to learn how to shuffle >so that you don't turn cards upside down as you do so (if you ever did in >the first place). It's possible to mark cards by inverting them, and when >you draw them, you'll of course turn them right side up in your hand, [...] But, since I am allowed to request that I shuffle my opponent's deck, just a bit of shuffling would ruin the inverted card scheme. Different backs are another matter ... -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

Given Peter Atkinson's recent defense of the name change and the difficulties involved, I am much less hostile towards it. Peter Atkinson (mavra) is a good man and a sound businessman. As an international distributor of games myself (GO, Shogi, and Mah Jong), I can tell you that the concerns Peter outlined are real. Their market is now much larger than just the U.S., and in many parts of the world, JYHAD is a much more offensive turn. Not just in Israel, as Peter points out, but also places like France, which has a large and very active Muslim population. I suggest that Wizards take the issue of mixed cardbacks as a challenge. WotC should send Corey and Crew out again on tour, as they did before when JYHAD first came out, and CHALLENGE people to take advantage of the mixed backs. If, as they maintain, it makes little difference, or that it becomes a zero-sum game, then this could be amply demonstrated. I own easily enough Jyhad cards, and will look at the expansion, but I still have no intention of buying VTES cards. But I will promote the game on behalf of the game stores I represent. Anton Dovydaitis

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : : Once again, marking cards in Magic is a very different beast than : marking cards in Jyhad. In Magic, which you are required to play cards : to dig through your deck quickly, and where you have your resources and : functional cards in the same deck, you get much more valuable information : by marking your cards. In Jyhad, where the resources (crypt) and functional : cards (library) are separate, and where you're constantly cycling your deck : if it's working well at all, this information is much less important. : : : Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for : aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. : look... its more than the potential to mark cards. sure there will always be people with sufficently few scruples to blatantly mark decks. there will be many more (myself included) who, while not intentionally marking a deck would still use the information from mixed backs (e.g. i already all the vampires i want with jyhad backs and those are the ones i play with, if i add a giovanni or a new vampire i know when its comming up weather i like it or not). finally my main complaint (i think that of many others) is that WotC is basicaly telling the current customers of Jyhad that our opinions are not worthy of their concern. sure mixed decks are legal for now, but what about local tornament rules, latter rulings, etc. as one poster mentioned earlier there are many CCG's out there and I have only so much money, i too am beging to wonder if i bought into the wrong game by the nature of the company that is selling it. dan edelman

Aaron Mandelbaum <ad...@po.cwru.edu> wrote: >>Especially when you're taking heat over other stuff (like black magic in >>MtG etc)? > >Come on, if T$R can avoid selling out, how hot can this 'heat' be? Eh? T$R sold out big time. No devils and demons from 2nd edition AD&D on. 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.

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >But part of my point is that as far as I can tell, all of these net.aware >players are just operating on a hunch and what they think will happen, not >on actual experiences with mixing card backs. You have been presented with concrete, exact examples by a number of people. This is a hunch? >Part of my point is that it's ridiculous to swear off a game you've enjoyed >for the last nine months because you *think* something has gone horribly wrong >with it. no, the whole thing is aggrevated by the attitude of WoTC. "Asking" for people's opinions, which by your own admission ran greatly _against_ a change, then saying "well, we think it doesn't matter". We can always play the game, it's fun. But there are plenty of other fun games out there, where the company who's selling us the game doesn't appear to be driven by greedy marketing goons. Where the players don't get the feeling that they're being shafted. We can vote with our dollars, and give them to, say SJG, where our input has formed a large part of INWO's new release. Or to companies like GDW, where the company is run by gamers instead of businessmen. ["it doesn't really matter" arguments deleted] Ok, how about this one - All vampires in my crypt with capacity 4 or less have a different back. I now don't have to pay a blood in the later stages of the game to see if I can afford to get another minion out. Even you agree that there can be _some_ use of marked cards. We differ on the degree of usefulness. However, the minor inconsitancy of card backs and bosster wrappers (a marketing issue) has won out over the possibly minor game play issue of marked cards. That's what we object to, since we as players care about the game play. It's become obvious that you as designers now have more marketing on the mind than game play. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >But why are people insisting on not even *trying* to play the game with mixed >card backs? Having watched several games of Dark Sovereigns playtesting, in >which the DS cards were these little white rectangles of paper and thus >blatantly obvious, it just didn't seem to be any kind of advantage to know >that you had a DS card coming up vs. a Jyhad card coming up. Great, so you >you know you have a Sovereigns card coming up; so do your opponents. Aha! Things become clear. Tom, in your example, everyone at the table knew what the playtest cards were. If I use old and new card backs to "mark" up my deck, only I know what that scheme is! If you're very astute, you'll catch on eventually. But by then I've had my advantage. And there are 4 other decks to watch very closely as well. Thus, the argument "but that additional knowledge is shared by all" doesn't hold water in the real-world case. [ quoted text not captured ]

William Jockusch <jock...@news-server.engin.umich.edu> wrote: >But, they're not unfair if both you and your opponent have an equal right to >use them. True - it becomes a different game. One in which card counting becomes important. Personally, that's not as much fun. Your milage may vary. >And remember, using a mixed deck has substantial drawbacks. Yes, you get >partial information about what is on the top of your library. But, your >opponent gets the above information *and* also gets partial information >about what is in your hand. Over all, it seems they might well come out >ahead. Untrue. I know _exactly_ what my scheme is, because I made the deck. You can _discover_ what my scheme is, through a very careful watching of me play. Fair enough. I just don't think that's very much fun. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 9 May 1995, Thomas R Wylie wrote: > > > Actually, we're quite sure that Jyhad is not reaching all of its intended > audience. It's probably reaching most or all of the intended audience that's > already into the gaming hobby, yes, but it's barely penetrated into several > alternative groups that we expect it would do well in. > How Can that justify the name change? You've(again this is in the sense of WOTC, not you personally), satyrated the gsaming market with ads which explain the premise of the game, so what makes those in charge think that the game will suddenly become more popular? And what's the situation with the possible replacement of cards by WOTC to retain the loyalty of those of us who are REALLY wanting to stay with you... Rob -Death to extremists

In article <3op28h$7...@colossus.holonet.net>, ish...@news.holonet.net (Anton Dovydaitis) writes: |> Given Peter Atkinson's recent defense of the name change and the difficulties |> involved, I am much less hostile towards it. Peter Atkinson (mavra) is a |> good man and a sound businessman. As an international distributor of games |> myself (GO, Shogi, and Mah Jong), I can tell you that the concerns Peter |> outlined are real. Their market is now much larger than just the U.S., |> and in many parts of the world, JYHAD is a much more offensive turn. |> Not just in Israel, as Peter points out, but also places like France, |> which has a large and very active Muslim population. |> |> I suggest that Wizards take the issue of mixed cardbacks as a challenge. |> WotC should send Corey and Crew out again on tour, as they did before when |> JYHAD first came out, and CHALLENGE people to take advantage of the mixed |> backs. If, as they maintain, it makes little difference, or that it becomes |> a zero-sum game, then this could be amply demonstrated. Before they fund a tour I would suggest they fund a trade in program. No matter the results of the tour, new deck backs harm existing customers (maybe a little maybe a lot). WotC made the mistake, made the decision to change. They should also decide to support existing customers by funding a trade-in program. David Kiker

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >>Ok, if we agree that this is totally a marketting move (an I think we do), >>then why doesn't WotC take the simpler win-win solution I proposed yesterday: >>leave the card backs alone, but change the deck, pack, and stand displays to >>read "Vampire: the Eternal Struggle." This way, they get the increased market >>penetration they are looking for AND the old and new cards are fully >>compatible. I don't see why WotC doesn't choose this alternative. > >Because it will look stupid and inconsistent to new players for these holdouts >from the old game to be lying around. Not that there are 180 million holdouts from the old game already lying around or anything. Darn. And I was kind of looking forward to the new release. Oh well. Miniatures games are more fun anyway, and at least you've got something other than useless heaps of cardboard when the game's over. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Magic is doing far better than anyone could have ever dreamed of. Jyhad >was a disappointment, especially in projected markets outside of the gaming >industry. Thus there is no reason to overhaul Magic, and a very real reason >to overhaul Jyhad. Selling 180 million widgets at $.10 to $.20 an item retail being considered a disappointment is an interesting perspective. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >> As to marking in Magic being more significant: I don't think so. >>You rarely have the power to decide when you will draw in Magic. You >>often have that power in Jyhad. That flexibility of draw timing makes >>Jyhad marked cards much easier to use than Magic. The "save me" card on >>top does no good if you can't get it into your hand. > >But in Jyhad, you are constantly drawing many cards, and if you're not, then >your deck probably isn't doing anything useful and all the marked cards in >the world aren't likely to help much. Not with your crypt. >In Magic, you have to use up resources in order to draw multiple cards, and >thus it's much more useful to know whether you should use up those resources >now, or save them for later. In Jyhad - do I use one of the several "discard and get a new card" powers or not? Or even, "do I use this card at low effect now to draw a new one, or wait for the combo that makes it nasty? Oh, look, I can see what card's coming". Does anyone at WoTC actually play Jyhad? I've heard a lot about internal Magic leagues, but nothing about Jyhad. [ quoted text not captured ]

Canticle (cant...@MBnet.MB.CA) wrote: > The meaning hasn't 'changed'. 'Jihad' STILL means, to the vast majority > of muslims 'struggle' in the spiritual sense. Nothing more, nothing less. > To 600+ million people, But to some 800+ million people (meaning Western civilization, including English speaking, but also German speaking for example) it means just that 'holy war'. Be that right in Arab or not, we are not speaking Arab here. As someone else pointed out already, words adapted to other languages have the tendency to change meanings, whether the native speakers (of the language the words came from) like it or not. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Rueve jr. FAX/Box: +49-251-394151 edoras.westfalen.de Box: +49-251-393280 full-INTERNET (IP online) fuer jedermann ! --------------------------------------------------------------

In article <D86C6...@iglou.com> br...@iglou.iglou.com (Karl J. Hiller) writes: > People offended by the word "Jyhad"? Go ahead and try to find one. > While I may be overstepping my bounds here, I would say any folks on the sharp end of a "Jihad" in the middle east could find the term slightly offensive. Russ

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : just fine. Regardless of what people seem to think on this, mixing in : different card backs just isn't a useful tactic. I highly recommend that : having one or two differing cards can be bad, but that's because in most : standard card games there are limited resources, and it's critical to have : some idea of who is getting what cards. Think how bad Hearts would be if : just the queen of spades is marked. But since people are not pulling cards : from a common deck in Jyhad, this is not really an issue. Oh sure, like it can't be crucial to know you can draw a Wake if you modify this (blocked) bleed with a conditioning (to mention some silly example, duh) : really apply. The other reason to mix alphas is to mark a few key cards to : the deck; this will tell you how important it is to draw a whole bunch of : cards right now, or do something to build up what you have in play. Since This applies to Jyhad as well, just come and see what people will do to cycle shitty cards out of their hands. And if you KNOW what you will draw, you make decicions more easily. (will your hand improve or not) : you know in Jyhad that you're probably going to draw the top card of your : library within the next turn, and since the wild type of decks that this : alpha marking helps with don't exist in Jyhad, this is not really an : issue either. Guess again. : >It will be an issue whenever the question of what card you may or may not : >draw next is crucial... : Yes, but how often is this *really* going to help? It is very obvious you don't play much, because in the games I playthere are a LOT of crucial next cards to be drawn. Usually people will just cycle their hand blindly and hope they get it, but if you KNOW, it's a lot easier. Btw, this is also why i LOVE having Tusk out. (look at top of your library) : your V:TES cards political cards. Are you really going to toss a Wake : with Evening's Freshness on a hopeless "block" just to get to the vote : faster? If so, you'd better hope that vote gets you a major advantage, : since otherwise you've thrown away a valuable card for nothing. Oh come on Tom, get real, make up better examples. I bet you haven't thought of throwing bogus votes to get your Wake ? Changing teh card backs will at least create one thing: All players from Groningen will boycot the new cards and the shops will be advised not to buy it. The Jyhad-group in Groningen is the largest group of players in The Netherlands that we know off, and this might lead to a complete boycot of V:tES by The Netherlands (remember ? that country next to Belgium ? Where the cards are printed...) Ah well, let's hope some1 with enuff brains AND who plays Jyhad steps up to cancel this silly move. Just change the packaging and don't touch the backs. (HA! Imagine changing the backs of Magic:the Gathering....) : Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for : aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | D.O.Kip | The Doctor. (Igor, HallOfFame, Kisc's Planetenlaan 76 | MUD and many more.) 9742 JC Groningen | Trinity. (Wherever Doctor isn't The Netherlands | allowed as name.) Europe | | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

In article <3o77ph$r...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >Path: >ctnews2!mvdns1!bbnews!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!cmcl2!newsserv.cs.sunysb.e >du!adam.cc.sunysb.edu!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!darkstar. >UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!aahz >From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) >Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad,rec.games.trading-cards.misc >Subject: Re: (Bad) News From WotC Netrep Regarding V: TES Card Backs >Date: 3 May 1995 06:28:01 GMT >Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz >Lines: 70 >Message-ID: <3o77ph$r...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> >References: <3o1i4e$3...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <adm4.1753...@po.cwru.edu> ><beanishD...@netcom.com> <3o6j82$8...@cronkite.cisco.com> >NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu >Xref: ctnews2 rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad:2631 >rec.games.trading-cards.misc:4635 >Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >>To who? And by what reasoning? I think before this can be acknowledged >>as a true problem, someone has to defend the argument. Simply acknowledging >>that the word "Jihad" is controversial is not justification for obsoleting >>all the valuable cards people own. >But Jyhad cards are not being made obselete. You can play with them against >V:TES decks just fine, and can mix cards from the two in the same deck >just fine. Regardless of what people seem to think on this, mixing in >different card backs just isn't a useful tactic. I highly recommend that >people actually experiment with differing card backs before condemning >the idea, rather than just assuming that Jyhad and V:TES are oil and water. >>I simply do not understand this point of view. OF COURSE different card >>backs are a problem. Tell me, were you ever desperate enough to play cards >>that you used two or more different decks with different card backs to fill >>up a standard deck of 52 playing cards? How did you like playing that way? >>It's terrible - you go out and buy a new deck at your first opportunity >>because IT DOESN'T WORK! And this won't work. >Actually, I have done that fairly often, and have never had a huge problem >with it. It's a little bit annoying if the cards have wildly different >sizes and printing styles, but assuming there's a reasonable blend of the >two card backs, it's difficult to try and cheat based on the backs. Granted, >having one or two differing cards can be bad, but that's because in most >standard card games there are limited resources, and it's critical to have >some idea of who is getting what cards. Think how bad Hearts would be if >just the queen of spades is marked. But since people are not pulling cards >from a common deck in Jyhad, this is not really an issue. >>Alpha cards have been the second stickiest issue the Convocation has had to >>deal with in the game, after sleeves. No one wants to allow them except the >>people who own them and want to use them. If Garfield thought they didn't >>make much of a difference (and particularly if he STILL thinks that) then >>Garfield is idiot. >Again, that situation is different than Jyhad's. There are basically two >ways to mark your deck with alpha cards. First, have all your mana be >alphas, and all the other cards be non-alpha (or the other way around). >Here you are basically marking your resources as being functionally >different from your functional cards. In Jyhad, the resources and the >functional cards are basically in different decks, so this concern doesn't >really apply. The other reason to mix alphas is to mark a few key cards to >the deck; this will tell you how important it is to draw a whole bunch of >cards right now, or do something to build up what you have in play. Since >you know in Jyhad that you're probably going to draw the top card of your >library within the next turn, and since the wild type of decks that this >alpha marking helps with don't exist in Jyhad, this is not really an >issue either. >>Bullshit. You know what cards you put in your deck and what backs they have. >>Your opponent know what cards he put in his deck and what backs they have. >>It will be an issue whenever the question of what card you may or may not >>draw next is crucial... >Yes, but how often is this *really* going to help? Say you've made all >your V:TES cards political cards. Are you really going to toss a Wake >with Evening's Freshness on a hopeless "block" just to get to the vote >faster? If so, you'd better hope that vote gets you a major advantage, >since otherwise you've thrown away a valuable card for nothing. >>Different card backs change the game. >But not significantly. >Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. O.K., so then why can't you play with a few Alpha cards in a MtG tournament? And why didn't the expansions in MtG have different backs than the standard MtG sets? Face it. Everyone I've talked to and read on the internet was against the card backs changing and WoTC did it anyway!! What kind of survey did WoTC conduct? Did they really poll serious collectors and players of Jyhad? I doubt it. Doesn't matter. Without the initial now-disgruntled players of Jyhad, it will die as a game within six months of it's release. Unfortunate, since the initial Jyhad players in this area were extremely loyal until all of this crap came down. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + THE BOMB + + + + "Don't think of it as being outnumbered. Think of it as + + being in a target rich environment." + + + ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++